That’s your opinion, or truth. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because you dismiss the reality of God’s existence. — Brett

That’s your opinion, or truth.
— Brett

...and there it is; opinion instead of truth. — Banno

Isn’t it true though that the statement by Xtrix is either true or an opinion?

I don't dismiss anything until you tell me what it is I'm supposedly denying. — Xtrix

I’m presuming you’re denying the existence of God.

God is a concept and a word, and a poorly defined one at that. — Xtrix

So are you saying that whatever a believer might think it remains this?

You happened to be raised in a tradition that takes that word seriously. It grows out of the same human mind that creates all kinds of rules for behavior. — Xtrix

How do we classify this statement?

When I refer to truth in this OP I’m always referring the idea that believers believe God is truth or real. It’s not my truth. My point about the non believers is that is their new truth any more reliable than the truth they rejected?

God is a concept and a word, and a poorly defined one at that.
— Xtrix — Brett

As I said, not to believers.

You happened to be raised in a tradition that takes that word seriously. It grows out of the same human mind that creates all kinds of rules for behavior. — Xtrix

That’s your opinion, or truth. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because you dismiss the reality of God’s existence.

How so?

As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate. — Possibility

I think the focus on originality has its merits, because, if you’re prepared to, it does make you consider the order in which creativity and the creative act takes place, that in its genuine form creativity has to spring from something.

As I said before “The problem (with originality) was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.”

What the unconscious mind first produces is probably monstrous in the sense that there is no control over it. Like in dreams, no rational control over images or meaning and impossible to transmit in that form. The Surrealists tried but it just became another technique to imitate the unconscious mind. And like I said people tried it with automatic drawing and cut-ups. But people don’t address the world that way. They like things to gave some comprehensible order, maybe Noble Dust’s “ correct assumptions”.

But that original form was there, it has to be. Creativity is the ability, that varies in degrees of success, to wrestle or manipulate that original form into some shape others can comprehend without completely separating it from its origins. That might be regarded as an interpretation, only because there’s no other way of expressing what happens. But it’s an interpretation of something original.

Edit: so not all art is creative.

My provisional definition of creative is: non-logical ways of arriving at correct assumptions. — Noble Dust

What would you mean by “correct assumptions”?

Bert, you are not understanding schizophrenia. — Athena

In what way do you think I don’t understand schizophrenia?

We should not assume the schizophrenic is working with good information. I argue with myself all the time and I think that is normal, especially when we receive conflicting information or we have one day off and a list of things we want to do and a list of things we should do, or we see that yummy chocolate cake and know we shouldn't eat it. But for a schizophrenic, the information they are working with can not always be tied to reality and their condition may isolate them adding social rejection to their problems. — Athena

Isn’t this pretty much what my post said?

So, I infer that a quantum measurement is an extraction of Information (knowledge, meaning) from the target. And, just as Energy adds Information to something, Measurement (inference) subtracts Information. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting then that Measuement/ inference is a human action and so has an affect on the physical world?

In physics, both positive & negative actions cause a change of some kind in the target acted-upon. And the causation can be imagined as an exchange of causal Information.

If this causal relationship between Mind & Matter is true, then the mind does have the power of causal agency in the physical world. — Gnomon

But matter is something we feel, touch, smell, taste with our material senses. The same problem seeps into the problem of nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one. — magritte

Do you mean they are onto something or trying to make the impossible happen?

In 1958 we stopped transmitting the culture that we had put in place for a highly moral society that can enjoy liberty without authority above the people and without social problems, and we left moral training to the church. This was a huge mistake! — Athena

I’m not sure what you mean by this. The culture that you believe we stopped transmitting from 1958 was what, I presume, created the culture you valued up to that point. From then on it was corrupted by the church and it’s morals. Are you referring to the United States or countries in general?

It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere. — Darkneos

You may not like what @Darkneos is saying but I think it needs to be considered seriously. Because it raises the whole question of originality and whether it exists, or even that it might exist but we may not, as I said, like it or be able to comprehend it.

Up until the period of Post Impressionists most work, certainly all in the public sphere, was based on what we see. How that was interpreted varied from artist to artist, but all of them worked around representational objects.

At some point around Post Impressionism the artist began to play around with ideas of personal perception. Artists began working around what they were thinking, not only what they were seeing. Abstract art moved completely away from representation. Conceptual art became all about the idea.

The more art moved in this direction the more people looked away from art. Jackson Pollock supposedly went in a kind of trance when painting. It seemed to be about releasing something he felt or experienced onto the canvas with as little as possible coming between the two. He was largely scorned by the public.

So are the Jackson Pollock paintings original? What earlier references do you think might exist that you could attach them?

God is a concept and a word, and a poorly defined one at that. — Xtrix

Maybe so, but not to the millions of believers. As far as they’re concerned you’re the one with the problem.

