What’s a true opinion?
— Brett

A true belief. — Banno

Okay. I agree there. Is that the same for believers in God’s existence?

I don't see this going anywhere.

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. — Brett

If you read it very carefully asked what truths about god have to be replaced, not what should replace god.

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

It’s possible there’s something very wrong with my post. But as yet I can’t see it.

I don’t think that I’m referring to “truths” about God, whatever that means. I’m referring to the idea of believers that God exists, something that is true to them. Can we at least look at the sentence by itself to start? Is that a truth to believers?

It’s possible there’s something very wrong with my post. But as yet I can’t see it. — Brett

That is an understatement.

I don’t think that I’m referring to “truths” about God, whatever that means. I’m referring to the idea of believers that God exists, something that is true to them. — Brett

That is why I asked for more information about what you were actually talking about, because I don't know what you think.

Both atheists, those that do not believe a god exists, and theists, those that believe on does exist, have their opinion about it. They might consider it to be true but neither has any proof to back up their opinion. The main difference between atheists and theists is that there are so many "one true gods" that it is impossible for them to all be true whereas the atheists have only one true concept.

I don’t think that I’m referring to “truths” about God, whatever that means. I’m referring to the idea of believers that God exists, something that is true to them.
— Brett

That is why I asked for more information about what you were actually talking about, because I don't know what you think. — Sir2u

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers.

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers. — Brett

So the answer is yes, for them it is true that a god exists. But for me it is true that he doesn't. Go figure.

whereas the atheists have only one true concept. — Sir2u

Which is that God doesn’t exist. Is that the sum total of what has replaced that original belief in God’s existence? What else do they think as a result of repudiating that belief?

But for me it is true that he doesn't. — Sir2u

So I’m talking to an atheist here?

Both atheists, those that do not believe a god exists, and theists, those that believe on does exist, have their opinion about it. They might consider it to be true but neither has any proof to back up their opinion. — Sir2u

Which is part of my point. As an atheist you have no proof that God does not exist. So why do you believe that to be true?

Which is that God doesn’t exist. — Brett

Anything that is referred to as a god does not exist, I am not going to worry about which one.

Is that the sum total of what has replaced that original belief in God’s existence? — Brett

If there is no original belief in a god then nothing has to be replaced, not all atheist are converts to atheism.

What else do they think as a result of repudiating that belief? — Brett

They don't think anything because they have not repudiated anything. Have lost nothing means that nothing to replace.

So I’m talking to an atheist here? — Brett

Does it make any difference? From what I remember you asked us specifically for responses.

Which is part of my point. As an atheist you have no proof that God does not exist. So why do you believe that to be true? — Brett

After you tell me why you believe there is one. It should be easier for you to prove the existence of something existent that for me to prove the non-existence of something.



You might make more sense if you learn to read a whole post before responding to anything instead of doing it bit by bit. It is also bloody annoying having to read so many posts made in reply to one post of mine.

After you tell me why you believe there is one. It should be easier for you to prove the existence of something existent that for me to prove the non-existence of something. — Sir2u

If you read my posts you’d have seen that I neither believe or disbelieve.

If you read my posts you’d have seen that I neither believe or disbelieve. — Brett

So I'm talking to an agnostic here then?

What did you replace the truths about the existence of god with then?

If there is no original belief in a god then nothing has to be replaced, not all atheist are converts to atheism. — Sir2u

This is something I’d like to know. Those atheists who feel they’ve been aetheists for as long as they can remember, I.e. they did not need to repudiate God, did they, sometime, decide that the idea that God exists is false, or do they just not care? How did they establish that something doesn’t exist that they never believed existed in the first place. Or are they just saying believers don’t know enough to say God exists?

So I'm talking to an agnostic here then?

What did you replace the truths about the existence of god with then? — Sir2u

What? How could I replace something I never thought existed?

What? How could I replace something I never thought existed? — Brett

Which is what I have been saying, I never thought it existed either so there is nothing to replace.

Most atheist don't think gods exist either.

Which brings us to the end of another pointless non discussion on god.

And please learn to post properly before starting more threads, explain exactly what you are talking about and give the definitions and info needed for people to be able to reply properly.

Which is what I have been saying, I never thought it existed either so there is nothing to replace. — Sir2u

Fine, then you’re not a believer who repudiated God, so my question doesn’t apply to you.

And please learn to post properly before starting more threads, explain exactly what you are talking about and give the definitions and info needed for people to be able to reply properly. — Sir2u

Really? Someone on a philosophy forum needs a definition for atheist?

Which is part of my point. As an atheist you have no proof that God does not exist. So why do you believe that to be true? — Brett

You might have missed this.

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

This is an oddly worded sentence. There is the assumption of replacement. So I am going to make a few assumptions here. Usually belief in God entails

1. Purpose and
2. Morality

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God? Or is there something different you would like to add?

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God? — Philosophim

Yes.

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God?
— Philosophim

Yes. — Brett

A fantastic question then. Some atheists don't understand why people stay religious, even though "rationality" reveals the lack of evidence for the truth of the religious tenants. I do not view people who hold religion as lacking rationality, as many are good people who want to hold onto morals and a purpose in life. Good people will often hold onto morals and purpose in life, even if there are some underlying rational questions they have not answered.

And on the flip side, I hope you don't view atheists as "rational" but bad people who reject purpose and morality. The reason I started philosophy many years ago was to answer the questions of God, knowledge, and morality. Why are we here? What's it all for?

My conclusion after all these years is that we are a part of the existence all around us. Instead of a void, there are things. Life and non life are all jumbled together into this beautiful set of physical and chemical interactions that make something, over there being nothing.

