Idea Mining

Most religions direct their followers to go out and recruit new followers. They're instructed to proclaim the groups commonly held conclusions and persuade others to accept them as fact. I have a different mandate, or suggestion. Go forth and receive new input. Analyze it in light of the three commandments and apply logic, reason and creative questioning. Share any interesting new insights or information.

To best accomplish this there are a few guidelines that could be helpful.

Information Mining:

In this type of conversation the goal is not to persuade, but to discover. To start with, determine the points which you believe are considered unshakeable truths by your co-converser. Proceed with the conversation from a mindset that these truths are indeed indisputable. Now try to make it make sense. Listen, ask relevant questions. You don't have to ever proclaim acceptance of any of the core beliefs, just don't challenge them directly. This is a combination of the Socratic method and statistical analysis. The Socratic method serves the purpose of engaging in conversation with someone of a different mind rather than a confrontation. The assumption of the other persons core beliefs is akin to holding certain factors constant for the purpose of examining differences in thought processes between yourself and the other person. Given A and B, how does your brain process the occurance of C? How does the other persons? If they are very different, the belief in A and B can't be the cause because you both have accepted as fact A and B.

For example Both Bob and Bill accept as fact that there is a God and that he is the almighty ruler of the universe. Bob may conclude that he must do his best to carry out God's will. Bill may conclude that he and God aren't going to get along very well. There is something more to the difference between Bob and Bill's thought process than the belief in an almighty God. One becomes subservient in the face of such a belief, the other rebellious, or at least oblivious. What is it about each one's processing system that leads to the two very different reactions?

In general, the idea is to seek out databases different from your own and look for patterns and correlations that may develop when specific ideas or beliefs are held constant for both thinkers.

The reward is new insights, information, knowledge. The currency of information exchange.

Umanitarian Religion

What is the essence of religion? What is its function? I think it boils down to a conversation among people who have all agreed to accept a specific set of premises and facts as established and indisputable. The problem is the indisputable part. The way that facts become and remain established is through constant challenge and re-examination in light of new input.

It can be productive to engage in idea exchange among a group of people who have agreed to agree on certain key points. This means you don't have to spend time and energy making those points. The audience already has accepted them. This is pretty much the model of the internet forum. When you go to a "vegetarian forum" you know the vast majority of readers are already convinced that vegetarianism is a good thing. You don't have to make that point. This is a major time-saver.

The problem with religion is that it's a one-way conversation with no re-examination of the commonly held premises based on new input and analysis. The only positive that religion can add to the forum model is the branding and marketing aspect. I think "Church of Umanity" has more marketing appeal than "Athiest Forum". And Umanity is more a religion in that the Three Commandments are considered indisputable for the purposes of the conversation henceforth known as The Church of Umanity. This church makes no offer of salvation, just a chance at productive, interesting, intelligent conversation. Members may also be members of any number of other religions, but not while engaged in this conversation. You make no pledge of allegiance outside of the agreement to accept the Three Commandments for the duration of your participation in the conversation.

Why Honesty?

I won't go so far as to say "Thou Shalt Not Lie". Lying is a legitimate form of self-defense. When done unprovoked, it is an act of aggression.

I wont go into the whole logical derivation that honesty is in your personal best interest. You have to get to those kind of truths on your own for them to be of real value to you. I will go into some thoughts on how dishonesty might foul up your software, however. Note: The same reasoning applies to Theft and The Use of Unprovoked Force.

The conscious brain is not always aware of its own thought processes. There are sub-routines, sub-sub-routines, etc. going on all the time, affecting every action you take and every move you make. The subconscious brain uses what you have determined to be concrete facts or high probabilities to process and analyze input. If one of these beliefs is that one should not lie, and you do anyway, the sub-conscious brain needs to put the behavior in memory in a manner that is consistent with stored information.

Now the brain has to come up with ridiculous sub-routines like "One shouldn't lie unprovoked, unless you really want to, and the victim is wearing a blue tweed suit." You wont necessarily know that little line of code has been created, but it's there. It will stay there until you consciously acknowledge a grievous error and make your behavior consistent with your fundamental beliefs.

Contradiction between what you are convinced you believe and your actual behavior lead to software bugs. If you can't change your behavior to what you think you believe, take a close look at your fundamental beliefs.

Why it "just doesn't matter"

Some think it's odd that an atheist would start a religion. Religion is usually associated with the supernatural, the acceptance that some things are unknowable, that there is a power higher than yourself.

I view religion as a netorking infrastructure for individuals of like mind. By like-mind I mean those who come to the same conclusions on issues such as "Where did I come from?" "Why am I here?" "Will there be life after this life?" The common answer: "It just doesn't matter!"

It doesn't matter because however you came to be, you were not involved in the decision. You were not party to any negotiation. Therefore you have no obligation to whoever, whatever put you here. Your life, your self, belongs to you, in this life or any other.

The atheist does not have to forego pondering an "afterlife". An afterlife does not have to be supernatural. In fact anything that exists must be natural. The fact that we don't know all the mechanics of it yet doesn't make it magic. What is, is. The one thing I know for sure is no matter where I go, there I am. I'm still me and I still own my self. This is non-negotiable in any universe.

The rest Doesn't Matter. Same game, different playground.