You happened to be raised in a tradition that takes that word seriously. It grows out of the same human mind that creates all kinds of rules for behavior. — Xtrix

This is merely your opinion of something you don’t believe exists. Your reducing that belief in the existence in God to some sort of human behavioural attitude so as to reduce its potential of existing and being responsible for the creation of that mind.

It makes no difference what you believe unless you’re refusing the right of others to believe.

Data? What is proper data?
— Brett

Maybe some definitions would help. As Tim said, what exactly is a god. What is a truth as you use the word here. — Sir2u

See my post to Tim Wood.

That’s not what I said. Reread my first post.
— Brett

OK, here it is.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with?
— Brett

I did read it again and it says just what I stated. The truths about god have to be replaced by something. The problem is you have not specified those truths yet either. — Sir2u

No, what it does not say is that a truth has to replace God. I do not say anything has to replace God. I ask what atheists replace the idea that God is the truth with.

A few things to get out of the way first.

Now, you have supposed me an atheist. I asked on what basis. — tim wood

Because you had responded to the OP which was addressed to atheists. Though it doesn’t matter to me except to know where you were coming from in your response.

I asked you what god is, so that we could proceed. And you answer what some people believe and suppose. — tim wood

I personally have no position on God except that I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What I am talking about in my question is about people who believe and people who don’t. Even if I did believe and gave you my definition you would not accept it, which I understand. So I gave you a fairly reasonable idea of how God is perceived from a reasonable source.

I am not trying to make a statement about belief into a statement of fact because I have never made the statement that God exists. What I have being referring to is the idea that others believe in God’s existence.

And apparently - I'm guessing - you wish to make some point about truth. But I am pretty sure you have no idea what truth is. — tim wood

You’re right. I absolutely have no idea of what truth is. Which brings me back to the point of my OP.

If someone was raised a Christian and then at some point repudiated everything they had thought about God, which was, far as they were concerned, the truth, then what did they replace that repudiated truth with? Maybe the answer is nothing. But I can’t quite believe that would be the case.

To me if you had believed something was the truth and then found a reason to repudiate it then that would be a new truth. What is there about the new truth that is more true than the first truth? It seems to me that by repudiating a belief in a deity you are now operating on reason that is used to demolish the first truth. So my question was, what is the capital T truth they have found to replace it and why are they so convinced of that truth?

Okay I think I take your meaning. “God exists” is either true or false.

However I’m not saying that. I’m talking about a belief in God, not an argument whether God exists or not.

We can see historically and without question that in the US there has been little interest in philosophy except for a handful of elite youths who could go to college. — Athena

Can you clarify who these people might be?

What does music imitate? — Noble Dust

Oooo, I think you’ve been saving that one.

do you not think that it is fair to say that we all have splits in reason and lack of it? — Jack Cummins

Obviously otherwise you wouldn’t have posted those comments about schizophrenia and my thoughts.

How, then, are mistakes possible? — khaled

Well the Big T is not the theory of everything. It’s not a code to every question. The Big T may not be nice to look at. It could put fear into people, it could prompt them to act irrationally, even against their own interests. There’s a feeling that until we find the Big T we’ll continue to make mistakes. That when we do find the Big T we’ll be able create a perfect world.

The reason I am getting a bit heated over the matter is because I have worked with people diagnosed with this mental health problem and see it as a sensitive issue. — Jack Cummins

You probably do see it as a sensitive issue. Who doesn’t? But what does that have to do with my post?

so schizophrenia has no bearing on the matter and did not need to be mentioned at all. — Jack Cummins

So even though you said you misinterpreted me you’re back to correcting me. You’ll have to make up your mind.

Perhaps you might just read my post a bit more carefully.

I am sorry if you think that I misinterpreted you. — Jack Cummins

You didn’t misinterpret me. You decided I needed correcting.

A couple of posts above, you brought in the term schizophrenia,for no apparent reason in the middle of an argument about irrationality. It just seemed a bit out of context and incongruous. There might be people on this forum who have been given this diagnosis. I am not implying that you do not understand the meaning of the term, but I still want to emphasise that the word, schizophrenia, should not be misused, in a colloquial sense, to imply a split personality. — Jack Cummins

First of all you are implying that I don’t understand the term.

Second, I did not mention it for no apparent reason, nor was it out of context and incongruous.

Third, I’d like you to quote me where I said or used it colloquially to mean a split personality.

Is it possible to imagine oblivion? Imagine non-existence? — TiredThinker

Do you mean your own idea existence or everything? Only theoretically I imagine. And that’s still not the thing.

But we’re not talking about facts.
— Brett

Yes you are.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with?
— Brett

Information that is valid, or truthful is called a fact. — Sir2u

Fine, then if you insist we’ll call belief a fact, but I don’t think that’s going to work for you.

