Throughout human history, people have set themselves two broad goals; figure out how and why the world works, and to work with that to the best of their ability.

However, some attempts at both have failed, even worse, the original people who try such things often never learn of the mistakes within their lifetime, and the inside-the-box thinkers that make up the humanity fail to question this until a single person, such as Eratosthenes, questions what has been established as fact.

Who's Eratosthenes, you may ask? He was the Greek philosopher who is credited with theorizing that the Earth was round. Of course, the spherical Earth convention didn't catch on until much, much later, but Eratosthenes is the perfect example of an outside-the-box thinker; somebody who questions what has already been established to solve problems, even in the face of adversity.  What is needed in humanity is people like Eratosthenes.

But how do we fail in the first place? Well, the answer is suprisingly simple and it covers a lot of these failures. The reason why we fail to interpret how the world functions and why is because of dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition. That all falls within the realm of what I will call 'fantasy' for the duration of this book, and this fantasy can be summed up with this exchange:

"Why does x happen?"
"Because it does."

Thankfully, there does exist a solution. They are logic, reason and science. Since the dawn of humanity, people have rejected what are clearly the only true paths to truth and fact in the universe in favour of fantasy, simply because it's more comforting to hear in their opinion. Logic, reason and science are methods used to study and quantify reality, and exist at the other end of the existential spectrum from fantasy. Reality can be summed up with this exchange:

"Why does x happen?"
"Because of y, based on the evidence in z."

For a 14 year old autistic child, I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable person in the world. But personally, if given both reality and fantasy as a choice for which cognitive mindframe I should view the world with, I would choose reality.

Many of you may already be seeing that, with all the hostility that I'm approaching what I call fantasy with, I'm probably against the idea of religion, largely based on dogma. Well, you're correct. I am an atheist, a humanist, a pantheist and an antitheist. For this reason, many people reading this text may want to put it down immediately, for they may fear some form of eternal damnation for committing what they perceive as blasphemy.

However, if you are religious and you are reluctant to continue reading, I'd like to point out that if you are really that religious, you need to read this. You need to understand that religion is a flawed hypothesis made in a time where humans did not have any form of deductive logic and reason. If you're able to step into the shoes of an atheist or another type of irreligious person, decide if it makes more sense, then step out and compare religion to irreligion, I'll respect you for that. I think you'll find a lot of my arguments are water-tight, from there it'll merely be a matter of weaning one off the spiritual stance they were indoctrinated into.

If I may continue, the mission I wish to pursue by writing this book is to broaden one's intellectual, cognitive and spiritual horizons with the use of this book's title paradigm, the Existential Spectrum. The Spectrum is a model I use to graph how 'real' systems of spirituality are. You may think that as long as someone is intellectually, morally, cognitively, philosophically and spiritually fulfilled then there's no need to worry about exactly what one believes. Well, I for one completely disagree.
Sure, one may be happy believing what they wish to believe. The majority of the time, it's incredibly easy to be cognitively healthy regardless of what one believes. But the main difference between spiritual stances that creates a difference in how effective they are is what they can do for society. Not only do sensationalist and quite frankly wrong beliefs mislead and inhibit critical thinking skills in all corners of society, but many religions have beliefs which incite and foster hatred, fanaticism and fundamentalism which in turn cause a large-scale social, economic, cultural, political and intellectual regression, almost completely counterproductive to our progress as a sapient species.
While this regression has slowed down in the last century, I for one wish for it to be completely hastened so humanity may work towards a united, clear future.

I believe I’ve laid out clearly enough the foundations for what my mission is, I would now like to proceed onto the layout of this text. If you’re boggled by the majority of the terms I’m using here, I will go into an overview of what has been established as knowledge of irreligion and religion in Chapter 1.

If, perhaps, you wish to know more about the the dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition that makes up the fantasy quartet. If so, you should read Chapter 2.

Or maybe you think the arguments to believe in a religious spiritual stance are good enough. Maybe you find yourself asking, after reading this spectacularly antitheistic preface, “Is religion really as bad as this lad says it is?” Well, you might want a counter-argument against me, and I will supply the most powerful possible counterarguments against the point I wish to make in Chapter 3. They turn out to be spectacularly weak, as we find religion provides nothing that irreligion cannot.

Of course, for the more religious readers who have chosen to persevere and figure out what my points of view are that makes me so antitheistic, I can offer you Chapter 4, the antithesis to the arguments posed in Chapter 3.  Quite a strong antithesis it turns out to be, as well. And just to make sure my argument’s tight, I’ll also pose the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit first proposed by Richard Dawkins, just in case someone wants an actual disproof of religion as well as an attack on how valuable religion is to society.

Now, you may not take all of my points posed in Chapter 4 to be absolutely watertight, but for that I propose to you a case study in Chapter 5; Christianity, the world’s most popular religion, and how it correlates frighteningly well to the points I make in Chapter 4.

Now, if you choose to hold on to your beliefs on the basis that you simply wish to go to Heaven or avoid Hell as opposed to knowing and accepting scientific fact. Since this is likely to be the case with many, I will dedicate Chapter 6 as an introduction to the framework of reality.

Following the overview of the framework of reality, I shall continue to provide my arguments on how an irreligious spiritual stance based on reality is the way forward for all of society. Rather than focusing on a god, irreligion allows you to carry out acts of compassion towards others as well as motions to further human thinking. Contrast this with most religion, that teaches you that if you sit there praying for something rather than acting to make an action, you’re a good person. Which would you prefer? If you choose the latter, read Chapter 7.

Once I have established my arguments for the realistic spiritual framework, I will provide another case study, this time for atheism, which, at the other end of the spectrum from Christianity, is able to counter the fantasy framework created by religion.  You can read this case study in Chapter 8.

After having seen both extremes of it, I give you an overview of the Existential Spectrum itself for the first time and the main points of reference on it to make it easier to understand the scale of the Spectrum, in Chapter 9.

Following the overview of the Spectrum, I will justify my reasons for the placement of the reference points, giving the criteria for the placement of a religious or irreligious stance in the Spectrum in Chapter 10.

And finally, I will bring this text to a close in the Epilogue, summarizing the key points of the book and composing a conclusion advising what we need to do with this understanding of reality and fantasy.

If this book is effective in achieving its goal as intended, you, the reader, should have a clear understanding of the difference between the fantasy framework of religion and the realistic framework of irreligion and atheism. People currently moderately religious should deconvert if they pay enough attention to my arguments, however the more zealous people are a lost cause, thanks to what Richard Dawkins called,

 “...dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads [who] are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design)...”

Such people are not worth my time. People that are worth my time are people on the correct side of history. People like YOU, the reader. You have either taken the time to buy and hold a book descriptive and definitive of what is real and what isn’t, or you’re holding an iPad (or perhaps maybe a Kindle or another eBook reader). For reading to this point and being informed enough to make the decision of whether or not to read on, you have my utmost respect. For that reason, we could certainly make excellent use of you in the irreligious community if you decided to read on.