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. — tim wood

Thanks for the effort there.

This is essentially what I’m trying to get at. What has the atheist exchanged for their belief in Gods and God’s word except another theology? But unless one is without any sense of ethics and morality then they are essentially still believing in the same thing they did previously except there is no cause.

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. — Brett

I believe I attempted to answer that question, but to sum it up succinctly, believers are under the impression that there is a greater power. Atheists don't believe there is a greater power. Morality and purpose is given to a believer, while morality and purpose have to be determined by an atheist. Is there something else beyond this you are curious about?

But unless one is without any sense of ethics and morality then they are essentially still believing in the same thing they did previously except there is no cause. — Brett

And here is a problem that is answered here:

Morality and purpose is given to a believer, while morality and purpose have to be determined by an atheist. — Philosophim

It appears you hold morality (here taken as identical with ethics) as an emanation from a theology. But where do you suppose theology, of any stripe, comes from? And why, on what basis, do you claim that morality has no other cause?

That there has been a connection made by some people between morality and theology is not contested, but given what history tells us of the outfalls of some, many, of those connections, any claim to a necessity of such connection may be, must be, is, dismissible on its face. And here we can extend Philosophim's point: morality, whatever advises it, must still be determined by theist and a-theist alike. Corollary: absent that ownership it is not any sort of morality at all.

@Brett And I am aware of again failing to answer your first question: what replaces belief in God? Reason and reality.

I wasn't, I am, and soon enough I again won't be. While being, I'm constrained by the combined possibilities of reason and reality and what I can make of them. Admittedly there is a bootstrapped quality to it all that is hard either to accept or endure, but still it is to be embraced, else one's whole being is based in and committed to unreal, unreasonable non-sense. And lots of people do forage in nonsense. Nor, it must be admitted, is nonsense altogether absent reason. But in these is nonsense seductive and deceptive. So you get to choose your way, whichever way the outcome the same. What seems best to you?

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. — tim wood

Who let the dogs out? Not only do I have no idea, I am reconciled to the fact that I will live out the rest of my life and die without ever knowing who let the dogs out. I simply add that to the list of absurd nonsensical questions that people post on the forum

I acknowledge that I will never understand life's mysteries. Are you saying that my acknowledgment of my limitations is a "theology"?

I am referring to a God that believers believe in. — Brett

What do you care what they say they believe in? Do you care what Hindus believe in? One calls this amorphous thing "God," the other calls it "Brahman," etc. Who knows what they mean by these terms?

That can be any God. — Brett

It can be any THING at all. So you're essentially saying "it can be any X." Some mean they believe in "love" or "nature" or the "unknowable"...and on and on. So what? Until we know what we're talking about, how can we possibly talk about it in any meaningful way? Maybe we believe, maybe we don't. Maybe we want to "replace" it with something, maybe we don't.

Again, this isn't even a coherent question. It's just a dead end.

I acknowledge that I will never understand life's mysteries. Are you saying that my acknowledgment of my limitations is a "theology"? — EricH

To the extent it grounds anything, yup.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but that sort of expands the definition of the word beyond all recognition. I did a quick search and I'm not seeing any dictionary definition that even remotely resembles my thinking.

If you think theology is well-defined, can you find that definition and reference it here? Just note that if it is just "belief in God" or anything like, I'll be asking what God is. My point being that theology is too abstract to be of practical use. Perhaps like "axe" or "hammer." To be of practical, real, use, the tool must be specified. And axes and hammers can be specified. But the details of any theology cannot be. And in this way, "theology" is more like "truth," which in itself is nothing, but refers collectively and non-particularly to that which in each case is true.

And from this it follows that any real theology in virtue of its realness is real for an individual. Which also makes each real theology unique, because while theologies can share some abstract concepts, all are as different as the individual that holds it - as any encounter with the members of any church will confirm. And as indeed the bloody histories of most religions attest.

So we might say there is no such thing as truth until and unless some true thing is encountered, so with theology: no such thing except in the mind of one who has one, and then only as he or she has it.

Morality and purpose is given to a believer, while morality and purpose have to be determined by an atheist. Is there something else beyond this you are curious about? — Philosophim

Yes. It seems to me that the morality and purpose given to a believer and the morality and purpose that has to be determined by an atheist are the same. The atheist who believes in God lived by a set of morals they received through teachings or family or church. Then for some reason they rejected the existence of God. Now I don’t know what it is to believe in God, but I assume your idea of purpose and morality is essentially what a Christian God is all about. So they reject everything about God, existence and teachings. Total rejection, annihilation.
Then they seek and determine their own purpose and morals through their own efforts. And what they find, it seems to me, is exactly the same thing, but they believe they found this through their own independent efforts. Maybe it’s true that they have.

Presumably there are no atheists on this forum. But I’m curious to know what they feel they’ve achieved in rejecting God and forming their own sense of morality which turns out to be not much different than what they already had. This includes choosing to commit crimes, choosing to go against social mores, or whatever. They were always free to do that anyway.

