Glossary of Terms

[texan]

Discussions of Faith Official Glossary

a work in progress

GENERAL TERMS


agnostic (noun)
origin in greek: a (without) + gnosis (knowledge)
1) one who has no definite position on the existence of any deity;
2) [often] one who believes knowledge regarding the existence and nature of any deity is at least currently (usually ultimately) unknowable by man
3) a person without spiritual knowledge


areligious (noun)
1) without religion, not religious


antitheist (noun)
origin in greek: anti (against) + theos (god)
1) active opposition to belief in any deity or to a deity itself
**Note: This position can and often does occur simultaneously with atheist beliefs, but they are not the same thing.


apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism) (noun)
1) also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, apatheism is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. It describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity, so it applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life.


atheism (noun)
origin in greek: a (without) + theos (god)
1) any philosophical doctrine which excludes belief in a deity
2) [negative] the lack of belief in a deity
3) [positive] belief in the non-existence of a deity


atheist (noun)
origin in greek: a (without) + theos (god)
1) having no belief in any deity
2) one whose belief system is a type of atheism
3) [often] one who holds that no deity exists until proven otherwise


deity (noun)
origin in greek: deus (god)
1) a supernatural being
2) a god or goddess


empiricism (noun)
1) the epistemological assertion that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience
2) [scientific] that knowledge is gained through physical experimentation and observation


epistemology (noun)
origin in greek: epistasthai (knowledge)
1) the theory of knowledge with reference to methodology, validity and potential scope
2) the study of the nature of knowledge


faith (noun)
origin in roman: fides (trustworthy, reliable)
1) belief in something based on confidence rather than proof
2) a particular doctrine of religious belief


Gnostic (proper noun)
origin in greek: gnosis (knowledge) -Hermetic usage-
1) a follower of Gnosticism

gnostic (adjective)
1) possessing spiritual knowledge*
*in practice this refers to knowledge outside mainstream religious movements; often associated with mysticism


irreligious (noun)
see areligious


monotheism (noun)
origin in greek: mono (one) + theos (god)
1) a belief system characterized by the existence of only one deity (generally the supreme universal creator and authority)


polytheism (noun)
origin in greek: polu (many) + theos (god)
1) a belief system characterized by the existence of more than one deity, often a panoply of gods


rationalism (noun)
1) the epistemological assertion that knowledge comes primarily from reason
2) the belief that actions and opinions should be based on logical reasoning rather than emotion or faith


religion (noun)
origin in latin: religare (to bind, connect)
1) [connotative] any philosophical doctrine which forms a cohesive view on the origin of the universe, the nature of existence, and which is shared by a group of people


secular (noun)
origin in latin: saeculum (generation)
1) of or relating to things which have no religious or spiritual component
2) not subject to nor involved with religion or religious authority


theism (noun)
origin in greek: theos (god)
1) doctrinal belief in the existence of one or more deities


theist (noun)
origin in greek: theos (god)
1) one who believes in the existence of one or more deities
2) one whose belief system is a type of theism



==================================================
==================================================



BUDDHIST SECTION
contributors: mossy

Precepts
we don't have commandments, we have precepts. lay practitioners have 5 and monks have 10. some lay practitioners who wish to practice more strictly will keep 8 precepts. if you are interested in improving your life or learning the basics of Buddhism this is a good place to start. the only one thats really debated over is #3.
1 abstaining from killing -dont kill
2 abstaining from taking what is not given- dont steal
3 avoid sexual misconduct- this one is debated, they way i understand it is there must be consent and nobody gets hurt.
4 abstaining from false speech- dont lie
5 abstaining from intoxicating drinks- dont drink
*monks only*
6 refrain from taking food at inappropriate times
7 refrain from singing, dancing, or watching entertainment programs
8 refrain from wearing decorative accessories
9 refrain from sitting on high chairs or sleeping on soft beds
10 refrain from accepting money


the 4 noble truths
1 there is suffering in this world- self explanatory

2 suffering is caused by desires- attachments and desires bring pain into our lives and cause us to never be satisfied. alwase wanting more or newer, think about all the zombies who line up and fight over the new iphone.

3 there can be a cessation to suffering- there is a was we can end our suffering

4 the eightfold path is the way to end suffering- see below


the eightfold path
1 right view- having a accurate view on the nature of things and the 4 noble truths

2 right intention- avoid harmful,hateful, thoughts and attachments

3 right speech- avoid divisive speech, lying, hateful speech and sensless speech

4 right action- avoid killing, steeling and other physical misdeeds

5 right livelihood- don't make a living off harming others or killing.

6 right effort- abandon negative states of mind that have arisen, prevent negative states of mind from arising and sustain positive states of mind.

