Why now is the time to be a humanist: why I have discarded religion, ethnic division and sexual

differences as means of dividing humans

If you ask a philosopher what a humanist is you may receive any number of definitions.

However, there is a very simple definition that I prefer to use. Humanism is simply put the approach

that looks at humans as individuals and part of a larger collective that is the human race, choosing to

look for rational, verifiable, evidence based solutions to problems that may arise as a whole and

individually rather than looking to dogmatic, spiritual and unverifiable approaches. Rational thought is

thought based in logical processes, logic is when one keeps in accordance with strict principles based in

verifiable evidence, the ability to recreate the same results every time.

I was born into a pentecostal family, my mother had an interesting past which a couple years

before I was born resulted in her joining an ongoing ministry named Day-Star ministries. My father had

an interesting past that also led him to a similar conclusion, their choices are what brought them to

where they are now, it was not a god or belief but rather a decision to engage in said belief system that

gave them the life they live now. By the age of 8 I had already experienced my first baptism, sexual

and physical abuse, etc. It can be easily assumed that my approaches are a result of this, however, this

would also be incorrect. I am an individual and all individuals are susceptible to biases, this is what

makes us individuals, however, with this article it is my intent to promote the idea that we do not need

to be rooted in a past regardless how bad that past may be.

By my teens I had undergone several major surgeries on my spine, walked with a waddle and

held down full time jobs all while living in daily pain. After multiple issues and other unmentionables

occurring I ended up converting to a T.U.L.I.P. based theology, eg., Calvinism,

1. Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

2. Unconditional Election

3. Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

5. Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

This in my opinion even today is the closest thing to true Christianity outside of the Gnostic's that

has ever existed since its inception some 1,800 years ago. Obviously, my statements in this regards will

generate controversy, and honestly, I do not care about what others think. I am relating my story and

my commitment to the ideals that are humanism and the reality that we are all individuals and part of

the human race.

There are thousands of other beliefs, sects of beliefs and a few hundred major religions. By

major religion I mean any religion with more than 100,000 adherents. Sure you have the Christians

(with their ten thousand plus minor factions) and the Islamic beliefs (with their several hundred

variances and approaches) and the Jewish approach (with their dozens of different approaches) all of

whom can be categorized under the Abraham based religious approach. Take it how you will but all of

these religions trace their beginnings to Abraham they just have a different approach to doing so. Next

you have the Hindu religion and Buddhists which are generally seen as the next most populated

religions. Additionally, Wicca/ Gaia / Pagan faiths have many adherents and are growing. There are

several hundred various approaches within these as well, pantheistic in nature, they tend to be relatively

peaceful. After this you have the more modern religion, the worship of state, within the past 3-400

years there has been an overwhelming rise in humans reliance on yet another human created greater

power meant to protect humans from other humans and natural disasters.

Rational, verifiable and evidence based approaches tend to cause major anxiety in most people,

unfortunately the largest reason for this anxiety is because they have been raised to believe what they

currently believe, or they have converted as I did. Most humans are incapable of accepting change

easily and again, most humans are also unwilling to accept total and complete personal responsibility

for their decisions. They rely on the ability to put much or all of their decision making onto others,

doing so simply because it is easier and gives them a moral out. In my opinion this is something to be
greatly ashamed of, after all, personal responsibility or individual liability or culpability is an essential

part of being an individual. For many of us this is more than we want to deal with, and as a result we

cede our personal individual freedom to the person or persons who are able to offer the best, out at the

time. Fear, is what drives our decisions individually generally speaking.

Fear is quite simply the emotion felt when one believes someone or something is dangerous or

could cause them harm. Let us look at this again, fear is an emotion. Emotion is the chemical reaction

to an external stimuli, or a natural state of mind based solely in ones instinct. Instinct is the result of the

sum of ones life experiences, including but not limited too taught beliefs in the unknown. So when

defining fear we could say that it is an non rational state of mind resulting directly from chemical

reactions based on external stimuli derived from ones life experiences and or beliefs whether valid or

not. However, fear is in fact quite rational, at its core, being a legitimate expression of self defense.

This does not mean however, that we should allow ourselves to be guided by fear. Fear drives our

feelings, eg., hatred which the idea of sexism, racism and other isms are based in. Hatred is an emotion,

simply put it is not a rational thing to experience. Hatred is the intense emotion and dislike or distrust

towards another human based on any number of reasons and in almost every case it is not a rationally

based feeling. It should be noted that love is also an emotion, and equally as irrational. Does this mean

emotions are unnecessary? Not at all, they however, have their place and it should not be involved in

making decisions that decide life or death, especially with regards to others.

Where am I going with this, is simple, the reality is that humans are like most animals. We rely

on our emotions more than rational thought, in fact in this way we are exactly like other animal species.

Emotion again is chemical reactions to external stimuli, these reactions specifically take one of three

positions, fight, flight or freeze. Scientifically there is the OODA loop, or Observe, Orient, Decide and

Act, all animals engage in this when faced with external stimuli, it could be shown that all actions taken

whether reaction to an action or the initiation of action involves the OODA loop. Colonel John Boyd

coined the term OODA in the 1980s, and what it signifies. It should be noted that the idea of this
action and interaction pathway is in fact more of an ongoing continuous process and not circular.

Rather in life all animals are always Observing, Orientating and Acting are continual. Decision is the

part that occurs when each individual animal, human gains enough knowledge to do so allowing for

better more informed action.

http://www.jvminc.com/boydsrealooda_loop.pdf

https://taylorpearson.me/ooda-loop/

This is what happens when we are faced with external stimuli that we do not recognize or that

we have been taught is negative for us. Humans like other animal species have a variety of divisions

among them on a basic biological level, this is not a bad thing, unless we allow others to teach us

beliefs that can cause our futures to become worse and not better. For instance, ethnic division,

otherwise known as racial prejudice is a taught and or learned and contrary to popularized

misconceptions is something all ethnic groups can learn or teach against all or some other ethnic groups

regardless of ones primary ethnic grouping. This also applies to sexual proclivities, or ones sexual

desires. As long as sexual activities are accomplished between mature consenting fully voluntarily

agreed individuals there is no moral wrong that can be seen on a rational level.

Obviously, this is where the emotional religious and or arbitrary rules put forward as law by

some and supported by others to control all comes into play. One could argue that for the social good it

is necessary to have a legal system, however, rationally speaking there are no laws that do not have an

emotional impetus and by default laws are emotionally based and to date not rational. Rationally there

is only one approach that maintains a logical process. This is the approach that first realizes, than

accepts the fact that all humans are by default their own individual persons and incapable of being

identical in all ways to any other human regardless relation or genetic equivalence. Once this is

accepted by all individuals as something that cannot be changed regardless attempts to create or teach
individuals to be the same it is much easier to approach the next step in humanities being able to free

itself from taught and or learned emotional triggers regarding the vast number of differences between

individuals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/identical-twins-are-not-

genetically-identical

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

http://gap.med.miami.edu/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/are-identical-twins-100-

genetically-identical

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25279986

Rationally, one can see that an approach that embraces individuality within a combined society

of individuals would either mean each individual is given their own set of rules- or we choose to

approach the idea of rules and social order from the individual aspect first and social order aspect

second. A simple approach would be utilizing something I have followed for over a decade at this time.

If an action taken by one individual can affect others it must be agreed upon by all individuals

involved to be morally correct, if it is not agreed upon by all involved than it is always morally

wrong.

Now, I understand this simple line will very quickly be untied and the many views of people

will shred it into pieces. Or, we can again accept a simple fact, all individuals are their own persons, no

other individual can be the same as any other individual and no other individual has the natural right to
demand, threaten, coerce or harm any other individual to gain their assent in any action or activity.

Once this is accepted as a world truth, as universal truths are not possible given our inability to know if

other life exists or not, we can easily move forward. One approach to understanding this is the idea of

self defense.

Self defense can be used against those who would attempt to use force or coercion to gain

anothers assent or consent. Given that the vast majority of individuals on this planet are factually good

people, eg., criminal statistics show that between one and five percent of the worlds population actually

commit the largest amount of violent crime. Violent crime meaning a crime that would force or coerce

action against an unwilling individual.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM.PDF

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03401.asp?qaDate=2010

Anything else as long as it is voluntarily agreed upon by all involved is always right, meaning

that the crimes that currently exist like prostitution, drug use, et, al., or non-violent non- coercive

non- forced crimes no longer are crimes! Approaching crime in this manner utilizing a rehabilitative

approach for theft and non- violent arson and either incarcerating or simply terminating those who act

in a repetitively violent manner towards others (more than once) that is proven to have occurred using a

simple yet in depth approach, or by terminating the threat at the time of the incident itself, we can

easily see a fast reduction in crime overall.

