Most of the ideas presented on the site have been selected based on the general credibility of their authors. They belong to some of the well known, highly respected and acclaimed philosophers and scholars, firstly of this century, but also of the past. The main personalities who inspired the site’s content, together with their respective works, are mentioned at the end of each article. The information sources that have been used extensively throughout this site are Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Oxford (Department of Psychology), Cornell University (Department of Science), BBC, bestselling books along with popular and established websites. Still, there are cases like the chapters related to the defense of New Age where despite extensive research the process of judging authors’ credibility was significantly reduced due to the absence of detailed information (see note before texts).
Disclaimers related to the summaries of the worldviews presented.
1. The summaries presented on the site are made for the main ideologies, worldviews that coexist in the 21st century in our global society (based on the chart with the top religions of the world). For the pantheist worldviews we chose to present New Age instead of Hinduism or Buddhism since New Age is a combination of several Oriental (and Western) beliefs including these two.
2. Each worldview is presented in 4 parts: 1. Summary, 2. Famous adopters, 3. Main criticisms, 4. Responses to main criticisms.
None of these parts is intended to be exhaustive; especially the 3rd one, which usually presents what the site’s author considered a strong case against that particular worldview, built so to respect the site’s values. We also intend to keep adding texts upon recommendations as long as the sources are in line with these values.
3. The texts vary in length considerably depending on the complexity of the worldview, and the extent of materials available. As mentioned above, for some worldviews- like the New Age- despite extensive research the number of credible resources seems limited. While for example, for Christianity or Atheism, the contrary is true, many resources matching our criteria for selection being available.
Therefore for some criticisms/defenses, responses were added, for others, the search continues. In case you believe you have a response or can point to a relevant text, please let us know by writing to email@example.com. The text will be reviewed and added- by specific parts or complete, depending on its perceived quality and specifying the source. Any submission to us, whether made through the Site or to the email address above, should specify if any of the submitted materials were authored by another person. Where quotes are provided, citations to source materials should also be included.
4. The section Opinions/Blog is the only section that includes opinions from different authors who are not as well known as the rest, including the site’s main author. The section was added so to provide a dynamic characteristic to the site while at the same time gather further information still in compliance with the values of the site. In this particular section there was no work performed as to the authors’ credibility, but rather the selection was based on subject interest.
5. The Website offers resources concerning controversial matters. You should critically evaluate all information through your individual and independent judgment and do your own research before adopting any opinions.