7 right mindfulness- awareness of body, thoughts, feelings and phenomena

8 right concentration- meditation

Buddhism
there is not just 1 "Buddhism" there are 3 major traditions in modern Buddhism and within those traditions are different schools.

Theravāda
the oldest surviving branch of Buddhism and can be traced back to one of the early Buddhist schools. can be found in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka. this tradition is very monastic centered. Theravada is knows as the small vehicle.

Mahāyāna
the largest tradition in buddism and known as the great vehicle. perusing individual enlightenment and exiting suffering is thought of as to narrow an aspiration in Mahāyāna because that lacks motivation to help liberate others. Mahāyāna schools include Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren and a few others i cant remember. Mahāyāna can be found all over the world as it is the most adaptable to different cultures.

Vajrayāna
this tradition is known as the diamond way or thunderbolt way. i dont know much about Vajrayāna. i do know it is found in Tibet and it has more rituals than the other 2 traditions. the Chinese government hates it and has passed laws and made a very important person disappear to stop the recognition of the next Dalai Lama.

Saṃsāra
translates to "wondering on" or some call it "continuous flow". Samsara is the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation. Samsara arises through wrong knowledge about reality and we trap ourselves in the cycle. liberation from samsara can be found by following the Buddhist path. the idea of samsara can be found in Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and other eastern religions. fun fact: origin caused some controversy when he started teaching a form of reincarnation within Christianity.

Nirvana
extinguishing the flames of suffering. when attachment, ignorance and aversion are blown out suffering ends and a being can enter nirvana and be free from Samsara.


==================================================
==================================================

[texan]

CHRISTIAN SECTION
contributors: hasserl


Arminianism (Proper noun)
1) a teaching regarding salvation associated with the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). The fundamental principle in Arminianism is the rejection of predestination, and a corresponding affirmation of the freedom of the human will.


Baptist (Proper noun)
ˈbaptist/
1) a member of a Protestant Christian denomination advocating baptism only of adult believers by total immersion. Baptists form one of the largest Protestant bodies and are found throughout the world and especially in the US.
2) a person who baptizes someone.


Calvinism (Proper noun)
ˈkalvəˌnizəm/
1) the Protestant theological system of John Calvin and his successors, which develops Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination.


Catholic (Proper noun)
ˈkaTH(ə)lik
1) a member of the Roman Catholic Church

adjective
1) [especially of a person's tastes] including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.
synonyms: universal, diverse, diversified, wide, broad, broad-based, eclectic, liberal, latitudinarian;
antonyms: narrow
2) of the Roman Catholic faith; of or including all Christians; of or relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.


Catholicism (Proper noun)Christianity (Proper noun)
[kris-chee-an-i-tee]
1) the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2) Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3) a particular Christian religious system:She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4) the state of being a Christian.
5) Christendom.
6) conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.

1250-1300; Middle English cristianite < Latin chrīstiānitāt- (stem of chrīstiānitās), equivalent to chrīstiān- Christian + -itāt- -ity; replacing Middle English cristiente < Middle French < Latin, as above


Finneyism (Proper noun)
(Finneyites) Charles Grandison Finney was a leader in the Second Great Awakening. He has been called The Father of Modern Revivalism. ...


grace (noun)
ɡrās/
1) [in Christian belief] the free and unmerited favor of God


Lutheran (Proper noun)
ˈlo͞oTH(ə)rən/
1) a follower of Martin Luther.

adjective
1) of or characterized by the theology of Martin Luther.

http://bookofconcord.org/whatisalutheran.php

Reformation (Proper noun)
ˌrefərˈmāSH(ə)n/
1) a 16th-century movement for the reform of abuses in the Roman Catholic Church ending in the establishment of the Reformed and Protestant Churches.


reformed (noun)
ri-farmed'
1) restoring biblical precepts, as pertaining to Protestant Churches, esp. those retaining the principles of belief in the total sovereignty of God, Predestination, supreme authority of scripture over men, and the doctrines of Grace alone, through faith.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/what_is_reformed_theology.shtml

revivalism (noun)
riˈvīvəˌlizəm
1) belief in or the promotion of a revival of religious fervor; a tendency or desire to revive a former custom or practice.


salvation (noun)
salˈvāSH(ə)n/
1) deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ.
synonyms: redemption, deliverance, reclamation


sin (noun)
\ˈsin\
1) an offense against religious or moral law; an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>; an often serious shortcoming (a fault)
2) transgression of the law of God; a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

[RAMCLAP]

Useable. Thanks.

[hasserl]

Can you explain the practical difference between agnostic and atheist? Or how one can be 1 of them without being the other?

[texan]

Can you explain the practical difference between agnostic and atheist? Or how one can be 1 of them without being the other?

