FAITH IS FANTASY AND RISKS FANTASY AND SAYS EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU NOT GOD

Feuerbach said that you can talk the religious talk but not walk the walk when it comes to an alleged god. You cannot really avoid thinking of something human for that is all you know. Thus God is just a projection. And it is a lie that God sends grace to get you around the problem. The believers would say that anyway and the evidence is not there. Believers need some excuse.  They know that the Bible says most refuse grace meaning their connection with God is not real and that is why a very religious person is not guaranteed a place in Heaven.

God could be a projection of your psyche. Nobody denies that.  Religion claims that it is able to train people to avoid that happening so that they touch and are touched by the real living and true God.  The absence of religious psychologists employed just to sort that out is telling.  Religion is simply lying. 

If you have a soul and not just a brain then perhaps some kind of spiritual projection happens too or instead?

While the Church and society are aware that one's view of others says more about the person than the others, that is a subject for psychology.  Now we have spiritual projection to make the topic more complicated and scary than it is.  Plus there is no healthcare to address a person who in their soul, which nobody can see or detect, is projecting too much.

And many suspect there is yet another thing to complicate it all.  The psychic.  While the debate about telepathy, mind over matter and clairvoyance rages, nothing paranormal has shown up under strict scientific testing with tight controls.  Believers retort that the ability kicks in when you least expect it and in the rare times it does, you know it is real.  Others say the ability is there but is not showing up in tests for it lies.  In other words, a person predicting the future may have real ability despite being as wrong as the average guesser.  They are being misled by the spirits or their own powers.  Spiritualists claim that spirits may lie to them for a higher purpose.  Such testimonies are better than ones that claim the Holy Spirit guides and inspires.  Why?  At least they are honest and do not argue that the message must be accepted unconditionally as the source is wholly truthful.

The Church has its own (and even scientifically gifted outsiders) making a huge mystery of human consciousness.  They see it as some kind of spirit or ghost almost in the machine that lifts the machine to being more than just a machine.  The human animal is elevated to something bigger than an animal.  None of that tells us if that means we should or should not put the body and spirit on the same level. And what if you have a person who claims some kind of strange experience that tells them that their body comes first and that the person who has an experience that the spirit is primary for them is valid too?  We have a case for rampant individualism here.  There is no way to answer such arguments.  If we reject the idea of spiritual souls or paranormal ghosts in machines we have no problem.

The teaching about the soul or spirit leads to a sense of not being your body or the body being your house in some way.  You may worship a God who is not part of the universe but who is like a bodiless mind to validate your discomfort.  You cannot tell the difference between having a real spirit and fantasising that you have one.  And as God is a soul too and you wouldn't even think of him as such unless you thought you had some kind of paranormal core in your physical body, the real you, it is all connected.  God would be a fantasy that arises from your fantasy about yourself.

The argument that as you cannot converse with God person to person you do not really know him so what you say about him and how you pray to him tells nobody anything about God but everything about you is an interesting one. It is more alarming when you realise that person could holiday with God for a week and still not really know him. Surely Christianity itself would agree that though you know God you only see as one peering through a darkened glass (an image from Paul the apostle) so your knowledge is incomplete meaning that a significant part of your God talk is really about what you want to think and therefore about you. It would admit that many believers in fact have the glass too dark so most of their faith is really about what they want to think and not from God, God belief can in fact be anti-God. It depends.

If God is each person's own dreams and wishes, then God is not a unifying belief.  My "God" is not going to agree with yours.  No wonder religion is so divisive and each religion is just a post-it note stuck on confusion and lies and quarrels.

If this God you believe in, is believed in for he loves sinners, then this is about you knowing you have a bad side and wanting him to love you as if it is not there. There is a narcissistic streak in a person who wants God to love them as long as God is not asking them to change right now.  Too often religion by asking for conversion means, "I will stay as I am now and convert tomorrow."  It never asks somebody to change there and then but to start a process.  The seeking of unconditional love is really a request for unconditional permission to act as I please right now.

If you are that mercenary with this, it is no wonder people who tell you that “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is too unclear to live by are right. It is too fragile to make any positive lasting impact for it is based on you wanting something for yourself and wanting your sins to count for nothing before a God. If your love for sinners is so thin, don’t be surprised when you find yourself trying to incite hatred and condemnation for them behind their backs.

If God is largely or totally a projection of yourself then you are mercenary indeed.

The failure of arguments for God to show anything important is a strong hint that believers only use them to hide something.  They use them as props for trying to make out they are not imagining God into existence.  Even if the arguments worked, it would not prove that believers care if they do.  They could still be props.

Religion tends to say that God is the reason justice is real and why love is morally laudable. 

This pressures a person to affirm there is a God otherwise the person is scoffing at justice and goodness.  It contradicts how God supposedly wants your free spontaneous love.

If you say there is no objective morality, or if there is there is no way to know it, then what?  Can you know anything at all?

Some say you still can.

They are right for if there is no such thing as oil that does not mean water does not exist.

Now if there is a God who says morality is objective and you can know it then is he a liar? If he is then we cannot know for he creates all the information around us and he cannot be trusted.

So the point is, without objective morality we can know things.  And once you assume there is a God you risk saying there is something that may be lying.  You weaken what you know.

To tell somebody who does not believe morality is more than just opinion that they cannot believe they really walked into a door there now and got a black eye is insane desperation.  It is trying to bully them into affirming objective morality and calling them insane and stupid if they do not.

Hypothetically if things exist without the input of a God, then in a big enough universe some things will look and act like they are planned. You will find a sandcastle on planet Zod maybe.  Functional complexity does not actually necessarily have to have a designer.  Curiously we are to believe that the sandcastle hints that God exists and yet when it is made to look like random forces did it we are banned from thinking God designed this to tell us not to believe in him!

Standpoint epistemology is very topical today.  "Each person knows who they are.  They know the best for themselves and nobody should tell them different.  Even if it seems to have ended in disaster and calamity who are we to judge?  The best can sometimes be a permanently painful thing.  Let them decide for it is their life not yours."

God is a different experience haver to you, a separate one.  So what happens if we say, "God knows who he is.  He knows the best for himself and nobody should tell him different.  He acts.  And for the best.  Even if it seems to have ended in disaster and calamity who are we to judge?  The best can sometimes be a permanently painful thing.  Let him decide for it is his life not yours".  This does not fit, "The best for him is also what is best for us for he loves us."

People say that humans appealing to standpoint epistemology is a recipe for stupidity and disorder and is nonsense. They point to non-binary people as an example.  They say everybody is male or female no matter what they think they know they are.

Well standpoint epistemology if controversial for humans definitely pertains to a God.

The failure of the existence of God to appear as plausible and coherent shows that God is really a fantasy.  He is the creation of human minds.  God-talk is human-talk that won't see or admit that it is human-talk.

Objection:

“People are born into a religious culture and conditioned by it so their faith and their God is not necessarily a projection of their psyche – not necessarily a way of dealing with your needs meaning it is about you and not God as such”.

Answer:

You can be conditioned to suffer from this projection. And it can be part-conditioning and part-projecting.

Objection:

“People have a kinder view of God than the pathological monster endorsed by their Bibles and even by Jesus. They are not projecting.”

Answer:

What? Saying you follow the Bible when you have a soft-hearted God is clear evidence that you are indeed projecting. Your projection happens to be an avuncular God and Jesus’ happened to e a more toxic one. The problem is the lie that is behind projecting. Neither you or Jesus have anything to feel righteous about in that respect. Person’s change over time so your kindly God is nothing to crow about for it may be explicitly toxic next year.

No Copyright