Atheism that says it lacks belief in God will argue that it does not deny him outright but sees no reason to believe. Lack here means absence. It is not a lack in the way you lack bread when you are hungry. A lack can be a good thing. It can be a neutral thing.

If this atheism laments God and faith it is clear you would not be putting yourself through that unless you were subconsciously denying.

If this atheism celebrates the absence of faith in God then it takes confidence to give two fingers to God, "You may be trying to show yourself to me but I am sure you are not."  That is subconscious too at its root.

This lack-atheism is the bare minimum version. Is it really atheism?  Yes for it tacitly rejects the authority of God. So it is more than just not believing. Human nature abhors a vacuum. If you push something out of your mind something else will come in.  It can lead to the other version of atheism which actually says there is no God.  It is indirect denial not direct denial.  But what is not said can speak loudest.  That is what is happening here.

Belief and faith are related. Belief is just in the head but faith is belief and also what is in the heart.  Faith is connecting to God as in relationship.

So atheism that lacks faith in God is more clearly atheism.

Atheism at minimum tacitly rejects authority of God by lacking belief/faith in him. Nature abhors a vacuum so this lack is not just negative. It's positive. Self assertion rushes in.

You are not making a god/God of yourself except symbolically.  Those who say you are pushing God out to become your own deity are assuming that everything is religious.  Everything is not religious.  You know you cannot snap your fingers to fix a broken toe nail or more importantly give yourself grace so that you do tremendous goods.  You know you are not God or a god.

To tell a person that everything happens for a good reason and is under divine care is dismissing how the person feels right now.  It is using belief to abandon them while you pretend to be there for them.  It is saying, "I don't want the trouble so your belief can do the looking after you".  God belief by saying God is carrying you no matter how absent he seems is adding to this harmful bright side problem.  The person who has an arm hanging off and who is told, "At least your other arm is okay", is being insulted.  It is easy for you to think that and say that.  You are not the one missing an arm.  And where do you draw the line?  Do you tell them at least they have their head if they lose their four limbs?  If you should diminish the loss of an arm you should indeed be as bad if it is the loss of one's legs and arms.

Religion following Jesus says that everything we get from God is gift even if we don't see it that way.  The atheist who sees there is evidence that there is a God and who has to ponder that is getting a gift we are told.  God permeates all he has made and is about relationship and communication. So his touch is everywhere.  So from the religious perspective, if you lack faith in God you are rejecting him if there really is one.  You may say you don't deny but indirectly you clearly do deny.  You are very sure you are right.   

An exception that proves the rule is regarded as an exception for it shines a light on and points to and upholds the evidence that the rule is right and for the best.  So the exception has to prove that it is needed and that it is an exception.  Otherwise it cannot prove the rule when it cannot prove itself.  We will leave aside the fact that an exception in fact is another rule pretending that the original rule is perfect.  It is a rule that smashes the rule.  We are going to talk about how religion claims that God will send exceptions to our normal experience, exceptions to the way things work normally, and calls them signs and miracles from God.  Religion says that faith is a gift from God so in that sense it is a miracle.  It orientates you to this God who does miracles and without it miracles would be pointless.  God does not do miracles to repair his mistakes but to show that he is master of creation and for us to look beyond it to his perfect love and his presence.  The miracles proving the rule is violated by how "if miracles happen then you have no proof that nature is the rule.  If knives can kill on their own you cannot convict Sadie who had the knife in her hand when her husband was stabbed to death."  Moreover, you have to wonder if most miracles are in fact secret and undetectable so it gets worse.  If a liar lies in public then you can be sure that most of the deceptions are undetected.

Religion says God and the validity of morality go together.  It has no authority of itself so it needs a God.  This is what the expression that we ground morality in God means.  But the moral foundation is about principles of justice and love and compassion and respect and wisdom etc.  They can be valid and yet one way to do them and carry them out may be as valid as another.  The principles are clear but applying them in the real world is not.  So virtually equating God and morality does not define moral behaviour or the boundaries of morality.  This matters to atheism as in lack. 

It is a kind of atheism even if you believe in a supreme being but one who has no right to give you orders.  The core thing about God is his moral value.  Lack that core and you lack faith in God.  Lack atheists do lack it.

It is none of my business what you think of me for what you think does nothing for me.  Thoughts are interior and you don't have to share them with anybody.  Surely then it is none of my business what God thinks of me either.  Or Satan?  Actually as they have the power of mind over matter it is my business.  If you believe in witchcraft or the occult or in the occult power of positive thinking it is your business what another thinks of you. We all know that the fast track to hating the other is set up when you think it is their duty to think well of you for they are a possible threat if they do not.  Belief in God is toxic.  The atheist who lacks faith in God is an example of a person who is freed from that.

It is complained that Peter Singer denies you just have rights for being human. He links it to developed and actualised abilities. For example it has no concept of anything and cannot communicate.

For that reason he says an unborn child at the early stage is too primitive to have rights. It is warned that this is not a morality for it justifies destroying the disabled and so on.

That is not true.  You cannot be sure that a human being is ever at the stage an early unborn child would be.  It is not the same thing.  A gravely damaged plant is not the same as the seed it came from.

Now that is what commonsense tells us.  But if there is a God he works in hidden ways and in hidden corners so he has the power to give an invisible baby in the womb the same importance and development of a full person though we cannot detect it.  And also, God may have decreed that it is the best that most rights go as persons to ones who are fully developed.  He can avoid the Nazi charge by saying it is absolutely needed for reasons he only knows for his plan is full of complexities, hard cases and nuances.

The point?  God belief may tell you love and justice are real but is good for nothing about what you really need to know, how to be truly loving and just.

We see that far from being a boring lack, atheism as in lack is rich with meaning.  This must be its selling point.  It is beautiful.  It declares the atheist beautiful.


No Copyright