Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in Gods

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

Which statement best describes your belief or disbelief in the existence of god?

Gnostic Theist - I know one or more gods exist.
4
19%
(Agnostic) Theist - Although I don't know, I believe that one or more gods exist.
2
10%
Negative Atheist - I neither believe that any gods exist nor believe that no gods exist.
1
5%
Positive (but Agnostic) Atheist - Although I do not know, I believe no gods exist.
12
57%
Gnostic Atheist - I know no gods exist.
2
10%
 
Total votes : 21

Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in Gods

Post Number:#1  Postby Scott » October 30th, 2014, 2:28 pm


Share This Article
Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in The Existence of a God or Gods
by Scott Hughes

In the following topic I will use 3 different logical distinctions to come to an exhaustive list of 5 mutually exclusive categories of belief in the existence of any gods.


The Agnosticism Distinction

The word Agnostic is derived from the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) meaning "without" and (gnōsis) the Greek word for knowledge. The English usage of the term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. The term agnosticism means 'the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience'. The term actually refers to a broad epistemological position, not simply a position on whether or not a god or gods exist (source 1, source 2 - page 66). Thus, an agnostic in the general sense is not someone who is equally skeptical about the existence or non-existence of god, but rather someone who is skeptical about all knowledge or at least all metaphysical knowledge. I think we can agree that in contemporary everyday life at least with non-philosopher laymen most people misinterpret the term 'agnostic' to denotatively mean specifically just someone who is agnostic about the existence of god who may not be agnostic in general about other things, right? An even worse misunderstanding is that some people may forget that the term deals with knowledge not mere belief; however that is completely incorrect, per not only the sources already listed but because belief and knowledge are clearly two different things.

What that all means to our purposes for this topic is that, using the law of the excluded middle, we can categorize people into two categories when it comes to their belief in god:

  • agnostic (about theism or atheism) - One who does not claim to know whether or not a god or gods exist
  • gnostic (about theism or atheism) - One who claims to know whether or not a god or gods exist


The Theism Distinction

Theism is 'the belief in the existence of a god or gods' (source). I have provided a source as good argument form, but I do not think that premise would be debatable anyway. A theist is thus a person who believes a god or gods exist.

Atheism refers to the logical negative of theism. Thus, an atheist is simply a person who is not a theist.

In other words, an atheist is not the opposite of a theist in the sense that up is the opposite of down, that loud is the opposite of quiet, that the hometeam's goal is the opposite of the awayteam's goal, or that icecold is the opposite of scalding hot--which let's call 'polar opposites'. Rather, an atheist is the logical opposite of a theist, in the sense that not up is the logical opposite of up, that not loud is the opposite of loud, that not a goal for the hometeam is the logical opposite of a goal for the hometeam, or not icecold is the opposite of icecold. Keep in mind that West is not North and East is also not North, for example. Argumentatively, this is demonstrated by comparison: asexual means not sexual rather than some polar opposite of a certain sexual orientation; amoral means not moral rather than immoral; asymmetrical means not symmetrical rather than some polar opposite of symmetrical.


The Positivity Distinction

In this post on the topic "Belief: the difference between I DO & I DON'T", I showed that logically a rational person's belief regarding any given proposition must fall into one and only one of the following three categories:

  • A) "I believe X AND I do not believe -X."
  • C) "I believe -X AND I do not believe X."
  • D) "I do not believe X AND I do not believe -X."

A and C both refer to positive belief. A is positive belief in X; C is positive disbelief in X. Logically, that is synonymous with saying that A is positive disbelief in -X, and C is positive belief in -X.

In contrast, D refers to negative disbelief in both X and -X.

The point is that disbelief in X does not necessarily mean one believes in -X or vice versa.

All theists have a positive belief in theism by definition. In other words, by definition, a theist believes god exists; a theist doesn't merely not believe that a god does not exist.

In contrast, atheism in simply being a rejection of that positive belief can be categorized as either positive or negative. Positive atheism refers to an atheist who also believes that the statement 'no gods exist' is true. Negative atheism refers to a person who simply does not believe that any gods exist but without necessarily believing that no gods exist.


Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in The Existence of a God or Gods

The three preceding logical distinctions, with respect to the law of the excluded middle and principle of bivalence, logically leads to the following exhaustive list of 5 categories of belief towards the existence of god(s). If the preceding argument is sound, each rational person's belief regarding the existence of any gods must fall into one and only one of the following 5 categories:

  • Gnostic Theist - "I know one or more gods exist."
  • (Agnostic) Theist - "Although I don't know, I believe that one or more gods exist."
  • Negative Atheist - "I neither believe that any gods exist nor believe that no gods exist."
  • Positive (but Agnostic) Atheist - "Although I do not know, I believe no gods exist."
  • Gnostic Atheist - "I know no gods exist."

So which are you?


Alternative terminology note: 'Gnostic Theism' and 'Gnostic Atheism' could also be referred to as 'Epistemic Theism' and 'Epistemic Atheism' respectively. 'Positive Atheism' could be referred to as 'strong atheism', although sometimes it is unclear when someone uses the vague qualifier 'strong' if they mean 'gnostic/epistemic' or 'positive'.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in Gods



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#2  Postby ShrimpMaster » October 30th, 2014, 2:43 pm

Scott, why is the classification of peoples beliefs important? Did you create this topic as an educational tool for those that are not fully aware of what exactly the term they ascribe to entails? These are rather obvious questions. I am just trying to help flush out the purpose of the topic. Thanks
ShrimpMaster
 
Posts: 326 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 5th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Favorite Philosopher: St. Augustine

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#3  Postby Scott » October 30th, 2014, 3:11 pm

ShrimpMaster,

The purpose of the topic is, as already stated, to create an exhaustive list of mutually exclusive categories of belief in the existence of any gods, using logical reasoning. The other "rather obvious" questions are irrelevant. The topic is not why is it important to classify people's beliefs. The topic seems more argumentative than a typical educational tool (but as another topic entirely I would argue that argument and debate is a powerful learning tool much more so than reading books merely filled with verified, agreed facts). To the topic, do you have any direct comments regarding the premises, reasoning or conclusions or ending question in the topic?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#4  Postby ShrimpMaster » October 30th, 2014, 4:42 pm

Scott, my first response (and what I think will receive the most attention from this online community) is to the following statement.
Scott wrote:Negative atheism refers to a person who simply does not believe that any gods exist but without necessarily believing that no gods exist.

Can you please elaborate on the distinction between those two premises?
ShrimpMaster
 
Posts: 326 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 5th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Favorite Philosopher: St. Augustine

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#5  Postby Radar » October 30th, 2014, 5:22 pm

Scott wrote:
  • Gnostic Theist - "I know one or more gods exist."
  • (Agnostic) Theist - "Although I don't know, I believe that one or more gods exist."
  • Negative Atheist - "I neither believe that any gods exist nor believe that no gods exist."
  • Positive (but Agnostic) Atheist - "Although I do not know, I believe no gods exist."
  • Gnostic Atheist - "I know no gods exist."

So which are you?


I don't know. Feel free to characterize my "beliefs" in a the way you think is most appropriate.

Experience tells me that we live in a participatory universe, and my mind wants to make sense of it. It tells me, also, that self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness — that there a creative and Unifying Principle, called "God," acting in association with a finite self. The former is indeterminate; the latter is a localized region of dominant characteristics. We — all of us — are co-creators of the universe with God at the head and a finite self. The former is what it IS; the latter is a localized region of dominant characteristics.

This is a description of a non-cognative kind of “knowingness” rather than something believed. There is nothing to prove or disprove. “God” is a term that designates an experiential reality without meaning to identify anything in particular. Now, I don't expect it to make sense to anyone, particularly atheists, but there is a slight chance it might make sense to theists who are not so ensnared by their fascination with theology that they forget what it is about.
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
User avatar
Radar
 
Posts: 1015 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#6  Postby Siphersh » October 30th, 2014, 5:35 pm

I don't know which option to choose, so either I'm misunderstanding something, or it's not exhaustive at all. I think that gods do exists, they exist in the collective unconscious, but I'm not sure about the ontological nature of the collective unconscious. Which option should I choose?
User avatar
Siphersh
 
Posts: 101 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 8th, 2013, 7:56 am
Location: Hungary
Favorite Philosopher: Terence McKenna

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#7  Postby Scott » October 30th, 2014, 5:39 pm

ShrimpMaster wrote:Scott, my first response (and what I think will receive the most attention from this online community) is to the following statement.
Scott wrote:Negative atheism refers to a person who simply does not believe that any gods exist but without necessarily believing that no gods exist.