Edit: so why choose atheism?

Again I challenge you: make clear the connection between God and morality. You presuppose it - nothing wrong with that in your church. But we're not in your church and that move for present purpose is illegitimate.

If your claim is merely that some people get their ethics from some exposure to religion, so what? If they subsequently reject the religion, that does not mean they reject the ethics.

I'll go further and challenge you to show that any system of morality/ethics comes from any religion. Rules aplenty, some good, some atrocious. But such rules are not what such systems are, whether as advisory or not. To be ethical/moral requires individual ownership, and that religions don't allow.

Theirs is their way or the highway. The moral/ethical way is the instead the right way, as determined - and owned - by collective individuality.

Your question might then be more correctly expressed as, "How does an adult caught in so-called theological nets cut free to become a moral/ethical person?" .

Again I challenge you: make clear the connection between God and morality. You presuppose it - nothing wrong with that in your church. But we're not in your church and that move for present purpose is illegitimate. — tim wood

First of all I’m not a member of any church and my ideas of God in this discussion are what others propose or live by.

As far as connection of morality and God I’m again going by the ethics they practice or claim to live by. And in referring to those ethics I suppose I’m using those referred to in the teachings of Jesus.
— tim wood

I'll go further and challenge you to show that any system of morality/ethics comes from any religion. — tim wood

Do you really think there’s no connection between a system of morality and any religion? I know there are the rules but there’s more than that.

"How does an adult caught in so-called theological nets cut free to become a moral/ethical person?" .

This suggests they were not a moral/ethical person when they believed in God.

I feel there is, on this forum, a real inability to discuss God, or a refusal to consider any post that mentions God and instead we get this rabid, bullying tone, for what purpose I have no idea.

One of the quotes over my name is not mine.

This suggests they were not a moral/ethical person when they believed in God. — Brett

They may have been. The example of the Nuremberg trials may be illuminating, here. The defendants claimed they were doing what they were instructed to do, following the tenets of their "religion." The prosecution justly argued that was not a defense, that they were severally responsible for their own actions: they were, then, to be held to account as if they were morally responsible.

Belief in God does not preclude the possibility of a person's being a moral agent, rather it is independent. At best - at best - the relationship of belief in God to moral agency is that of flour and eggs to cake. Not enough in themselves to make a cake, nor even necessary, but merely possible ingredients.

As to your church and your beliefs, it is your presuppositions that I characterize, and they are on display here.

a real inability to discuss God, — Brett

All willing. I have noted that to start we need someone - that would be you - to provide some ground, and lacking which there is no sense to be got. Still waiting. You wish to discuss God? What do you say God is?

If you think theology is well-defined, can you find that definition and reference it here? — tim wood

Of course there is no single precise definition of the word, but there is universal agreement that it has to do with the religion / God / etc.

From WIkipedia: "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. "

From Britannica: "Theology, philosophically oriented discipline of religious speculation and apologetics that is traditionally restricted, because of its origins and format, to Christianity but that may also encompass, because of its themes, other religions, including especially Islam and Judaism. The themes of theology include God, humanity, the world, salvation, and eschatology (the study of last times)."

I could go on and on. Search the phrase "definition of theology" and you get 2,200,000 hits.

None of the standard definitions remotely fits my thinking.

- - - - - - - -

This exchange reminds me of conversations I had with the now banned Frank Apisa - he had his own, umm, unique definition of the word "God" - which resulted in pointless looping back & forth debates.

But look. If expanding the definition of the word "theology" to include the position that the whole subject is incoherent - if that rocks your boat? Then go for it. If you could get all the theologians (or people who consider themselves to be theologians) to buy into your definition? That would be a most impressive achievement.

Theology is the systematic study — EricH

Sure, but then talking about theology is talking about systematic studies. Do you begin to see the problem? If by God you mean what some people believe, then talking about God is just talking about what some people believe. But you cannot even do that unless someone will make clear what they believe. "Well," they say, "I believe in God!" Great, but that does not say anything about what you believe, only that you believe.

As to the incoherence of "theology," not at all. I offered above a good concrete definition. Did you see it? If your personal belief system is of anything at all, and includes your perplexity about certain mysteries, then those mysteries and your perplexity are a part of your personal theology, which is as definite and concrete as you care to make it - and certainly a lot more definite than what unspecified other people might be thinking.

And lacking that groundedness or any groundedness, talking about God or theology is just like talking about truth: in both cases there is no such thing. And there's your incoherence.

For example, do you believe God made the universe and everything in it? Either way is a problem.

And all of this must be distinguished from presupposing God - or whatever passes in your understanding for God - because believing in and presupposing are just plain two different animals.

So what would you like to discuss, if anything? .

What do you care what they say they believe in? Do you care what Hindus believe in? One calls this amorphous thing "God," the other calls it "Brahman," etc. Who knows what they mean by these terms? — Xtrix

I find it highly unlikely that you don’t know what they mean by those terms. You might not understand it but you know what they mean. If you think the Stanford reference is not good enough then say so.

