Division Of Religions: Theistic and Atheistic

Religions may be divided in two groups one is Theistic and another one is Atheistic. Theistic group believes in God and includes almost all religions. Atheistic group does not believe in God and consists of very few members, such as two great Indian religions, Buddhhism and Jainism.
Theistic group
The theistic group differs in their perspectives with respect to the nature and number of God. These perspectives fall under three heads:

A. Monotheism
B. Ditheism
C. Polytheism

Monotheism
“Monotheism” originates from the Greek monos, which signifies “one,” and theos, which signifies “god. The monotheistic god is accepted to be one of a kind and in a general sense not quite the same as all other similar creatures, for example, the gods of different religions.
The idea contrasts from monism, the doctrine that the universe started in one fundamental guideline, for example, the mind, showing idealism, or matter, referring to materialism. Monism holds that there is just a single sort of the real world, while monotheism has two real factors: God and the universe. Theists accept that reality’s definitive rule is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is simply the inventive ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is just a single such God.
Monotheism seems to be most agreeable for the following reasons:

It underlines the unity of the world and through the unity of all human beings. This isn’t just hypothetically good yet in addition of incredible down to earth social value.
It is more predictable than different perspectives. For it maintains the view that God is one and He is endless, omnipresent and omnipotent. God can be infinite in addition omnipresent and omnipotent only if He is one.
Philosophers have consistently been monistic in their discussion about Gods.

Ditheism
Ditheism is belief in two equal gods. Those people who belief that two equivalent standards rule over the world, one good and one evil. There are two gods in accordance with this view. Zoroastrianism has confidence in two gods: they are the god of light and the god of darkness. Both good and evil gods are personal and finite spirit, however in restriction and contention. The good god attempts to make the world great however cannot do it because of restriction of the evil power.
Ditheism is the doctrine of the individuals who keep up the existence of two gods or of two unique standards one good and one evil; dualism. It is doctrine of the existence of two incomparable gods; religious dualism. Arianism was called ditheism by the orthodox Christians, who affirmed that the Arians trusted in “one God the Father, who is eternal, and one God the Son, not eternal.
Polytheism
Polytheism is the worship of or belief in numerous gods, which are normally amassed into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, alongside their own religions and ceremonies. In many religions which accept polytheism, the various gods and goddesses are portrayals of powers of nature or hereditary standards, and can be seen either as self-governing or as angles or spreads of a creator god or supernatural outright rule, which shows innately in nature.
The vast majority of the polytheistic divinities of antiquated religions, with the outstanding special cases of the Ancient Egyptian and Hindu gods, were considered as having physical bodies.
Atheistic group
Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheism isn’t a positive conviction that there is no god nor does it answer some other inquiry concerning what an individual believes. It is basically a dismissal of the affirmation that there are gods. Atheism is over and over again characterized inaccurately as a belief system.
To be clear: Atheism isn’t a disbelief in gods or a refusal of gods; it is an absence of faith in divine beings. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic impact pollutes these definitions. The way that word references characterize Atheism as “there is no God” sells out the theistic impact. Without the theistic impact, the definition would at any least read “there are no gods.”
Atheism isn’t a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are a few religions that are atheistic, that doesn’t imply that atheism is a religion. To place it in a progressively hilarious manner: If atheism is a religion, at that point not gathering stamps is a leisure activity. Regardless of the way that atheism isn’t a religion, atheism is ensured by numerous individuals of a similar Constitutional rights that secure religion.
That, be that as it may, doesn’t imply that atheism is itself a religion just that our genuinely held convictions are secured similarly as the religious beliefs of others. Essentially, many “interfaith” gatherings will incorporate atheists. This, once more, doesn’t imply that atheism is a religious belief. A few groups will utilize words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of different terms to self identify.
Those words are splendidly fine as a self-identifier; however we strongly advocate utilizing the word that individuals get: Atheist. Try not to utilize those different terms to mask your atheism or to avoid a word that some think has a negative connotation. We ought to utilize the phrasing that is generally precise and that addresses the inquiry that is really being posed. We should utilize the term that ties we all together.
All atheists are diverse. Atheists arrive in an assortment of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as one of a kind as our fingerprints. Atheists exist over the political range. We are individuals from each race. There are atheists in urban, rural, and rustic networks and in each condition of the country.
Religious Disagreement
The domain of religious inquiry is described by unavoidable and apparently intractable disagreement. Whatever position one takes on focal strict inquiries—for instance, regardless of whether God exists, what the idea of God may be, whether the world has a reason, whether there is life past death—one will stand contradicted to a huge unexpected of exceptionally educated and savvy scholars. The reality of extensive religious disagreement brings up a few particular philosophical issues.
One critical inquiry emerges inside the setting of political way of thinking: may religious conceptions of the great and the privilege truly ground one’s political feelings in a pluralistic culture set apart by differing and frequently clashing strict feelings? Different inquiries concern the chance of reconciling disagreement information with explicit strict convictions. For instance, can steady religious disagreement be squared with the conviction of numerous Christians and different theists that God “wants everybody to be spared and to come to knowledge of the truth”. These and other significant inquiries won’t be taken up here.
Considering the epistemic test presented by religious disagreement promptly drives one to questions concerning the epistemic significance of disagreement in general, religious or something else. One may feel that religious disagreement doesn’t bring up any particular epistemological issues past those that are tended to in an increasingly broad work on contradiction. There are, notwithstanding, highlights of religious disagreements that current issues that, generally, are not satisfactorily tended to in such a work.
These highlights include the lack of agreement on what skills, virtues, and qualifications are generally significant for surveying the inquiries under question; the way that a large number of the disputed beliefs are ostensibly epistemic partner principal; the critical evidential weight that is appointed to private experiences; and the unmistakable quality of down to earth or pragmatic considerations in the avocations offered for restricting perspectives. While these highlights taken individually may not be selective to religious disagreements, the way that they regularly harmonize in religious disputes and are particularly notable in such debates makes religious disagreement a commendable epistemological theme in its own right.