Criminals must be proven to have committed the crime of which they stand accused using three

separate methods of evidence, none of which include witness testimony which has been proven to be

wrong far too many times for it to be a logical type of evidence gathered. And yet it is still used daily to
convict person. Evidence must be verifiable and verified by three independent laboratories or agencies

under blind testing approaches. Meaning no name attached and no connection to the victims or accused

can be seen between the testing facilities and or professionals who will read and or test said evidence

collected, collating results. So three separate forms of evidence showing guilt, with three separate

individual agencies et.al., verifying results are all that can be taken at a bare minimum to convict an

individual of repetitive violent crimes the only punishment being either incarceration or termination,

the decision being left to the remaining familial (no further than one step removed) or guardian/

pledged mate/ partner per contract of said victim if victim is deceased, and or victim if they are not

deceased. If incarceration is chosen than the costs of this are to be absorbed by the perpetrator through

their labor. Or if their termination is chosen, the methods of which are to be the choice of the victims/

family as seen above. This way every individual is and becomes responsible for their own actions and

or reactions.

This of course leads to what is acceptable in a world where there is only one real law for

termination, obviously there is termination when the act is occurring and this can be taken to third party

arbitration if there is a question as to the efficacy of the act, at which time the individuals desiring to

question the action split initial costs with the victim of said action and upon fulfillment which follows

the same 3 by 3 approach the side that is found to be innocent is than refunded and the other side pays

the entire amount and or could potentially face imprisonment or termination. This would lead to a

much lower rate of self defense actions as they need for absolute clarity would be essential to the

livelihoods of all involved. One could in fact see individual laboratories joining crowd funding

organizations that would take monthly payments to cover initial or entire costs should an incident

occur. An intelligent approach, as insurance is by itself a solid idea, even though it has been perverted

at this time.

This also means that the current ideologies lauding thought crimes no longer have any real

standing as they can easily be seen to not be individually promoting ideals. Again, remember each
individual is their own person, by default we are all a part of a global society and as a result our actions

do affect others. When we are able to, or have direct knowledge of said actions we should always

ensure that our actions are voluntarily accepted by those involved. This does not mean one is kept from

making accusations or calling out other individuals for negative actions they have taken against others.

It does however, mean that one would need to be able to prove said accusations if they choose to make

them. Language itself cannot logically be seen as action as it is not action, unless it is directly

threatening and or is verifiably linked to action taken. In this case it would be one of the forms of

evidence against the accused.

This is the basic idea behind my approach with humanism, you see once you remove ideologies

and emotions from criminal decisions as well as most non familial or sexual relations it would allow

for a more stable approach within society and as a whole there would be no need for governing bodies.

Given that corporations and banks exist directly as a result of religions and governments all of these

would have no place any longer and would eventually see their own demise with some overall head

banging and hard decisions being made. Likely there would be bloodshed, however, the end result

would be a more peaceful harmonious earth and eventually, sooner rather than later we would see

colonization of space and the universe and a much faster advancement within the scientific community.

There would be far less inequity in the physical needs approach, meaning all individuals would have

the ability to live as they desire without others engaging in forceful tactics to prevent them from doing

so.

Starvation, genocides and more would partially or fully disappear simply because humans

would have to rely on those around them and by taking control of their own lives with no safety nets

outside of what they engage for themselves would need to interact in a way that benefited themselves

as well as others around them. Individuals would eventually be rated based on their abilities and not

their looks, religious beliefs, ethnicities, sex or biological imperatives. This alone would through the

desire to survive that all animals have, and humans have begun to lose at this time, serve to reduce
overall loss of life based on murder, war and or easily prevented diseases and similar acts or actions.

By default these issues would weed themselves out, natural approaches would weed out those who are

unable to adapt, it would not be about looks or muscles or even mental ability but would come back to

the very base argument put forth by logicians from the time of Socrates. Adaptability is everything, and

those who are capable of adapting to new approaches best will breed and teach the new generations as

they are born.

Ethnic strife continues to occur as a direct result of the desire for world leaders to maintain their

positions of power, it allows and promotes the use of force by those in control, specifically in removing

the ability of the average individual to defend themselves. By initiating and in some cases even

supplying or instigating the problems themselves they are able to convince easily led individuals

(specifically individuals raised to believe that they will always have a fall back., eg those individuals

who rely on emotion over reason) that they need the help of their newest religion to prevent widespread

chaos. Pitting people against each other is the goal of any good religion or government, this allows

control to occur. Ethnic strife has occurred for many millennium and is not necessary. Using logic and

reason allows us to see that biologically we are all humans. Hatred a pointless emotion, based in a lack

of knowledge or blind acceptance of values that are not logical or reasonable except to those who

desire a place to focus their intense and sometimes very well based feelings. It would be foolish to not

see that there are people who have been displaced, and even more foolish to assume that they exist in

only one ethnic group or another.

So how do those interested in a better tomorrow for our future show others the futility of

carrying on hatred of other ethnic groups because they have been taught or raised to believe the way

they do. No individual can honestly deny that ethnic hatred exists, and that regardless ethnicity it is

possible to hate and or harm others because of their ethnicity. However, to end this it is essential that

we utilize facts. The most basic fact of all is that we are all one race. Racism is a word created by

individuals intent on destroying the very idea of freedom by forcing others to fear for their lives
through introduced ethnic hatred and division and than by having those same individuals come in

riding the we will protect you all, and all it will cost is your freedom, wagon. This is an approach that

again has been used for many thousands of years. The one central reality here is that no one ever wins

when ethnic strife is engaged in, regardless reason.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1995-10-01A.pdf

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-

idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0036.411;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mqrg

http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol2_2/pamir.htm

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/tribal-warfare-and-ethnic-

conflict

http://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/irobi-ethnic

Next we look at religion, this includes government. Definitions, commonly accepted are what

allow a free exchange of information and are important. The definition of religion is, the belief in or

worship of a superhuman or controlling power, a system of faith in a power greater than oneself. The

definition of government is, the exercised control over a group of people, eg., a controlling power.

Governments are the superhuman made flesh, by giving them control of ourselves and contributing to

the systems as they are designed we are in effect creating yet another god, this time one that is and can

be seen. Empowering that god is the will of the many individuals who have decided that being in

control of their own lives and accepting responsibility for their own decisions is in fact too great a

responsibility. The default option being, allowing control of themselves or in fact engaging in willing

indentured servitude, or slavery depending on which definition you prefer. Taxation being the most

blatant form of this self imposed contractual obligation in existence today. Modern slavers are those

who run government, certainly in some parts of the world, specifically parts of Africa, slavery for labor
(forced and or coerced without renumeration excepting basic needs) is quite alive and well. And it has

nothing to do with ethnicity, but all to do with mindset.

It is not my goal to lessen the long lasting effects of outright physical slavery, or to cheapen this

by comparing the two. In fact it is my intent to show each individual that they are indeed slaves if they

believe that to gain protection from visible and invisible bogeymen we must give up well over half of

the fruit of our labor. The reality is quite different, for you see without governments meddling and

creating the very events that cause these wolves at the gates, we would and could quite easily protect

ourselves. Historical and some modern examples exist of societies that run largely in peace with a

voluntary approach being taken. Do they have internal rules, or did they, certainly. However, in each

case from the Amish through the Old West and tribal times pre city-state people engaged in voluntary

interactions. This means simply that while each community or tribe may have had its own individual

rules, they also worked based on a simple system, of each to their own as each to their need. Quite

simply a form of voluntary socialism, or as the purists of that approach would say, true socialism.

Obviously, we have seen that this cannot work on a broad scale and that some form of economy must

exist to facilitate the beneficial exchange of ideas and products. However, there is no need for a

centralized government, this has always ended in a stifling of free thought and historical dark ages.

https://www.doaks.org/research/publications/books/mesoamerica-after-the-decline-of-teotihuacan-a-d

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HIST301-1.4-DarkAgeGreece-FINAL.pdf

https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIST302-8.2.2-Fall-of-Byzantium-

FINAL1.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/end-of-empire-the-glory-of-the-

ottomans-and-the-devastation-wreaked-since-they-lost-power-8842053.html
 Restall, M. (2007). The Decline and Fall of the Spanish Empire? The William and Mary

Quarterly, 64(1), third series, 183-194. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4491607

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/the-sad-end-of-the-british-empire-110362

Thusly it is my observation that religion and government are in fact the same in that they

require your belief that they exist for your good. Neither of them offer any evidence that this is true,

nor have they ever done so. And yet, we individuals willingly tend to believe that they exist for our

good, largely because this belief allows us the ability to avoid the difficulty of self determination or

caring for oneself without a safety net of any kind that we have not put into place on our own. This

does not mean that some form of organization, rules or governance may in fact be necessary or occur

organically. It does mean however, that I firmly believe we do not need others to guide our lives.

Rather we should take hold of our own lives, by doing so we avoid the need for others leadership.