Can you please elaborate on the distinction between those two premises?

Great question.

The difference between positive disbelief and negative disbelief in the originally provided link. It's also demonstrated there with strict logic using variables. Since it was demonstrated logically there, let me explain what was demonstrated by example here.

Imagine Joe is a detective investigating a murder. For the sake of argument, let's assume Joe is rational, meaning he does not believe contradictions. So Joe is investigating a certain crime. Maybe he has some evidence. Maybe the evidence seems to show that Mary is guilty of the murder. Maybe he has some evidence that Mary is not the murderer. Maybe he really has no evidence one way or the other. Whether the evidence leads him to a conclusion is going to depend both on the evidence of which he is aware and his own standard of belief (meaning two detectives could look at the same evidence but one being more skeptical in general could not be convinced while the other is, which may not be a relevant to our purposes in this topic). So let's say there is a significant amount of evidence that Mary is guilty, and it's enough to convince Joe, so Joe believes that Mary is guilty. But now let's say actually there is a significant amount of evidence that Mary is not guilty, and it's enough to convince Joe that Mary is not guilty, then Joe may believe that Mary is not guilty. But now let's say that the amount of evidence available to Joe is somewhere in-between those two amount. Maybe the reporters go find Joe and insist he answer. (And let's assume Joe is an honest person because it just makes the example work better). The reporters say, "Joe, do you believe Mary is guilty?" Joe says, "No, the evidence I have does not lead me to that belief." The reporters say, "So then you believe Mary is not guilty?" Joe says, "No, the evidence I have does not lead me to believe that Mary is not guilty." The reporters say, "Well you must believe Mary is either guilty or not guilty!" Joe says, "No, I am suspending belief until I have convincing evidence one way or the other. Maybe I do need enough evidence to warrant an arrest just to believe, but the evidence I have does not even lead me to believe one way or the other". The reporters say, "But Joe! She must be one or the other, logically!" And Joe says, "Yes, she she must either be guilty or not guilty, but, as Scott showed in this post on the Philosophy Forums it does not mean I must believe Mary is guilty or believe Mary is innocent; my belief or lack of belief is based on the evidence available to me, not merely what happens to actually be the case."
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#8  Postby Fooloso4 » October 30th, 2014, 6:07 pm

Scott:

Atheism refers to the logical negative of theism. Thus, an atheist is simply a person who is not a theist.


A theist is, according to your definition, one who believes that a god or gods exist. So, what is a person who is not a theist? Since the theist is defined in relation to his or her belief in god or gods, an atheist would also be defined in relation to such beliefs, that is, an atheist is without believe in god or gods. The ‘a’ in atheist, like the ‘a’ in agnostic, is privative, it changes the meaning of the term from positive to negative. An atheist does not believe in god or gods.

We should also look at how the terms atheist and agnostic are used. Although agnostic means etymologically without knowledge, its use is not restricted to its etymology. Agnosticism does not mean simply without knowledge but also means, as its use shows and as dictionaries define it, without belief or disbelief. Theists have referred to other theists as atheist not because they have no belief in gods but because they have belief in other gods. The term is often used today to mean someone who denies the existence of God. These are not examples of the misuse or misunderstanding of the proper use of terms, it is simply the way language and meaning function.