In writing the definitions I attempted to address this.

It primarily concerns the approach to knowledge of the spiritual, agnostic as commonly used refers to a general ambivalence or hesitance towards the knowability of spiritual truth regarding deities. An agnostic won't make definitive claims to the existence or non-existence of a deity and would be suspicious toward any such claims. Faith or lack thereof is not a rational motivator for any formal conclusion to be made.
The usual position of the agnostic is that nobody can truly know whether or not a deity exists or reliably report on its nature.

Atheism refers to a firm position of non-belief regarding deities, claims of the opposite being the case would therefore need to be accompanied by some kind of proof. Its really just a more definitive take on the subject.
The usual position of the atheist is that no deity exists until proven otherwise, this is effectively a philosophical application of null hypothesis.

[hasserl]

Maybe this is the wrong thread for the discussion, maybe this thread should be reserved for setting and clarifying terms only. But my question about the difference between the two terms really isn't answered by the above. The distinction is that an agnostic holds no belief one way or the other, because they do not "know" for certain one way or another. This leaves the conclusion that IF they were to somehow come into knowledge of either the existence of the non-existence of a God, then they would become either a theists or an atheist. The atheist position appears to be of 2 types, what I'll call Type A takes the active position of believing there is no God; what I will then call Type B takes the passive position of not having any belief either way. This is where I struggle with it. Why? Why does the type B atheist have no belief? The only practical reason can be, because they do not know either way. So wait a minute, that is the same thing as agnostic. Look at the 2 sentences in bold in the post above, there is a distinction without any practical difference, it is the same thing.

So why maintain it? Why not fold type B atheist into agnostic and clear up the definitions so they make more sense, and in future discussions when somebody claims to be atheist we all know what they mean?

[texan]

Maybe this is the wrong thread for the discussion, maybe this thread should be reserved for setting and clarifying terms only. But my question about the difference between the two terms really isn't answered by the above. The distinction is that an agnostic holds no belief one way or the other, because they do not "know" for certain one way or another. This leaves the conclusion that IF they were to somehow come into knowledge of either the existence of the non-existence of a God, then they would become either a theists or an atheist. The atheist position appears to be of 2 types, what I'll call Type A takes the active position of believing there is no God; what I will then call Type B takes the passive position of not having any belief either way. This is where I struggle with it. Why? Why does the type B atheist have no belief? The only practical reason can be, because they do not know either way. So wait a minute, that is the same thing as agnostic. Look at the 2 sentences in bold in the post above, there is a distinction without any practical difference, it is the same thing.

So why maintain it? Why not fold type B atheist into agnostic and clear up the definitions so they make more sense, and in future discussions when somebody claims to be atheist we all know what they mean?

Define 'actively' believing there is no God because it makes no sense to me. The absence of something isn't an active state, that's like claiming nothing is a something. Nothing is nothing, absence isn't a positive or active state. I suspect you may be conflating antitheism with atheism, something already addressed in the glossary.

Atheism is a distinct philosophical stance from agnosticism, they are synonymous but not identical. One would be guilty of oversimplifying the concepts if they tried to replace one term with the other.

[hasserl]

Not having any belief is passive, believing something (no matter what it is) is active. Even when the belief is that something doesn't exist, it is a belief and is active, not passive. You have 2 types of atheist in your description, point 1 is passive, point 3 is active. The passive type is the same as an agnostic, the active type is one who has taken a stance on the question and holds there is no God.

[texan]

Not having any belief is passive, believing something (no matter what it is) is active. Even when the belief is that something doesn't exist, it is a belief and is active, not passive. You have 2 types of atheist in your description, point 1 is passive, point 3 is active. The passive type is the same as an agnostic, the active type is one who has taken a stance on the question and holds there is no God.

Point three is not active, it is simply the prerequisite that needs to be met for one to cease being an atheist. I might add this prerequisite would also suffice for ending the tenure of an agnostic, but that doesn't make it any more active does it? It's just the most commonly held bar for eradicating the negative state of deity non-belief or ambivalence. Agnostic is indeed non-committal, but just because atheism commits to the negative state doesn't make it active. Confirming a negative is a rather simple task which doesn't speak to what you actually believe. Atheism isn't a belief but the lack thereof, it's just the confirmation of a negative. Ask enough atheists what they actually believe and you'll get a variety of different answers with one common trait.

As an example: I presume you do not believe in Santa Claus. I further presume you don't actively campaign against his existence or followers, yet you're comfortable in acknowledging this absence of belief. If believers in Santa were called clausists you'd be an aclausist, just as the theist is to an atheist. However If you ran around actively demanding an end to all those terrible clausist ways by telling kids the truth you'd graduate to being an anticlausist (and most would agree a jerk to have around during the holidays). If you instead shrugged your shoulders and claimed no definitive knowledge on the existence of nature of whatever this claus beast purports to be you're this example's analog to agnostic (and in many an opinion somewhat equivocating for it).

