As a relativity new anti-godder, turning fifty years of faith into something worthwhile has been revelationary. After escaping the indoctrinations of my youth, dismissing the false integrity of faith (the ability to compartmentalize fallacy and contradiction) produced a truth—the key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. The ultimate of which is the ability to accept a god in yonder heavens sitting on a throne, even in a supervisory role of the universe.
Compromise has become difficult in this arena. The compromise I’m able to make is between ideologies that do not involve belief—in anything. How can one such as me, with zero belief in any form of god, come to agreement on particulars of supernatural belief when all can and has been explained quite nicely by reason, logic, or one of the sciences? I cannot.
I can’t believe in Jesus just a little bit, nor Allah or one of the Hindu gods. This is an all or nothing game where accusations unfold about my anger towards god, or having sin in my life, or I just don’t understand the scripture. I do understand it quite well. Five years ago the apologists would be backslapping with my level of understanding—now, I was never a true Christian.
So now I’m a polemic. I’m not angry at the religious, because I know the trick and the psychological hold belief and faith (which are required before knowledge) but I am keenly aware of the foibles of placing and defending a value on mere belief. Belief is by its very nature supposed to be a transitional state that is supplanted by reality, not an end-game achievement. Guaranteeing the ultimate reward of eternal life by believing has shown people will believe anything attached to a prize after death. The list of incredibly duped cults is proof we are easily fooled. I believe passionately in nothing. Where is the compromise going to take place debating ambidextrous doctrines of imagination?
Photo by Arkenaten 2018
TheCommonAtheist 