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.

, true and false are properties of propositions (or statements).
And claims about gods are such propositions.
They're not replaced, they're true or false.

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.

Most theists agree — Brett

But classical Christian theists have also ascribed — Brett

Many classical western theists have also thought — Brett

God is also believed to be — Brett

Finally, classical western theists have thought that God — Brett

I asked you what god is, so that we could proceed. And you answer what some people believe and suppose. I'm reminded of the fellow whose girlfriend called him, all excited because she got a new car. "What kind," he asked. "Red," she answered.

Now, you have supposed me an atheist. I asked on what basis. No answer yet. I have asked you to clarify some of the terms you use. Not yet. Further, you appear deeply confused as to what theism and atheism are. Theism is a belief in. A-theism the absence of that belief. But you then confuse this with the proposition, "God exists," cutting off the belief-in and seeming to translate what is a statement about belief-in to a statement of fact. They are two very different statements.

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. And not your fault because no one else knows either, except that you do not know that you do not know.

At the top in your OP you used a bunch of words. I asked you to define/clarify them. Until you do, not much sense will come of this, unless someone else provides it. But you asked me a direct question. I answer here: Yes, no. Understand?

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

There is a third option - namely that the sentence "God exists" has no coherent meaning and thus you cannot assign a truth value to it.

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

If Shiva and the beliefs in Shiva's existence and actions have no validity, what have you replaced it with?

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

The thing with saying there is no absolute truth is that it contradicts itself as it claims to have truth (truth being a fact, something which is in all circumstances). Now saying there is absolute truth doesn't contradict itself as far as I am aware. But where does absolute truth come from? An absolute creater, one which is the same in nature in all circumstances, being the God of the Bible?

The book takes us on a rapid tour of the intellectual battlefields of Europe over the past 300 years, sites where, according to the received version of history, the brave soldiers of progress and rationality have triumphed time and again over a rabble of reactionary God-botherers.

But these victories, according to Eagleton, were at best equivocal, and in due course they would be reversed by the cunning of history.

First there were the fabled philosophers of the Enlightenment, leading the charge against priestly infamy and angels-on-a-pin theology; but none of them could envisage a world without God, even if they preferred to worship him in the guise of reason or science. Any damage they may have done to religion was repaired by the German Idealists with their woolly notion of spirit, and by their followers the Romantics, who reinvented God as either nature or culture.

You might think that Marx made a better job of deicide, but on close examination the communist hypothesis turns out to have been a surrogate for the heavenly city. And poor old Nietzsche, for all his bluster and derring-do, ended up resurrecting Christ in the form of the Übermensch. The 20th-century modernists fell into the same trap, vainly appealing to art to plug "the gap where God has once been", and if a few freaky postmodernists have managed to break away from religion in recent years, it was at the price of a complete denial of hope and meaning, which no one else is willing to pay.

"The Almighty," Eagleton concludes, "has proved remarkably difficult to dispose of." Rumours of his death have been greatly exaggerated: he has now put himself "back on the agenda", and "the irony is hard to overstate". — The Guardian, Review of Terry Eagleton, Culture and the Death of God

More here.

Truthfully, I blame Carl Sagan. And astrology and tarot cards

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.

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.

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

It does if they do not believe in god, unless you have another use of the word that you have failed to tell us. Maybe you think it is conditional upon the rejection of god, but that is not what the word means.

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?

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.

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.

Well, that's a lot of clarity and I appreciate it!

To my way of thinking, there are and always will be unanswerable questions of fact that people will always ask. Unanswerable because they concern the ultimate why of things. Always ask because the need to ask and seek answers does not go away simply because a question is unanswerable. And always answered because being unanswerable does not prevent it from being answered when an answer is needed.

Because the answer to any unanswerable question must be essentially absurd, notwithstanding beauty or utility, that same answer cannot, will not, survive the light of reason or fact. It must remain mysterious and inaccessible. God can never be just the man behind the curtain.

But absurd answer or no, the questions remain, even for people not susceptible to nonsense. That is why imo no intelligent person can be an atheist. By that I mean that every (intelligent) person must reconcile him- or herself to the sheer fact of mystery, or if you will, death. For each individual, that substance of that reconciliation becomes a theology.

"Theology," then, becomes the name for any answer to ultimate mysteries. As such, the value in any theology lies in its essential efficacy for the person holding it, appeals to science or reason being simply failures to understand the nature of the thing. And I'm pretty sure that every good scientist who pokes around at the edges things understands this perfectly well.

A corollary of this generalization of theology is that some theologies will be abhorrent and unacceptable to any larger community in which they're practiced.

But this is theology through the lens of reason, as a matter of fact. Belief and acceptance, however, need neither. Some people believe, and that just is their matter of fact. And some accept - for their own reasons - what they know is absurd. Organized religion houses both. And it's worth the effort of trying to understand why, or how, something like Christianity (or any long-lasting faith) has endured 2,000 years, with deeper roots thousands of years older.

Against this, I reckon you might see that most discussions as to the existence or non-existence of God are merely the braying of asses trying to move a mountain. (And as to the wisdom of asses, we may note that the four-footed are smart enough to quit at some point, unlike the two-legged kind.)

This is merely your opinion of something you don’t believe exists. — Brett

I can't say if that "something" exists or not, since no one can tell us what it is.

Also, saying things like "merely your opinion" is so fatuous it's embarrassing. Here, I'll show you: that is merely your opinion that it's my opinion.

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

What this shows is a deep misunderstanding of what truth is.

How so?

Truth is a predicate that ranges across statements. "The knife is sharp" is true; it is true that London is the capital of Great Britain; and so on. The things that are true for theists are pretty well also true for atheists.

You are treating truth as something else. Hence, you misunderstand the notion.

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.

That’s your opinion, or truth. — Brett

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

So is the OP just asking for atheists opinions?

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?

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?

God is truth or real. — Brett

So is "the knife is sharp".

How do we classify this statement? — Brett

You left out:

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

You are attempting to ask how a weird use of "truth" in a particular context works in a different context - you are taking the use outside of the language game which is its home. It ceases to be useful. It becomes nonsense.

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?

As I said, not to believers. — Brett

Apply the same argument to Santa Claus. Just as fatuous.

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

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

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.

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?

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

Relevance? Can't poor old @Xtrix have true opinions?

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

No; I'm saying that the way you are using "truth" has no application outside of religious talk. And precious little in it.

Can't poor old Xtrix have true opinions? — Banno

What’s a true opinion?

I'm saying that the way you are using "truth" has no application outside of religious talk. — Banno

So is this what you disagree with? I can’t go from using the word truth in a religious context to using it outside of religion?

What’s a true opinion? — Brett

A true belief.

I can’t go from using the word truth in a religious context to using it outside of religion? — Brett

No; you cannot expect the word to be used in the same way in both contexts. Hence, your OP question is senseless.