What you define as “Negative Atheist” others would define as agnostic. A logically consistent classification would have the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ and ‘gnostic’ and ‘agnostic’ functioning in the same way consistently. Thus, “gnostic theist” and “agnostic theist” would have as their corollary “gnostic atheist” and “agnostic atheist”, and “positive” would have a “negative” corollary, but your categories get mixed. Perhaps you should get rid of the positive and negative and the middle category could be labelled “agnostic agnostic”, which would both keep the categorical terminology consistent and better reflect the way the term agnostic is actually used.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2540 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#9  Postby Ruskin » October 31st, 2014, 2:19 am

Everyone has a belief in something they ultimately don't actually know so in this sense everyone is an agnostic, unless they're something otherworldly.
Ruskin
 
Posts: 1576 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#10  Postby Neopolitan » October 31st, 2014, 3:23 am

Scott,

You are often hard on people who don't adequately define their terms. You have a central term here which you have failed to define, namely "belief". I confidently ticked
  • Positive (but Agnostic) Atheist - "Although I do not know, I believe no gods exist."
but I did so in the belief that the words "I believe" were intended to mean "on balance, given the evidence available to me, I consider it likely that". You know, the same sort of belief that philosophers are talking about when they discuss justified true belief.

However, in the context of religion and specifically theism, the words "I believe" can mean something entirely different. A theist may say "although I have absolutely no evidence to support it, I believe in my god" - and she would be a fideist. I think, therefore, that you might need another axis stretching from fideism (strong faith/belief) to afideism (no faith/belief).

I think it would be wrong to suggest that this is the same axis as the gnostic-agnostic axis, because some people argue that faith/belief is compatible with evidence (the more evidence I have that my neighbour is stealing lemons off my tree, the more faith/belief I have in his guilt with respect to citrus theft) while other argue the reverse (the less evidence I have to support the notion that my dogs won't eat the neighbour's cat, the more faith I need in order to believe that my dogs won't eat the neighbour's cat).

With regard to properly positioning myself, I have leanings towards afideism. The lack of evidence in support of a god or gods leads me to have very low confidence that any god exists, thus I do not believe that any god exists. However, there is evidence that supports the non-existence of specific forms of god. To the extent that any theist ascribes characteristics to their god (particularly the big four omnis - including omnibenevolence), I consider that there is sufficient evidence provided by logic to say with considerable confidence that that form of god does not exist. However, if a god has no specific characteristics (say the god of deism), then since there is no evidence at all for it (for or against), then I cannot say with any confidence that it exists or doesn't exist. With respect to that sort of god, I'd be apatheistic. Why care about a do-nothing god?

Perhaps, putting it briefly, I could not say categorically whether or not a god exists, particularly where the term "god" is vaguely defined, but the existence of any of the gods espoused by the many theists I have interacted with in my time is vanishingly unlikely. Therefore, I really slot in somewhere between your "negative atheist" and your "positive (but agnostic) atheist".

Of course you should also define "god", as I have alluded to, but that has already been pointed out in Radar's post. Please note that this should not be taken to mean that I agree with anything in Radar's post other than the fact that you have failed to define the term "god".
    neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

      The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
User avatar
Neopolitan
 
Posts: 2125 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#11  Postby Vijaydevani » October 31st, 2014, 5:42 am

You have missed one category. That of the apatheist. It is irrelevant to me whether God exists or does not exist. Since I do not know everything, I cannot say with a surety that God does not exist though I see the likelihood of the existence of God as infinitesimal. However, the existence or non-existence of God are irrelevant to reality. So unless you think I still fit into anyone of the categories then that is the one I fit into.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Vijaydevani
 
Posts: 2211 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#12  Postby eyesofastranger » October 31st, 2014, 7:01 am

I understand why one would try to slot beliefs. In order to slot my belief I have to make up my own word as I don't fit in any of them and likely none of us do. neophytheist has my vote. A neophytheist believes their is a connection between all sentience. That connection is configured by the chaos that is quantum mechanics. Beyond that I can't tell you much but neither can anyone else. I read an article about slotting Christians into belief sects and at 38k sects the author gave up. Vanuatu is a wonderful south sea destination I absolutely enjoy. I come from a bilingual country and am completely at home there. As early as world war 2 they had no denomination. Then during the wart metal sky gods came and brought a new word "cargo". So wonderful was this cargo of smokes and canned ham they formed a religion around it's second coming. This tells me the framework is already there in the human connection. What I believe is not the glass is half empty nor is the glass half full. Ya dummy it's twice as big as need be.
eyesofastranger
 
Posts: 284 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 6:12 am
Location: Canada/China/Oz
Favorite Philosopher: Albert Einstein

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#13  Postby Belinda » October 31st, 2014, 9:35 am

Radar wrote:

-------- that there a creative and Unifying Principle, called "God," acting in association with a finite self. The former is indeterminate; the latter is a localized region of dominant '---------


Worth pulling this out of the context with which Radar created it because I only want to point out that Scott wrote 'gods' but not 'God'. Those terms are not synonymous. While gods are commonly taken to be supernatural entities that own their own individual personalities and have individual points of view upon the world of phenomenal existence, God is either taken to be personal as are other gods, or God proper is taken to be ground of existence or indeed is essence of being itself.

Essence of being itself is what Radar seems to be saying of God, and in addition Radar seems to be saying that the finite self , us, can possibly and at our best, act in association with God the ground of being. I hope that my post has not derailed Scott's purpose too much.

I have no quarrel with Christians or Jews who understand the latter to be true of God.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#14  Postby Fooloso4 » October 31st, 2014, 11:06 am

The Positivity Distinction:

Since there is no agreed upon concept, meaning, or referent ‘God’ I will fill in the missing category B) I believe X AND I believe –X.

The gnostic distinction:

Gnosis is not a category of belief. To know is not a matter of belief. One may believe that one knows but believing one knows and knowing are not the same. And so, categories of belief should not include gnostic theists unless what one means is the belief that one knows. But then a “gnostic theist” might also be categorized as a “negative atheist” since God’s existence is not a matter of belief but of knowledge.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2540 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive Categories of Belief in G

Post Number:#15  Postby Scott » October 31st, 2014, 11:46 am

Radar wrote:
Scott wrote:
  • Gnostic Theist - "I know one or more gods exist."
  • (Agnostic) Theist - "Although I don't know, I believe that one or more gods exist."
  • Negative Atheist - "I neither believe that any gods exist nor believe that no gods exist."
  • Positive (but Agnostic) Atheist - "Although I do not know, I believe no gods exist."
  • Gnostic Atheist - "I know no gods exist."

So which are you?


I don't know. Feel free to characterize my "beliefs" in a the way you think is most appropriate.

Experience tells me that we live in a participatory universe, and my mind wants to make sense of it. It tells me, also, that self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness — that there a creative and Unifying Principle, called "God," acting in association with a finite self. The former is indeterminate; the latter is a localized region of dominant characteristics. We — all of us — are co-creators of the universe with God at the head and a finite self. The former is what it IS; the latter is a localized region of dominant characteristics.

This is a description of a non-cognative kind of “knowingness” rather than something believed. There is nothing to prove or disprove. “God” is a term that designates an experiential reality without meaning to identify anything in particular. Now, I don't expect it to make sense to anyone, particularly atheists, but there is a slight chance it might make sense to theists who are not so ensnared by their fascination with theology that they forget what it is about.

Using the definition you gave for "God", it seems clear you are a Gnostic Theist, one who claims to know god exists, albeit non-cognitively whatever that means. What your response reveals also is that I failed to include a specific definition with my original post.

I could call my cat "god" and then describe people as atheists or theists based on whether they believe my cat exists. (It doesn't by the way; I don't have a cat because I'm allergic.) But the classification would only apply relative to that idiosyncratic definition of the word.

However, I meant the question with the following definition:

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition wrote:1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.


That is the same definition I used in my topics:


So then the question becomes do you believe either 'a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe' or a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people exists? If so, do you know--even if "non-cognitively" such a being exists?

-- Updated 31 Oct 2014 10:50 am to add the following --

Siphersh wrote:I don't know which option to choose [...] I think that gods do exists

Then you are theist, and the question is merely do you just believe/think that gods do exist or do you know that the gods exist?

Siphersh wrote:they exist in the collective unconscious

I'm not sure what you mean. To help illustrate the meaning, can you answer the following questions: Does Santa Claus exist in the collective unconscious? Do unicorns exist in the collective unconscious? Does Wonderland exist in the collective unconscious? Do the things people think they see when they look at optical illusions exist in the collective unconscious?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Next

Return to Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST