That’s the case with some, but not all, god-claims - including the god-claims we have today. Some god-claims are specific, coherent, and testable. They commonly morph, of course, when they fail the tests but that doesn’t change the fact that there *are* tests (empirical, logical). If a claim fails a test, we can say “That god doesn’t exist.”

Ergo it is simply untrue to assert ‚ÄúThe specific denial of God‚Äôs existence requires a positive statement of belief - of faith - in the unknowable.” As a general principle. It’s true in some cases but not others. This means that you cannot accuse a strong atheist of practicing some sort of “faith” unless and until you learn more about what they mean by “God” when they say “God doesn’t exist.”

Right, that’s what I’ve been saying. It’s not knowable. It’s faith.

They also aren’t testable and, as such, aren’t especially meaningful statements about the empirical, external world. There’s not particular reason to take them seriously or give them any serious consideration.

“Am I clarifying my own opinion?”

Not really, no.

However, the Monotheistic Idea upon which a great deal of postclassical religious philosophy rests is much more subtle than the conception of gods as personified superpowerful beings. It’s roots are present even in Classical works exploring polytheistic ideas of deity, notably Plato (who might very well have a vested interest in pushing the monotheistic idea, but whatever).

The underlying principle in this interpretation is that there is (or is not) something that exceeds the experiential, observable range of the universe. The universe is infinite, and whatever is leftover, then is the infinite. That, in a nutshell, is God. Or not-God, if you choose to accept the boundaries of the finite. By reason, then, we can see that stating positive knowledge of the state of existence or non existence of the infinite and non-experiential (therefore, unobservable) must be faith, as it can’t be based on reason or observation. Actual assertions of knowledge concerning this class of phenomena by definition cannot derive from the phenomena, and ergo, are postulation, revelation, or opinion.

Am I clarifying my own opinion?

There are many different attempts to define “religion” in the academic literature (and some attempts to argue that there is no such thing). Just about all can be classified either as substantive or as functional definitions. What you suggest here is a type of substantive definition, but not even all substantive definitions of religion claim that religion is defined by being based upon theology.

To put it simply, it isn’t really accurate to reduce the complex cultural phenomenon of religion to a single attribute like “theology.” Religion can exist with or without gods, with or without theology. Because of this one can have an atheistic religion - it’s not common, but it does happen.

“The specific denial of God‚Äôs existence requires a positive statement of belief - of faith - in the unknowable. It‚Äôs a negative faith, but still.”

That depends upon how “God” is defined. If the term is defined in a sufficiently coherent way, it is (theoretically) possible to prove or disprove it and, hence a positive affirmation or denial of existence need not be a statement of faith. If, for example, “God” is defined with two contradictory attributes, then saying “This ‘God’ does not exist” is no more a statement of faith then saying “This ‘married bachelor’ does not exist.”

This does not mean that no positive denials of gods are statements of faith, but it does mean that at least some of them aren’t. It isn’t right to make a blanket characterization of them all as being faith-based. In order to know whether such a characterization is ever correct, one has to ask the person making the statement.

insofar as video games are repetitive motion meditation tools.