What should religion be based on?

[mickthinks]

No I am not claiming that god does not exist. ... I am simply saying that I do NOT believe in a god.

Hobbes, you are backtracking by dishonestly denying your earlier claim ...

Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises ...

That is not simply saying that you don't believe, it is saying that religions all hold to something that you know is not true.

Now stop dancing, put down the seven veils, and come clean. What is it that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?

[Hobbes' Choice]

No I am not claiming that god does not exist. ... I am simply saying that I do NOT believe in a god.

Hobbes, you are backtracking by dishonestly denying your earlier claim ...

Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises ...

That is not simply saying that you don't believe, it is saying that religions all hold to something that you know is not true.

Now stop dancing, put down the seven veils, and come clean. What is it that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?

You skills at debate are limited indeed.

Consider the difference between "god" and "religion". You don't seem to know what these words mean.
Now run along.

[mickthinks]

I have considered the considerable difference between "god" and "religion", HC.

Now, if your skills at debate are not limited in any way, then you will know that you didn't answer my question.

What is it that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true? If you didn't mean the existence of God, then what were you thinking about when you wrote "Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises"?

[Immanuel Can]

Hobbes:

Like I said before and you ignored, making a positive claim about a negative is absurd; hence my position.

And I'm actually agreeing with you. Atheism makes a positive claim about a negative, which is indeed absurd. Well done.

I view atheism as contentless.

A perfect synonym for "contentless" is "empty." If Atheism has no "content," then it has no meaning, and thus certainly has nothing to offer the world. Now, I would agree it has nothing to offer, however I think that your Anti-Theist/Atheist division is not one that is generally recognized, and also vacates "Atheism" of any meaning, just as you say.

If it's so empty, there is no reason to remain an Atheist. It's about nothing, and offers nothing.

Shall we return to the subject of the thread?

[Ginkgo]

Hobbes:

Like I said before and you ignored, making a positive claim about a negative is absurd; hence my position.

And I'm actually agreeing with you. Atheism makes a positive claim about a negative, which is indeed absurd. Well done.

I view atheism as contentless.

A perfect synonym for "contentless" is "empty." If Atheism has no "content," then it has no meaning, and thus certainly has nothing to offer the world. Now, I would agree it has nothing to offer, however I think that your Anti-Theist/Atheist division is not one that is generally recognized, and also vacates "Atheism" of any meaning, just as you say.

If it's so empty, there is no reason to remain an Atheist. It's about nothing, and offers nothing.

Shall we return to the subject of the thread?

It's not that simple I.C. You cannot sum up a theory of atheism with a few pithy statements.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not that simple I.C. You cannot sum up a theory of atheism with a few pithy statements.

Wait a minute: Hobbes says it IS that simple...so simple, in fact, that he says Atheism "makes no claims" at all! I don't think you COULD get more simple than that, could you?

He's not right, of course. As I've pointed out, any form of Atheism has at least one fundamental premise. In fact, most Atheists I've encountered insist upon that too. That premise is that no kind of God or gods exists anywhere, or under any conditions. But most of them insist that they do not have to defend any other premise BUT that one, so if you have a fuller version of Atheism in mind, perhaps you'd best tell us what you think it involves.

For to me Atheism looks more than simple...it looks simplistic.

So what is the complete theory of Atheism, in your view? Can you fill it out for us?

[Ginkgo]

It's not that simple I.C. You cannot sum up a theory of atheism with a few pithy statements.

Wait a minute: Hobbes says it IS that simple...so simple, in fact, that he says Atheism "makes no claims" at all! I don't think you COULD get more simple than that, could you?

He's not right, of course. As I've pointed out, any form of Atheism has at least one fundamental premise. In fact, most Atheists I've encountered insist upon that too. That premise is that no kind of God or gods exists anywhere, or under any conditions. But most of them insist that they do not have to defend any other premise BUT that one, so if you have a fuller version of Atheism in mind, perhaps you'd best tell us what you think it involves.

For to me Atheism looks more than simple...it looks simplistic.

So what is the complete theory of Atheism, in your view? Can you fill it out for us?

I found this wikipedia article on definitions and distinctions

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#D ... stinctions

[Immanuel Can]

Ginko:

It's odd, but this Wiki doesn't answer the question. It doesn't even really try to. All it says is, "A lot of people are arguing X, Y and Z."

I think we can be a bit smarter than that. I think we can figure it out. So let me put to you the key question: If a version of Atheism admits the possibility of a God or gods, is it really Atheism?

People like (our Hobbes and Richard Dawkins) definitely insist is isn't. But what about you?

Or is it Agnosticism (the Hard or Soft versions, as per Flew and Martin)?

Or is it just and expression of total ignorance, as in the case of d' Holbach and Smith?

One thing we can settle for sure: if "Atheism" means the categorical statement "there is no God," then it's irrational and unwarranted at best, stupid and stubborn at worst. And this is one of the few areas in which I would go with Dawkins, who denies such Atheism -- wisely too, for he knows it cannot be defended at all. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyf1RxWBS0I

So...your definition of "Atheist" would be helpful. Then we could be on common ground. And it is....?

[duszek]

How about this:

Atheism claims that humanity whose large parts believe in a God or in gods and are thus religious suffers from an illusion.

[Immanuel Can]

Dusek wrote:

How about this:

Atheism claims that humanity whose large parts believe in a God or in gods and are thus religious suffers from an illusion.

We're well beyond the merely pejorative and looking for a real definition, Dusek.

[thedoc]

I believe that Atheism denies the existence of God, and Agnosticism simply says that it is impossible to know. I understand that there is variety in the details of both claims and there may be some overlap, but these 2 principles should be a good starting point. Also just saying that a denial of Gods existence is illogical and untenable, will probably not change the minds of those who make that statement.

[Immanuel Can]

Thedoc:

I believe that Atheism denies the existence of God, and Agnosticism simply says that it is impossible to know.

Well, the "Atheist" part is basically right, but the "Agnostics" don't necessarily have to be insisting it's impossible to know. Soft Agnostics think God could possibly exist but that they don't really know for sure themselves -- but they're nowhere near saying it's impossible. On the other hand, a Hard Agnostic may say he/she thinks it's not merely impossible to know but very likely, and with a small margin for error, the Atheists may be on the right track. So Agnosticism has ranges that need to be defined. But I think you're right: Atheism has no subtleties or variations, just a bald claim of disbelief.

[duszek]

Dusek wrote:

How about this:

Atheism claims that humanity whose large parts believe in a God or in gods and are thus religious suffers from an illusion.

We're well beyond the merely pejorative and looking for a real definition, Dusek.

Which element of my definition looks pejorative to you ????

It is a definition consisting of FACTS.

Dawkins talked of the God´s illusion.

Atheists claim that:
Most of humanity suffer from an illusion which they call "God".

This formulation is better than:
Atheists deny the existence of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Dusek:

Which element of my definition looks pejorative to you ????
Atheists claim that:
Most of humanity suffer from an illusion which they call "God".

The part where you use the terms "suffer" and "illusion," for one thing. We're debating those issues, not simply offering insults and taking them as closed matters.

Dawkins talked of the God´s illusion.

No, you mean "delusion." He didn't believe in God, so his "God" couldn't have an "illusion." If you want to quote him, at least get his book-title right.

You really need to read the thread. We've dealt with all of this stuff. Nothing you're saying here so far is shocking or daring...in fact, it's not even mildly interesting.

You need to catch up to the rest of us, or you'll hold back the discussion.

[ReliStuPhD]

It is a definition consisting of FACTS.

It is not at all clear that you have provided facts ("things that are indisputably the case"). Put differently, would you accept the following definition of theism as consisting of "FACTS" and not being pejorative?

"Theism claims that humanity whose large parts believe in a God or in gods and are thus religious do not suffer from an illusion."*

So. Is that "a definition consisting of FACTS?" If so, please point out those "things that are indisputably the case".

By the way, that's really a terrible definition of atheism that you've offered. I know of no atheist that would accept that as the definition. The dictionary certainly doesn't: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (I love the "lack of belief," as if worms and dogs were atheists too.)

*Your grammar in your original statement is unclear, so if you meant something other, feel free to restate it and I'll adapt it to theism.