We are parts of existence that have gained the gift or curse of realizing what we are. Of getting to see reality in a way beyond ourselves. Of being able to imagine a reality of what the world can be, and shape it. In this journey, you either come to appreciate it and love it, or resent it and reject it. The path to heaven or hell. Some people resent other existence. Try to tear it down if its beautiful. Some resent themselves. Some hate it all. They have seen the world, they see it as an abyss, and wish all of it would end.

Others, like myself, see the beauty of it all. We are amazed by the complexity. We love seeing other people live out their passions and dreams. We love the struggle of being able to live out our own passions and dreams. We go along our way, understanding we're all in this existence together, working, laughing, dreaming, and one day dying. So we make the best of the time we have. We help others have an easier and happier day. We do pursue our own dreams, but we try to elevate others along the way, not crush them.

When there is a God, you realize you have a choice. But your purpose is made for you, and you are set to follow that, or reject that. When there is no God, you realize you have a choice. But you make your own purpose. You are truly free, and you realize the ramifications of what you do are immediate, and not in the future. If I make fun of of a person I don't like so that they feel hurt, there will be no consequence in the afterlife. No reward or punishment. I will have to live with the fact I made another human being like me suffer for my own selfishness. Do I want to live like that? No.

The consequences of life become clear. There is no reward or punishment waiting on the other side. But was that why you wanted to be a moral person originally? Or did you want to be a moral person because it was right? That it made the world a better place? So instead of paving the way for the afterlife, you pave the way for today and tomorrow. Suffering needs to be ended now, as there may not be a later. There is no God who will come along and save people, so you need to do it yourself. It puts moral decisions in very real and stark terms. You understand there is a time limit, so you get things done.

Can a religious person arrive at these conclusions and do these things too? Yes. Some people cannot live in a positive way without the idea of a God or afterlife existing. They need a structure, and people telling them what to do. There is no shame in this, as we are a social race that also craves unity, family, and belongingness. Some people live their life better with atheism, but I also believe some people live their life better with religion.

So in the end, if you do not have the existence of another being dictating your purpose, then you dictate your own purpose. You obtain pure freedom, and the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. I hope that answers your question.

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. — Brett

Right -- and "God" hasn't been explained yet. So you might as well be saying I am denying X. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not -- we can't know until you tell us what X is. You're talking as if X is the most well understood entity in the world -- it isn't. Which is what I've said from the beginning.

All this proves is that you've grown up believing in a word you don't understand. If you want to explain what it is, then do so -- otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. If God is nature, I believe in it. If God is love, I believe in it. If God is a supernatural humanoid sky father, I see no evidence to believe in that. If God is anything we can't understand, then I believe in that too. Etc. etc.

Hindus really believe in Brahman and Shiva. Are these truths to you, or do they have no validity? If not, what have you replaced them with?

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers. — Brett

The Easter bunny exists for some believers. Ectoplasm exists for some believers. Who cares? The only reason you're asking this question is because we happen to be living in the Christian West, which takes the word "God" seriously, as if it's something everyone knows. I'm sure Hindus ask the same thing about non-believers in Hinduism.

This is a dead end.

Really? Someone on a philosophy forum needs a definition for atheist? — Brett

No, I think I corrected you on the incorrect definition you were using. What I meant was the definition of truth that you were using incorrectly, as others also pointed out.

And do try to put all of your answers in one post, you do not earn extra points for all of the unnecessary post. You just look childish trying to up the number of posts you have next to your name.

This is a dead end. — Xtrix

I agree. I am out of here too.

What I meant was the definition of truth that you were using incorrectly, as others also pointed out. — Sir2u

If I’ve given a definition of truth on this OP then I’d be happy to see it.

If I’ve given a definition of truth on this OP then I’d be happy to see it. — Brett

You did not give a definition of how your were using the word, that is exactly what I and others have said. Jeez, do not bother answering. :shade:

You need to give me the definition of truth I was using incorrectly. Actually in using the word “truth” I was talking about how others use it. I can’t define that, only that they believe, for instance, that God is a truth. I can’t take responsibility for their usage or explain it. I’ve never referred to my idea of truth so I’m unable to define it correctly.

Edit: maybe it’s unclear but my posts are really asking what is truth?

All this proves is that you've grown up believing in a word you don't understand. If you want to explain what it is, then do so -- otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. — Xtrix

I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I am not defining God, I am not saying I believe in God. I am referring to a God that believers believe in. That can be any God. I gave some idea of this perception of God with a Stanford reference. What else can I do if I don’t believe myself? So I haven’t grown up believing in a word I don’t understand, because I don’t believe.

Edit: that should be “I don’t know” if God exists.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I’m assuming there are many ways of living within an idea of God. Protestants seem to believe we are permanently damned in this life because of original sin. So we have no free will. Catholics believe that Baptism frees one from that sin and so despite believing in God they have free will.

I have no reason to believe the morality of a believer is any different from an atheist. I think we are ethical creatures. Whether we believe in a God or not we still seem to find value in unity, family and belongingness. It may be because of God or it may be that those qualities contributed towards our success at survival in evolutionary terms. It doesn’t really matter, the results are the same.

We have free will whether we believe in God or not (The Protestant story aside) and we live with the consequences. And we seem to do more right than wrong. No side can be blamed more than the other for the calamities we find ourselves facing.

It seems to me we are the same people whether a believer or not.

So going back to my question, what exactly is it that atheists have chosen over being a believer? It seems to me the “truths” they believe in are the same as the believers.