Some examples are easily seen within the Fire Departments of the United States.

In the United States as of a 2015 study by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

there were 1,160, 450 local firefighters in the United States. Of this total number of firefighters 814,850

or (70%) were volunteer firefighters. Next we can look at law enforcement, or the need for some type

of external third party to assist in disputes and or issues as they come up. In many tribal societies and

prior to the 1830s there was no Metropolitan or State based policing. Rather there was the town sheriff,

in most cases selected or elected to the position by the people, and expected to only enforce or protect

the people of the town itself and its rules. When you compare criminal statistics from the Wild West

with similar statistics from the cities of Chicago, New York and Boston of the same time frame, you

will find that per capita crime was lower in the wild west. In fact if you were to remove the fanciful

dime store novel approach from popular culture and the 1000s of spaghetti westerns popularized in

early films and to some extent still to this day, the West was actually not that wild. In fact, if not for

accidental deaths and injuries sustained working the land, over the entire course of the 100+ years of
Western expansion, when the various federal governments were not involved, from Mexican, Spanish,

French, British and United States, crime and danger from other humans was actually quite low. Much

like modern Amish communities, where the structure is quite rigid and expectations high, they are

allowed and encouraged to make a voluntary decision to remain, this period of time is called,

Rumspringa, now it should be noted that this time is basically a change from being a child to being an

adult. Additionally many individuals choose to not leave at all, however, the choice is given, this is

what is absolutely essential to the idea of a voluntary society. A choice must be allowed, encouraged

and in fact promoted as to adherence or not within said society and its particular rules and or ideals.

This is why I embrace a purely humanistic approach and promote the idea of a voluntary lifestyle and

society.

Humanism demands something that most individuals are unwilling to truly give, many claim to

want to be humanists in theory, in practice however it is quite difficult. In practice it is essential that we

as individuals treat all others as individuals and not in any way based on ethnicity, religious belief or

sexual predilection. It requires us to use logic and reason when addressing all inter-species

communication and interaction, with emotion being relegated to what it was designed for, breeding,

pleasure and immediate defense of self and our progeny or familial group, eg., tribe. Being a humanist

requires that I take direct responsibility for all of my actions, and that those actions be taken based on a

logical, reasonable approach well thought out in advance and doing all I can to avoid irrational

interspecies communication and interaction.

This is why I believe that being truly humanist, is for mankind as a species, only logical option

out of the current cesspit we find ourselves mired in. It is my firm belief based in evidence that we as

humans can and should in fact reject all notions of racism, sexism and the like simply because these are

ideas based in division at their core. Rather, we should embrace the reality that we are all our own

individual person and none of us is exactly like any other. This is a beautiful, wonderful approach and

allows a very simple life to be lived, one free of hatred though surrounded by it. By becoming beacons
of hope and true change through our actions and words we can in fact affect positive change in the

world around us. I am not calling on anyone to be anything except what they are, only that instead of

viewing others through eyes tinted by old prejudices we instead attempt to break free of those old false

notions and embrace others who also want to see a better tomorrow.

I am not encouraging pacifism, this is in itself a failed ideology, and an extreme one, rather I am

espousing a more equitable approach. The idea that life is a series of waves in an ocean of time, that

linear or circular time is non existent and that we simply exist within a vast ocean of time at a certain

place, that to be truly at peace we must learn to ride the ever changing waves and patterns around us,

never straying into the extremes that often threaten to engulf the very essence of our individuality. If

necessary defend yourself, however, you will find following this approach with life allows far fewer

times when use of force even for defense of self or ones tribe/ familial group is necessary. Personally I

have lived in low income, high crime areas most of my life, and when I began following this

approach in my life, I quickly realized a phenomena, that was those around me were actually less apt to

be violent towards me, and in fact my life has become much more peaceful as a result. Yes I own and

promote the use of firearms, honestly, however this is more as a defense against the parasites that infect

our society under the guise of government or religious leadership. And yes, those who endorse and or

promote government and religion as a means of safety, are parasites by definition. A parasite being that

entity that derives its sustenance from the blood, sweat and labor of another being.

I choose to embrace humanism simply because I reject the notion that any single human needs

or has ever needed a leader or government to save them. I embrace the idea of family, tribe, units that

allow for mutually beneficial aid among its members and similar interests. And I see only negatives

when the idea of "social order" is presented as some higher form of evolved approach. This is why I

now embrace humanism as a lifestyle choice and why I show others around me this approach through

my actions and words.

11/ August/ 2017