If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

To Offer Or Not Offer Belief

I did not raise my children to believe "there is no god" I raised my children "in the absence of a supernatural belief"; there is an important and distinct difference between those two positions.

I did not raise my children to have a positive belief in one of the ancient "god" myths, largely because I had discovered that all the belief "systems" hang their "rules for living" on the pretence that 1. There is magical power ruling over the universe. 2. The human body/brain is driven about by a ghost-like personality.

The 1st fantasy is no more than an ancient philosophical conclusion to answer "how did this all get here"; this is plain from the absence of any relevant detail in any of the doctrines. Scientific discovery has replaced all the creation stories of our dim and distant ancestors. The books have been displayed over and over as incorrect. This means the books, and any god they depict, have no authority.

The 2nd fantasy, especially, seems to be endemic but no more likely. The "soul" is the root cause of the books. Ancient peoples sensed that "consciousness" was somehow different to the "material" of the world, over millenniums that sense of it "being somewhat different" formed itself into stories about what happens to our "different, non-material body-part" after death. However, the evidently factual evolutionary process is an entirely material process. All human traits are evolved via interaction with our material environment. There is no way for a creature(us) living in an entirely material environment, whose development through eons is shaped by an entirely material process, to evolve an immaterial body part(soul) and then become so dependent on that immaterial part that the being cannot survive without it. No way whatever.
(For more on this see Soul Shaped Gap)
All the books that deal with what happens to "soul" are trying to explain a concept raised by that "soul" misjudgment, that "consciousness" is magical and can survive material death, but none of the books' claims exceed a state of pure speculation and so the various claims they make are not "made". They claim a god/soul "exists" without ever displaying that a god/soul is even a possible entity. They claim as factual what has not even been proved viable.

If I placed seven boxes in front of you and told you "the right life-path and the point of individual existence is in one of these boxes. Try out the path in each then choose one." the message you would receive, even before opening the boxes, is "There IS a 'right' life-path and there IS a 'point' to individual existence." Merely presenting the boxes endorses belief in a "human spiritual core" and "magical authoritarian overlord", indirectly promoting both concepts as equally likely to "no spiritual core" and "no overlord".
As neither spiritual core or overlord have any basis in the evidence the most honest position is to not present the boxes.

Any who would say to my children "your parents did not give you the choice; you've been raised no differently to any believer's child" are thinking religiously or, at least, thinking via a religiously originated frame of reference. They haven't realised it but they have accepted that one or more of the doctrines might be true, possibly by the adage "there's no smoke without fire" possible because they like the idea that they may have an "immortal spiritual core", possibly because things have happened to or around them that they cannot explain and seem supernatural to them, possibly a combination of these and/or other factors but, regardless of how they acquired the intellectual position, they have accepted that "reality may have a supernatural component". And they have accepted this ONLY because the religio-spiritual dogmas are all pervasive, seeping into every corner of society and touching, even if only indirectly, every human psyche.
And this religio-spiritual undercurrent prevails because this world has been under relgio-spiritual occupation for millenniums, the idea that "magical body-parts and gods are real" has been bred into humans.
(For more on this see Oxford-University Shame) If they had not been born into this toxic religio-spiritual oppression it's likely they'd not know of fantasy myths but it's almost certain they would not be thinking "one of the fantasy myths may be true".

"Then, what's the point of life" is the existentialist question many atheists are asked, as if there MUST be a point, but why should there be? Seems to me that only those who have grown up amongst the doctrine addicts, who tout that there's a "great 'point' to life", think that there might be a point but a "point" is not indicated by the evidence. We may only assume that anyone who thinks there is a "great point" has, at some point, had their thinking compromised so that they believe that there might be a "point".
As I see it, from the evidence, the only "point" to life is survival. After that it's entirely up to you what you do. Your legacy is in how the human race's future members remember your contribution to humanity's continuing progress.
Aristotle, Shakespeare, Einstein etc are remembered as "great humans" because of what/how they thought. Their immortality is written into our comprehension of reality; their immortality comes from us revering their comprehensions, to such an extent that we have assimilated their observations and analysis of reality into the form and function of our society and culture. Immortality may be achieved but it is always achieved vicariously.

When it comes down to it. I raised my children "human". They started off, as all babies do, as "implicit atheists" because that is the default human position, they remained untainted by supernatural faiths because I did not fill their heads with the idea that one of the "self-help", life-guidebooks might be more than groundless fantasy.
I raised my children in the absence of religious belief because evidently there is no "God" for any of the dogmas to contain "the word of".
I did not indoctrinate them with "you must believe there's no god" and "you must accept evolution" I simply omitted the groundless fantasy. I did this because the death-escape-pod fantasy is not merely "harmless fable" like Snow White; the concept that there's some way to "continue to experience after you've died" is an addictive concept to which humans are extremely susceptible. Religious faith is so addictive that to present the boxes mentioned above is like offering seven hypodermic syringes filled with addictive psychoactive drugs and saying "try one."
The only sensible option for one who wishes to remain a "clean" human is to not inject.

So what do you think; should a parent offer belief, in the knowledge of the damage it does, or not offer belief in the knowledge that merely offering it, endorses it?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.


Lijit Ad Wijit