While the premise is admirable, the answer is pretty simple. The truths and/or morals we create and appreciate ourselves. Or perhaps even the inherent biological "compass" we have as to what is good, pleasurable, and well as opposed to what is bad, painful, and terrible as we all are capable of experiencing.

The truths and/or morals we create and appreciate ourselves. — Outlander

What would you call these truths? The evolution of morals I appreciate. But am I right that you regard the truths as those things that are inherent, like “good”, pleasurable, bad, even terrible. And is this truth down to what we experience?

Edit: because wouldn’t a truth have to be applicable to everyone and understood?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I’m assuming your’re an atheist. .

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Well are you or aren’t you?

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

Why would one have to replace anything?
Why would it be necessary to replace something that you never had?

Over time more and more people have come to believe and insist that God does not exist. Some people have grown up with idea of God’s existence then repudiated, for whatever reasons, that possibility. With that denial goes all previously accepted ideas of truth about the universe, themselves, morality and life and death, among many other beliefs.

It’s hardly likely, though maybe possible, for those people to then exist in a vacuum. So what instead have they filled that vacuum with?

Over time more and more people have come to believe and insist that God does not exist. Some people have grown up with idea of God’s existence then repudiated, for whatever reasons, that possibility. — Brett

So you mean morals and beliefs, not truths.

It’s hardly likely, though maybe possible, for those people to then exist in a vacuum. So what instead have they filled that vacuum with? — Brett

If they have stopped believing then whatever convinced them that they were wrong would be filling the space.

So you mean morals and beliefs, not truths. — Sir2u

No, I mean truths.

If they have stopped believing then whatever convinced them that they were wrong would be filling the space. — Sir2u

Then what is that?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Unanswerable because I do not understand the terms. — tim wood

I shouldn’t have to do this but if it makes it easier then fine.

“ Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

And while you're at it, what is it you imagine truth to be? — tim wood

Well for those who believe in God then God is the truth. And you help reinforce my point. What is this truth that has replaced the truth of God?

No, I mean truths.

If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, — Brett

So the preposition that god exists is true, not a belief. Does that mean that one should not believe the truth?

Then what is that? — Brett

Would that not be different for the individuals the stop believing.

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?

So the preposition that god exists is true, not a belief. — Sir2u

Yes, for believers God is a fact.

Does that mean that one should not believe the truth? — Sir2u

I don’t see why they would do that. Maybe I’ve misunderstood.

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?

Yes, for believers God is a fact. — Brett

So it is a belief. Not all beliefs are truth. A god, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Yeti, Atlantis, easy money are some of the many things people believe to be true. How many of them would you consider to be facts. Based on the proof available for each of them I would guess that they all have the same chance to be so.

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

There are people that are never given religious education, that would mean that they never had what you call truth. Belief in god is not something that comes at birth, it is drummed into the young as they grow up. So why would anyone need to come to a conclusion, you believe what you are taught to believe until something changes the way you think.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, I’m new here. This is a very personal subject to me. I was an atheist from 10 years old until 30 years old. I believed in science, chaos theory, and the meaningless of existence. I believed in morality as innate and intrinsic. Ultimately, this belief led to the loss of my own moral compass and a descent into hell. I now could be classified as the most Nihilistic Christian you will have the opportunity to meet, but I believe in God and I believe in the devil. It’s been 8 years of battle, but I credit God with giving me my life back.

I was an atheist from 10 years old — Jmd123

How did this come about at age 10?

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. — Brett

Atheist - Someone who does not believe in the existence of a god.
Theist - Someone who believes in the existence of a 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.
You can still know about the concept of gods even if you have not been trained to believe int hem.

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.

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.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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/