The First Church of Umanity

OK, we've got a religion, complete with commandments, a bit of preaching, even an official holiday. Now we need a name. I decided to use my screen name and call it Umanity. That makes me a Umanitarian, not to be confused with humanitarian.

A great humanitarian might not be a great Umanitarian. Someone who truly puts others before him or her self is in violation of the First Commandment. Helping others because you enjoy it and you believe it makes your universe better is not a violation. It may seem a trivial distinction, but it goes to the core of the First Commandment. Motivation and recognizing it is key.

The Three Commandments

If you read my previous post you know I've attempted to come up with some guidelines, suitable for atheists, in the event that there is some kind of life after this one, although not one governed by an almighty supreme being. They're actually quite useful even in the event that there isn't.

These guidelines are meant to be very basic "software instructions" for the self that give you a solid base for decision making. They are meant to be "omniversal" in that they may be applied in any environment in which you can still process thought. I came up with three, and upon further reflection, I think that's all we need.

Your self, it is all yours. You exist for your benefit, enjoyment, entertainment, not for anyone else's. Why, because we said so. Human rights were not endowed within us by a creator. We bestow them on each other by mutual consensus. You can declare your "rights" to the universe, but if nobody else recognizes, protects or enforces them, you have nothing. We will have this right when we agree that we have this right. The right extends to everyone who recognizes, protects and upholds it, human or otherwise.

A right is not a right until someone else recognizes and agrees to uphold it. Doing so must be mutually beneficial. An even trade. "Treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you.". This is the most basic form of negotiation between individuals. It doesn't require language or sound or anything but engaging in no behavior that does me harm, so long as I engage in no behavior that does you harm. We test each other during interaction. If I engage in behavior that makes you uncomfortable you respond, I respond, at some point we reach an equalibrium or part ways.

Okay, we've established that we are the center of our own universe and that we will allow others to be the same. Why? What's the agenda? A three word command: "Make it Better". You build your own agenda starting with those three words. In any situation or moment think: "How can I make this better?". A very subjective question. One that each individual answers for themselves. The starting point for the solution is adherence to the previous two principals.

How to boil those already concise fundamentals into three one line "commands"?

1. My Self Belongs To Me.
2. Your Self Belongs To You.
3. I Will Make This Better.

These are not proclaimations to the congregation. These are commands to be written by, sent by, directed to and received by your self.

Atheist "Religious" Principals

By Uman

In thinking about what it is that people really fear about death, it occurred to me that the biggest fear may be of being judged. Not only, being judged, but being judged by someone you can't BS that has your future in his/her/its hands. This would be especially disturbing to someone who has lived their life in a deceitful or dishonest manner. All of their secrets are about to be exposed and sentance is to be passed.

Being an atheist to me, does not rule out the possibility of my continued existence once this body is through. From a purely scientific standpoint, until we identify and completely understand the nature of the individual consciousness, we can't rule the possibility in or out.

Religion is a means of establishing the terms of an afterlife before the fact. Atheists need to get in on this, but in a more logical manner. Let's start with the premise that you will continue to exist in some form after your human body dies. What can we safely assume other than that? Well, you probably wont carry much memory forward, since memory is physically stored in the brain, and you wont have access to that anymore. You may carry forward a unique method of processing input or something akin to a "motherboard" , but not much else. We don't know what the environment will look like, or even if the physics will be the same. We don't know what type of vehicle or body you'll be housed in. Logically, to be best prepared for such an unknown situation it's best to focus on those ideas and ideals that will be of good use in any circumstance where individuals interact in some form or another.

The primary principal to carry forward should be the right to "self" . That is, that you exist primarily for your own benefit/entertainment/pleasure and not for someone or something else's. Freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom from coercion and aggression should all apply regardless of the environment. You promote this principal by practicing it. You recognize these rights and freedoms among others and do nothing to violate or inhibit them, while demanding the same for yourself. The golden rule "Treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you" is OmniVersal. It's applicable to those who practice it. Others are exempt. In other words, you have the right to defend yourself against violations of your right to self.

What action should you take? You've just been thrown into a totally new and foreign environment. You don't speak the language, you don't have any knowledge of the place or mastery of anything in it. You don't know anyone here yet. A good rule of thumb is to always think: "How can I make this better?" In any given moment, is there an action you can take that will make the next moment more enjoyable, interesting, comfortable, etc, without violating the primary principal?

These are a couple of good ones to start with. I don't want to list a bunch of guidelines, just for the sake of having more guidelines.

What's the point? Well, as I said, if there's an afterlife, you probably don't get to keep your memory. Therefore any useful ideals or methods of operating must be ingrained in your self to be carried forward. The best way to accomplish that is to live by those parameters now. Everyday. All the time, until you don't have to think about it anymore. It's just who you are. OmniVersal principals are meant to be advantageous in any universe, including this one, even if this turns out to be the only one and there is no life after your human body expires.

Also, if there is an afterlife, you'll be dealing with individuals for whom different afterlife ground rules may have been established. Any delay in getting your self oriented and prepared to make decisions could leave one vulnerable to deception and manipulation. Best to be somewhat ready in advance. After all, if there is an afterlife, there's no reason think I wont be in the minority again. I'm going to need allies in the next phase, if only to keep from being burned at the proverbial stake.