What is god? That's the question. — tim wood

“ Most theists agree that God is (in Ramanuja's words) the “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. But classical Christian theists have also ascribed four “metaphysical attributes” to God—simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility. The doctrine of simplicity states that each of God's real or intrinsic properties is identical with his other real or intrinsic properties, and with his being or nature. God's knowledge is identical with his power, for example, and both are identical with his being. Just as “Thomas Jefferson” and “the third president of the United States” have different meanings but refer to the same person, so “the knowledge of God” and “the power of God,” although differing in meaning, refer to the same reality, namely, the infinitely perfect divine life or activity.

Many classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. God isn't an abstract object, of course, but an infinitely perfect life or activity. One shouldn't think of this life and activity as being in time, however—not even as everlasting. Thus God timelessly knows and wills that conscious life will emerge on earth after certain events and before others. But while temporality is a property of what God knows and wills, it isn't a property of God's act of knowledge or will. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not.

God is also believed to be immutable. Something is immutable if its real properties can't change. Immutability follows from God's simplicity. An object undergoes real change when it loses one real property and/or acquires another. Real change thus entails that some of the object's real properties aren't identical. (If P, Q, and R are real properties, and x retains P through a change but loses Q and acquires R, then P, Q, and R are different properties.) So if God is simple, he can't undergo real change. God's immutability also follows from his timelessness since change entails a temporal transition from one state to another.

Finally, classical western theists have thought that God is impassible. God creates, sustains, and governs the world. It depends on him both for its being and for its qualities. But nothing acts on God or causally affects him. While the world is affected by God, God is not affected by it.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

If you have not been taught to believe in gods, it does not mean that you are ignorant of other people believing in their existence. — Sir2u

True, but it doesn’t make you an atheist.

But this discussion is getting boring without having the proper data necessary to continue. You said the the truths about god need to be replaced by something, so exactly which truths are you talking about? Maybe this will help to decide what could possibly replace them. — Sir2u

Data? What is proper data?

You said the the truths about god need to be replaced by something, — Sir2u

That’s not what I said. Reread my first post.

I was an atheist from 10 years old — Jmd123

How did this come about at age 10?

You cannot judge it as irrational relative to the conventional logic, because the conventional logic might really be the one that's off the rails. Therefore we must assume something else, God's logic or something like that, and say that it could be judged relative to God's logic, which would validate the conclusion that the person's logic might be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

In a way this, “God’s logic or something like that”, relates to my OP on “God and truth”.

If someone believed in the existence of God then they had a Truth to their life. Otherwise why would you believe it? If and when someone begins to doubt the existence of God and eventually repudiates that existence with what do they replace that Truth they had?

I don't think we can say that they are equal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that’s fair enough. What I meant was they have all served us over time, and each one relevant to what we understand at the time.

What is atheist?

Do you even know? — tim wood

No, I do not believe that any even half-way intelligent half-way educated person can be an atheist. Depending on just what is meant by "atheist." — tim wood

Do you even read my posts? Why are you still saying “depending on just what is meant by ‘atheist’”.

And if you’re not an atheist then the OP is not addressed to you.

There are people that are never given religious education, that would mean that they never had what you call truth. — Sir2u

Yes you’re right they would not know of those truths about God.

But you have failed to take into account that many people that are atheists never believed in any god, would that mean that they never had any truths? — Sir2u

I don’t know how they would have come to that conclusion. Would that belief be from birth? — Brett

This was in response to your post about how many people that are atheists never believed in God. If they were raised from being very young without any knowledge of God that would not make them atheists, it would just make them ignorant of the idea of God.

So it is a belief. Not all beliefs are truth. — Sir2u

I can’t see why someone would believe in something if they didn’t think it was the truth. You may not believe it’s the truth but that’s irrelevant to what they think.

How many of them would you consider to be facts. — Sir2u

But we’re not talking about facts.

I as trying to think of some way of demonstrating how religion, philosophy and science are equal to each other in addressing the world.

Imagine a soldier in the WW1. He’s trapped in a bomb crater alone. He has a gun that he defends himself with, he can kill the opposing soldiers as they approach. He feel his rifle and ammunition will save him. Night comes. The bombing continues. He begins to pray to God, he pleads, cries and begs for intervention. Morning comes. He’s alive. He hears the enemy soldiers. He thinks about and decides that surrender is better than firing. He’d rather be a prisoner than be dead.

Therefore that person who uses some idiosyncratic form of abduction, who appears to be "off the rails", might really be the one required to put us back on track. — Metaphysician Undercover

But isn’t that my point. We still have to go back on track.

Furthermore, it is possible that the reason why the person's conclusions are inconsistent with conventional conclusions is that the conventional conclusions are actually "off the rails". — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s possible. But it still seems to me that if conventional conclusions are off the rails then something has gone wrong, that being the reasoning.

I imagine it’s possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it’s based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason.