ATHEISM IS ME OWNING ME AND LAYING DOWN MY BOUNDARIES

God belief is framed as, "God is all to me and I have nothing and am nothing without him". 

This needs to be true otherwise it is a form of twisted self-abuse and degradation.  So there is no room for compromise.

Even if you believe in God you have to lay down boundaries.  For example, if you let God lay them down for you, that is not literally correct.  You are erecting walls to keep your ways in and his out.  You are still doing it.  You are going with God's boundaries making them your own.  They remain yours. So just do the boundaries in the first place and why bring God into it?  It makes no sense and you are misleading others.

John may have all the money in the world.  If you know he will give you whatever you ask, then though what he has is not technically yours it is as good as yours. What God has is yours.  If you think there is a God when there is not, you are still intending to have what he has. You think it is potentially yours to own or enjoy.  You can own something and still not have access to it.  So owning and having are different. But having is the real reason why rot sets in and human nature gets hard.  Don't let anybody make you feel that you need God to keep a good heart.

Be clear that your talk about dependence on God is feigned humility. You are the same as a rich person.

We know that wealth makes you selfish and even if you help, you do it from a place of self-importance.  This will happen easier if you enjoy the wealth.  The person who believes they have it all and no responsibility is worse inside than the alternative.  The alternative is the person who has it all but who feels burdened by the responsibility and the knowledge that it does not really make one very happy.  The former is more arrogant and enjoying the sense of lazy entitlement.  God belief turns your mentality into that of the rich.

The religious view that God alone matters can be paraphrased as saying that he is to be loved totally.  So you must not bypass the creator to love what he has made instead of him.  The implication is that the life without God is the worst. If that is true then the atheist needs destruction for it is for the best for them and to stop them from dragging others down the putrid well they have leapt into. The atheist is a threat to the believer's comfortable arrogant emotional construct.  The house of cards is very fragile.  The lone atheist is at risk in a religious society.

The Bible says God is love and God is justice.  Morality for short.  Suppose it makes sense to say that God is literally morality. He is fairness and love and truth personified. If God’s nature is morality that does not mean that God knows this. It does not mean he really knows what is the most moral thing to do in any situation. He does not know when the man on the moon died for there was never such a person.  So his opinion on what the best plan for good is only an opinion.  Having principles of justice and love does not mean you may be able to implement them well and that includes God.. 

God makes morality too much of a mystery.  To worship justice and love when they are more vague than anybody cares to admit is hypocritical. So don't let people use God to influence you on how and what to think.

Religious teaching says if you need morality to be true you need God. This is calling God a necessary evil. Why?  If morality cannot be validated or shown credible then trying to use something to make it appear as if it can be, for the sake of order, is using a lie or crutch to protect what you want morality to be.  You use the necessary evil of lying about God to exercise some control over others. 

Self-compassion recognises that not everything you do works out the way you intended. Rather than blame yourself you look at what you can do better and you recognise that you did the best you could at the time. Things going wrong is a part of life and we must not let it define us. We refuse to blame others and to blame God for what goes wrong.  Failure is not part of a good plan by God.  It is real.  It comes from how life just happens.  To be mentally healthy we must recognise this.  If you fail to understand what failure means or water it down you cannot learn from it.

If something exists and nobody gave it to you, then own it for somebody has to.  Owning has to start somewhere.  There was a first owner.

Atheism is owning yourself. You can own something that you simply find. If you are here by chance and you are you own yourself. Atheism is about taking ownership of your existence. Religion says God makes you from nothing so he owns you and Jesus bought you with his blood. Atheism rejects that. If you exercise autonomy by going along with that and letting yourself be oppressed you are still being autonomous but you are trying to give it to God and pretend its not about your autonomy. Atheism does not play that game and is refusing to project your autonomy on to a God. It is refusing to offer a God an explanation for what you do even if there is a deity! It is refusing to use the idea, “God deserves all your adoration and worship” as a way of redirecting your own narcissism. What you think you do for God says everything about you and nothing about a God.

Religion says that God forgives and deserves our love and our gratitude and as our maker he deserves to be allowed to guide us.

Atheism rejects all that. It is in a nutshell refusing a relationship offered by God.

Atheism then if God is real is by definition ungrateful. That makes people call it immoral and stupid.

An ad hominem attacks the person making the argument not their argument. Is calling atheism immoral and stupid an example of ad hominem? To say the problem with atheism is that it is ungrateful is attacking atheists not the arguments we make.  Now as religion says God is about a relationship first and foremost and not about arguments, though they are important too, it is clear that the personal attack on atheists is the prime driver.  Religious faith implicitly and often explicitly assumes atheists should be unsafe.

Duty and spontaneous generous goodness are different things.  Duty is an unfeeling standard that makes demands.  Generous goodness is warm.  Duty can rule out or prevent gratitude. Love and kindness can be indirectly duty. Or as good as. Not only that but they are based on duty as in foundation.  Here are examples.  If it is your duty to care for your elderly parent part of that care is doing it with grateful affection.  It is not your duty to have affection but to let yourself have it.  You cannot command feelings.  So the most important thing is not duty but your spontaneous good that is there regardless of what a god wants.

Atheists need similar traits and do not need a God. 

Another reason why the atheist needs to assert self-ownership and not let the faith of others interfere is this.

A square circle is impossible. It cannot exist. That is what we mean by saying it is logically impossible. But what if you start saying that square circles are in fact real but are entities outside time and space and is not like anything physical. They are akin to what we would call spirits or non-material forces and powers.  God is supposed to be the spirit which made all things.  There is no way to differentiate the spirit talk from mere imagination. Spirit reads too much like things that we know do not exist. For example, if there is no porridge in my bowl I don’t argue that there is porridge there but its non-material or some forces from another dimension make it seem that there is nothing there when there in fact is. Existence is not a meaningful term if you adopt spirit doctrines.  Even if you did there is a difference between holding that minor spirits hover around and holding that what ultimately matters is the spirit that made all things, God.  That exalts the idea out of all comprehension.

It is obvious that faith could be too much about imagination.  Don't let another person impose their imagination on you.  As we we have seen, their faith shows every indication of imagination.

No Copyright