[hasserl]

Again, maybe this isn't the right thread, maybe this discussion deserves it's own thread. You haven't offered a convincing argument for your position, I maintain mine from above. If you'd rather take this discussion to a new thread I would drop the whole thing here and take it up elsewhere.

[texan]

Again, maybe this isn't the right thread, maybe this discussion deserves it's own thread. You haven't offered a convincing argument for your position, I maintain mine from above. If you'd rather take this discussion to a new thread I would drop the whole thing here and take it up elsewhere.

You should make your iwn thread about it then. I've clearly defined the terms in use, explained and given examples of the reasoning so if you still reject those points there's nothing further for me to offer. We're back to a semantic dispute and your intractable opinion rather than a logical argument.

[bigmike82]

I'm kinda with hasserl on this. Antitheist is the same as atheist. Atheism is the belief in no god, not the lack of belief in a God.

[mossy]

Precepts
we don't have commandments, we have precepts. lay practitioners have 5 and monks have 10. some lay practitioners who wish to practice more strictly will keep 8 precepts. if you are interested in improving your life or learning the basics of Buddhism this is a good place to start. the only one thats really debated over is #3.
1 abstaining from killing -dont kill
2 abstaining from taking what is not given- dont steal
3 avoid sexual misconduct- this one is debated, they way i understand it is there must be consent and nobody gets hurt.
4 abstaining from false speech- dont lie
5 abstaining from intoxicating drinks- dont drink
*monks only*
6 refrain from taking food at inappropriate times
7 refrain from singing, dancing, or watching entertainment programs
8 refrain from wearing decorative accessories
9 refrain from sitting on high chairs or sleeping on soft beds
10 refrain from accepting money


the 4 noble truths
1 there is suffering in this world- self explanatory

2 suffering is caused by desires- attachments and desires bring pain into our lives and cause us to never be satisfied. alwase wanting more or newer, think about all the zombies who line up and fight over the new iphone.

3 there can be a cessation to suffering- there is a was we can end our suffering

4 the eightfold path is the way to end suffering- see below


the eightfold path
1 right view- having a accurate view on the nature of things and the 4 noble truths

2 right intention- avoid harmful,hateful, thoughts and attachments

3 right speech- avoid divisive speech, lying, hateful speech and sensless speech

4 right action- avoid killing, steeling and other physical misdeeds

5 right livelihood- don't make a living off harming others or killing.

6 right effort- abandon negative states of mind that have arisen, prevent negative states of mind from arising and sustain positive states of mind.

7 right mindfulness- awareness of body, thoughts, feelings and phenomena

8 right concentration- meditation

Buddhism
there is not just 1 "Buddhism" there are 3 major traditions in modern Buddhism and within those traditions are different schools.

Theravāda
the oldest surviving branch of Buddhism and can be traced back to one of the early Buddhist schools. can be found in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka. this tradition is very monastic centered. Theravada is knows as the small vehicle.

Mahāyāna
the largest tradition in buddism and known as the great vehicle. perusing individual enlightenment and exiting suffering is thought of as to narrow an aspiration in Mahāyāna because that lacks motivation to help liberate others. Mahāyāna schools include Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren and a few others i cant remember. Mahāyāna can be found all over the world as it is the most adaptable to different cultures.

Vajrayāna
this tradition is known as the diamond way or thunderbolt way. i dont know much about Vajrayāna. i do know it is found in Tibet and it has more rituals than the other 2 traditions. the Chinese government hates it and has passed laws and made a very important person disappear to stop the recognition of the next Dalai Lama.

i am sure i will think of more stuff to post later, but for now i think this is a good start

[texan]

I'm kinda with hasserl on this. Antitheist is the same as atheist. Atheism is the belief in no god, not the lack of belief in a God.

Then you gentlemen should create a new thread or explain here how to square that with the different roots of the words and how by definition a negative becomes a positive. Being without something doesn't make a claim about what you are, but what you are not.

[bigmike82]

Then you gentlemen should create a new thread

Considering that your stated purpose was to create a thread that's helpful in future discussions, you may wish to actually consider what other people have to say instead of acting all offended that someone would dare challenge your specific definitions.

Atheism, in common usage, means the belief that there is no God.

From Wikipedia:

"Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

That said, your definition of atheism is completely wrong. It's not simply a philosophy that doesn't contain God.

Sure, its your thread, but you'll be the only person using your definitions if you're unwilling to work on some semblance of consensus on the subject.