| |
NAVIGATION
|
|
|
|
|
Theism is the belief in a God, a god, or gods.
Polytheists, as an example, are theists. All that is required of theism is belief in one or more gods.
There are many variations of theism, but they are all, literally,
theism. These views differ on the role of the God, god, or gods.
Agnostic theism: Belief in God, but God's existence is atleast currently unknowable.
Deism - Belief that reaon and logic should be the basis for belief in
Gods. Deism has been associated with the belief that God created but
does not intervene in the world, but that is not determined by one's
Deism, and deists are divided over this.
Polytheism - Belief in many gods.
1. Henotheism - Belief in many gods, but only one is supreme.
2. Monolatry - Belief in many gods, but only one is worshipped.
Commonly understood as a sub-type of Henotheism.
3. Kanthenotheism - Belief in many gods, but worships one at a time.
Sees each as supreme in turn, commonly depending on the locality or the
time. Commonly understood as a sub-type of Henotheism.
Monotheism - Belief in one god.
1.Mononistic - everything is of one essential essence or energy.
2. Dualism - everything is of two
essential essences or energies. (Usually two opposing energies. The
conflict between the Christian God and Satan is sometimes viewed in
dualistic terms)
3. Pluralism - everything is of many essential essences or energies.
Panentheism - is the view that God is immanent within all creation or
that God is the animating force behind the universe. God is both the
creator and source of universal morality. God is the emergent property
of existence.
Pantheism - Nature or the universe is identifcal to God ("God is All"), or that everything is of an immanent God.
There are probably more, if not, many more. I will update this page
when I find more information about them, as it seems to be scarce. |
|
|
|
Agnosticism is the belief that the question of whether a God or gods exist is unknowable, or currently unknowable.
Agnostic theism regards the existence of deities as unprovable or unknowable, while being with theistic belief.
Agnostic atheism regards the existence of deities as unprovable or unknowable, while being without theistic belief.
Like atheism, agnosticism can be divided [once more] into types.
Weak agnosticism, also known as empirical agnosticism and negative
agnosticism, is the belief that the existence of deities is currently
unknown, but not neccesarily unknowable.
Strong agnosticism is the belief that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity.
Agnosticism is not to be understood as the opposite or negative of
gnosticism, a religious concept which is unrelated to agnosticism,
though the etymology seems to say eitherwise. Gnosticism comes from the
Greek word gnosis, which meant "knowledge." This may be applied to
agnosticism in that an agnostic does not have knowledge atleast
currently and/or does not claim knowledge. However, again, agnosticism
is not the opposite of gnosticism, and the terms have very little if
any relation to each other.
What is gnosticism?
Gnosticism is a term for various mystical religious and sects, most
prominent the first centuries A.D. The Greek word for knowledge,
gnosis, refers to the idea of esoteric knowledge, which is considered a
key to trascendental knowledge, which few are said to possess. Esoteric
knowledge is knowledge that is "secret" and generally unknown to the
majority. Historically, this esoteric knowledge is indeed kept secret
because it is deliberately kept secret from the public. Knowledge and
usage of magic and masonry were considered esoteric knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Atheism is the state of either being without theistic beliefs, or actively believing in the non-existence of deities.
Atheism is not hate towards God/gods, as some would believe. Some
atheists, however, hate or dislike the idea of God, but this is not
determined by one's atheism. Atheism is not a religion.
The two "definitions" of atheism illustrate the two types of atheism.
Implicit atheism
Also known as "weak" atheism and negative atheism, implicit atheism is
the simply absence of theistic beliefs. Implicit atheists may believe
that the existence of God is unlikely, but they do not assert that
God/gods do not exist. They usually attribute this to lack of evidence.
Some weak atheists have not an opinion on the existence of God, while
others have a personal or outside interpretation of the probability of
the existence of deities. The lack of opinion may be because arguments
and evidence provided by either side are unpersuasive to them. Some
weak atheists believe it is impossible to prove a negative, and that
both the strong (see below) atheists and the theists have currently
failed to relieve themselves of the burden of proof.
Explicit atheism
Explicit atheism, also known as "strong atheism," and positive atheism,
is the belief that no deities exist. Rationalist are generally strong
atheists. Rationalism is a philosophical doctrine which asserts that
truth should be found through reason and factual anaylsis rather than
faith. The basis for strong atheism may include lack of evidence to
jusify belief in deities, the problem of evil, the belief that concept
of a deity is self contradictory, and that the belief in the
supernatural is not justifiable.
|
|
|
|
| In Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a +theos "god")
meant "lack of belief in gods," or "without gods." Modern translation
of classic texts sometimes translates atheos to atheistic, and the
abstract noun atheotēs to atheism. Cicero, an orator and statemen of
Ancient Rome, transcribed atheos in Latin. In ancient debates between
pagans and Christians, atheoi was discussed and each side claimed and
attributed atheism to their opponets. Historically, those who did not
follow the deities which the state or majority did were accused of
atheism. The debators in the pagan and Christian debates accused the
opposing side as atheistic because they did not follow their God/gods.
Christians in Rome were considered subversive to the religion of the
state and consequently labeled and prosecuted as atheists. |
|
|
|
What are the basis for atheism?
I will list a few here, but there are certainly more.
Lack of evidence.
Many atheists feel that there isn't sufficient, if at all, evidence for
a deity, or deities. With this, they feel no reason and obligation to
believe in a deity. In response, some have said that their written holy
book or doctrine itself is evidence of a deity. The problem with this
seems to lie in the fact that these theistic religions disagree with
eachother atleast slightly on the attributes and works of God, among
other things. Religion A's God may persecute those who do not believe
in It, while Religion B's God may also persecute those who do not
believe in It. If Religion A is correct, then those who do not believe
in their God, including members of Religion B, would be persecuted, and
vice versa. A seemingly classic example is the conflict between
Christianity and Islam.
Some atheists avoid or do not believe in the non-existence of God
because of the lack of evidence for both the existence and
non-existence of a deity or deities. The lack of persuasive arguments
for both sides also is a basis for this.
The problem of evil.
The problem of evil is a problem with the philosophy of religion and theology.
The problem of evil is a problem with the consistency of the existence
of both Evil (and/or suffering) and an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent God.
This problem of evil arises from the supposition that an "perfectly"
good (omnibenevolence) God would not create a world in which Evil would
reside, or would allow its continued existence. The problem of evil
also supposes that an omnipotent and omniscient God should be able to
configure the world as he chooses and intends. Coupled with the
supposed existence of Evil, it would seem that Evil had been an
intention of God. Therefore, such a God is either not omnibenevolent,
not omniscient, or not omnipotent.
Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, is credited with exposing and
unveiling this problem. The problem of evil is sometimes called
Epicurus paradox or Riddle of Epicurus, though it is neither a paradox
nor a riddle, but a reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is
latin for "reduction to the absurd." It was used often by Aristole, an
ancient Greek philosopher, as "reduction to the impossible." Reductio
ad absurdnum is a logical argument in which one assumes a claim for the
sake of argument, comes to an absurd result, and therefore claims that
the original assumption was incorrect because an absurd result was
reached. This is also known as "proof by contradiction."
An example of a reduction to the absurd is as follows::
A — You should respect C's belief, for all beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B —
1. I deny that belief of yours and believe it to be invalid.
2. According to your statement, this belief of mine (1) is valid, like all other beliefs.
3. However, your statement also
contradicts and invalidates mine, being the exact opposite of it.
4. The conclusions of 2 and 3 are
incompatible and contradictory, so your statement is logically absurd.
Some people have the misconception that reductio ad absurdum just means a "silly argument."
"A silly argument" is referring to the logical fallacy "appeal to the
ridicule," in which an argument is contorted and presented in such a
way that implys mocking and ridicule. |
|
© 2007 All Rights Reserved.
Create a
free website at Webs.com
|  |
|