As to your church and your beliefs, it is your presuppositions that I characterize, and they are on display here. — tim wood

Quote me instances of my apparent beliefs about God.

I have noted that to start we need someone - that would be you - to provide some ground, and lacking which there is no sense to be got. Still waiting. You wish to discuss God? What do you say God is? — tim wood

Why can’t I discuss God without believing in God? And once again how can I define something I don’t believe in? I’ve given an example of the general idea of God from a Stanford website. If I did give a definition you would then refute it as subjective.

If by God you mean what some people believe, then talking about God is just talking about what some people believe. But you cannot even do that unless someone will make clear what they believe. "Well," they say, "I believe in God!" Great, but that does not say anything about what you believe, only that you believe. — tim wood

Of course it says something about what they believe.

And lacking that groundedness or any groundedness, talking about God or theology is just like talking about truth: in both cases there is no such thing. And there's your incoherence. — tim wood

So then you’re an atheist?

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 haven't replaced them with anything. I was born an atheist like everyone else. There was nothing to replace.

I was born an atheist like everyone else. — Kenosha Kid

That’s interesting. What does it mean: that you didn’t know there was a God or you repudiated God’s existence at an early age?

It also suggests that one can only think of God and God’s existence if they have been taught it.

What does it mean: that you didn’t know there was a God or you repudiated God’s existence at an early age? — Brett

It means that I had no notion of

God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions — Brett

to replace with something else. Same as everybody.

I don’t think you can be born an atheist. An atheist is someone who repudiates the existence of God. I don’t know why or how you could repudiate the existence of something you’re unaware of. Simply been unaware of the idea of God doesn’t make you an atheist.

I don’t think you can be born an atheist. An atheist is someone who repudiates the existence of God. — Brett

That's called strong atheism. There is also weak atheism, atheism by default if you like.

It’s an interesting theory but it doesn’t contribute much towards my equity. When you realised there was some idea out there about God how did you respond?

Really, being ignorant of something is a long way from repudiating something.

Yes. It seems to me that the morality and purpose given to a believer and the morality and purpose that has to be determined by an atheist are the same. — Brett

I assume your idea of purpose and morality is essentially what a Christian God is all about. — Brett

No, it sounds like you've never been part of a religion before. I do not believe I have to keep holy on the sabbath day. I do not believe in condemning people who are gay. I do not believe in spreading the gospel of Jesus. I do not believe the Israelites are God's chosen. I do not believe that there is life after death.

There are also far more religions than Christianity. If I were a Muslim, I would not need to keep the pillars anymore. I would not need to visit Mecah. I would not believe that Mahamud is the prophet.

Remember how I stated religion tells you what morality is, while atheism means you have to determine it yourself? There are many conclusions that are drawn differently. I even noted that some atheists conclude there is no morality, and believe there is no purpose in life.

Does this clarify the difference?

When you realised there was some idea out there about God how did you respond? — Brett

My family had a sort of weird religious background. No one was devout. My maternal grandmother was raised an Irish Catholic, my grandfather a Protestant. My grandfather decided to switch to Mormonism at some point and wanted to move to Utah, most likely for the polygamy :rofl: My school was very non-denominational Christian. We prayed every day, sang hymns, etc. We were taught that God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test us.

Despite this, or perhaps because of its inconsistency, I never thought of it as anything different from Aesop's fables, HCA's fairy tales, or my Superman comics. I recall the local Mormon Elders asking me if I said my prayers, to which I said yes because I said them at school.

The first time I realised anyone took it at all seriously was when I was 11 and my class was being visited by prefects from "the big school". My best friend asked me to say, if asked, that he wasn't religious. I asked what the fuck he was talking about and he told me that he believed in God. That blew my mind. It's something I've never really got my head around since. I get the tradition and mythology and ceremony and community aspects, but to actually believe in it as fact has never made any sense to me, sometimes to the extent that I suspect you're all lying :rofl:

Really, being ignorant of something is a long way from repudiating something. — Brett

You didn't ask me about repudiation. You asked a question based on the false assumption that everyone has had, at some point, some belief in God that they have had to replace with another belief.

Quote me instances of my apparent beliefs about God. — Brett

Presuppose. You appear to presuppose that moral agency results from having a belief in God. Let us discard "belief" and "God" as undefined and possibly undefinable terms - if you disagree, then define 'em. We're left with your presupposition that moral agency results from and only from some specific experiences and beliefs. I ask you merely to make clear the necessity of that connection.

What is the difference between presuppositions and beliefs? Beliefs you build with; presuppositions you build on. One is mutable, the other foundational.

I find it highly unlikely that you don’t know what they mean by those terms. — Brett

I have no idea, and neither do you. Who's "they"? Christians? Which ones? Protestants? Catholics? Which denomination? Maybe it's "god" as a kind of sky father -- fine, let's go with that one as a kind of "average." What about it? What reason is there to believe in it? What reason is there to believe in Wodin?

Who cares?