> > > an atheist may perfectly well believe
> > > in the existence of, say, jinns.
> >
> >Do you consider the old Greek mythology to be atheistic,
> >because there is no almighty God with capital "G" there?
> >
> >Let us not to confuse Gods with gods:
> >
> >1) almighty God(s), usually only one. He is refered to as
> >Eru, Iluvatar, Krishna, JHWH, al-Lah.
> >2) Ainur, gods, jinns
>
> While what you say is perfectly valid, the word _theism_ happens to
include
> both the belief in God and in gods.
I think so too
and it was the reason why I wonded
how a man believing in jinns could be described as an atheist.
> If we need to make the distinction,
> we can usually speak of monotheism vs polytheism.
There are 2 sorts of monotheism:
1) belief in God only and unbelief in gods = monotheism
2) belief in God and gods = monotheism
3) belief in gods only and unbelief in God = polytheism
4) unbelief in God and unbelief in gods = atheism
> The only trouble here is the boundary one -
> where exactly is one to draw the line
> between gods of relatively limited power
> (belief in which would make you a theist)
> and powerful jinns/angels/demons
> (belief in which wouldn't on it's own).
But can any such line be drawen?
I cannot see any difference between gods and Valar.
(IMO, Manwe is probably the same guy as
our PIE. Djews/Zeus/Jupiter/Ti:wz/Ty:r.)
And Tolkien says that Valar = angels,
and Muhammad says that angels are sort of jinns.
P.A.