The obsolescence of the "god or no god" question

While the ultimate goal of all earthly existence may be unknown and as of yet unknowable, how foolish is it to bluntly deny even the possibility of any goal. Is it just the fear of responsibility, and to preferably take the easy way out? "When I die I'll no longer exist, and so it will no longer matter what I've done and what I've failed to do in my life, I can no longer be responsible when I don't exist."
Or is it really the human arrogance of wanting to continually bask in the illusion of scientific omniscience?
Whatever it is, and no matter how much I despise the materialist dogma, I must admit that to some extent I can understand its adherents - for one single reason: Whenever the proponents of primal, non-physical consciousness, existing independently of matter and of physical brains, present their theories and evidence, more often then not there will come a point when the unfortunate and most unnecessary nonsense about god and love enters the picture.

These matters are extremely subjective, and being a Satanist, it is clear that my own values are of completely different nature. But when exploring questions about the nature of the universe, of consciousness, and of existence itself, such personal choices should be left out of the picture. Religion is always something personal, and my own is certainly not an exception. The materialists do have a point in that you can't have a scientific discussion when it always comes down to the "god or no god" question. They legitimately want to free themselves from the religious dogma which has prevailed for way too many centuries, and in this battle they have sadly seen it needful to replace it with a new dogma of their own.

The original meaning of atheism is to not believe in any gods. But by now if someone describes themselves as an atheist what they usually mean is that they are a materialist: someone who denies the existence of anything besides physical matter (including radiation, magnetic fields, nuclear forces, etc.), and they usually suggest hat those who believe in an afterlife must be altogether simple minds clinging to some religious myths. This is deplorable, but again, to some extent understandable, as long as most of those who research into non-physical phenomena will sooner or later throw their religious ideas in with it.

So... why is the possibility of non-physical consciousness, and thereby an afterlife, always thrown into a pot with god?!
This is where the problem is situated. When discussing consciousness, quit the bullshit about god and love!
God and love are a faith of personal choice, just as Satan and power are my own personal faith of choice.

I found this very interesting video yesterday, but sure enough, towards the end there's the god fallacy again.

Rupert Sheldrake, although of Christian confession, mentions religious concepts only very sparingly and in relatively neutral context in his very fascinating book The Science Delusion.
William Buhlman, in Adventures Beyond the Body, tells about environments in the non-physical interior of the universe which form a consensus reality shaped by the thoughts and beliefs of their inhabitants, such as the followers of a particular religion. Other regions are "unformed" and thought-responsive environments, and that it is of utmost importance to be able to control one's own thoughts.
Myself I'm far from able of doing this for now, but that's what I need to work on. My tentative conclusion so far is that our goal of being here is becoming.
Exactly what we will become is still beyond our comprehension, and yet it is a matter of our own choice. The path of a Satanist is different from other paths, and yet when forming theories about the ultimate nature of consciousness in general then we should leave personal paths out of the picture.

Rainbow, the other day