What is Beingism.org?

Beingism's picture

Beingism
(Beingism Founder)

We are an online community of passionate, thoughtful people who believe that the consistent application of reason leads to a secular, progressive, naturalistic, and compassionate philosophy of life. We hold that all beings share an interest in their own happiness, and that compassion for others is often instrumental in attaining happiness. We also hold that incorporating compassion into our social, cultural, governmental, and political systems is the key to creating a society that is maximally free and fair to all beings. Though we reject the idea that there is any utopian cure for our world's ills, we believe that better solutions to complex problems can be found by using science and research in an effort to understand causes and consequences. [more]

We also recognize that for most people, including ourselves, conflicts between compassion and self-interest exist, and that living ethically can be difficult. As a partial remedy, we join together as members of a supportive community to pursue not only the happiness of others, but also our own.

While Beingism's most fundamental premises as described above are unlikely to change, our philosophy is organic, evolving as its adherents and debaters discuss it. We welcome new ideas, just as we welcome new members to our community. Join us for discussion and debate, activism and aid.

Are You a Beingist?

Beingism is a philosophy of life based on rationality and compassion for oneself and others. It is nondogmatic, progressive, and atheistic.

You might be a Beingist if you believe:
- Reason and science are our best means of understanding the universe.
- Everything that exists is natural -- nothing is supernatural.
- Ethical values are subjective, but nevertheless very important to people.
- There's no such thing as free will, and causality appears to play a significant role in the way our world operates.

Other premises include:
- Everyone wants to be happy and have a fulfilling life.
- A belief in free will as it is commonly understood is a major barrier to compassion and
- Although suffering is sometimes unavoidable, no one deserves to feel pain.
- People are generally more likely to be happy in a culture where power and control are shared together rather than held by elites.
- We all benefit to some extent from the success of others, and with effort and patience, society can be structured such that this is even more the case.

If you agree with these ideas and you wish to call yourself a Beingist, then you are one. Please join us! If, on the other hand, you're not sure about some of it -- or if you just flat out disagree -- let's communicate.

Beingism's Purpose

Our mission is to establish a coherent vision of ethical behavior and social activism for people disinclined to accept religious and faith-based philosophies of life, and to further it by creating community and developing new and enjoyable ways of changing the world for the better.

It may be that nonreligious individuals are less likely to form communities than their religious counterparts. Certainly, the lack of a preexisting community (such as an established church) is a relative hindrance to community-building. No doubt also willingness to question pervasive societal norms, particularly when they are part of belief systems from which most people derive emotional, social, and/or financial support, probably tends to accompany an individualistic (rather than community-oriented) approach to life. In addition, social stigma reduces the community resources available to nonreligious people, both financially (e.g. nonreligious institutions are not given the same financial benefits as faith-based organizations) and socially (e.g., fear of discrimination leads to increased difficulty in reaching out to find others with similar values). Unfortunately, these factors have fractured communities of nonreligious people, making it extremely difficult for them to agree upon or articulate a positive vision for the future, or to create social change. This lack of community also leads religious communities to conclude that nonreligious people are without ethics.

When we say that we're "nonreligious," "agnostic," "atheist," or "unbelieving," we're really only saying what we aren't. These words certainly reflect an aspect of our identity, but we can be (and we are) much more than this: We are a community of people with many shared ideas and values, including reason, happiness, and compassion.

Creating the social change these values ask of us isn't always easy. Powerful forces oppose it, and devoting effort to creating change may mean hard work helping others or engaging in activism. It may mean giving up the time to do other fun activities. Sometimes it means being stigmatized by ideological enemies as unpatriotic, weak, contrary, or worse. And even if we don't fear wasting our efforts or being criticized, we may simply not know how to go about it by ourselves.

By working together, we can avoid many of these problems. By doing so, we not only get closer to creating the kind of society we want to live in, we also find ways to enjoy the process. By unleashing our creativity and passion in the common pursuit of a well-chosen goal, and by finding whatever connections between us as we may, we make it exciting and enjoyable. The point is that we can be ourselves -- and change the world.

TwitThis






Comments

Steve's picture

Steve
(anonymous user)

Free Will

First time to this page and I am trying to wrap my head around every principle and the one I have a hard time with is Free Will. I am not sure I understand the point in the context that it's made therefore I will merely state what I think is meant and why I think differently so I can be clarified and argued with. There is no Free Will only Causality. Everything that happens is due from some other event happening. I find this inheritantly wrong only because no matter what happened previously, we always have a choice. Essentially, a person who is brought up to be a good person as opposed to someone who is brought up (not necessarily by parents, but their environment) to be a bad person can always choose to buck their habits to do the unexpected. So I am not saying that people don't act a certain way because of their past experiences, but that there is the choice if they decide to make it.

ineptsegue's picture

ineptsegue
(Beingism Founder)

Choice and causality

Steve, the essay at: http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/15 addresses the issue you bring up here. In brief, when a person chooses to behave in a manner that goes against some of her or his general inclinations, instincts, or upbringing, the choice most likely has some other cause related to other aspects of that person's environment or genetic background. No matter how unexpected this behavior is from the perspective of an observer, this must necessarily be so--unless you're presuming that some behavior is uncaused. So long as behavior is caused, there can be no free will. On the other hand, if the choice *doesn't* have causes, then it is random--and again, not really a choice at all. Either way, there's no such thing as free will, which is a concept that doesn't really have a meaningful definition.

Anonymous's picture


(anonymous user)

But could you not be a

But could you not be a beingist without being an atheist.
After 50 yrs in the church, I don't care for organized religion anymore---yet I believe passionately in GOD---even if, as I put it ,a GOD BEYOND THE BIBLE, GOD BEYOND THE CHURCH.
tHIS IS MY 2ND COMMENT TO YOUR ARTICLE, WHICH i'M READING IN PIECES---- but I saw your qualifier of Athiesm. That's one reason I am writing my blog here with the overall theme of UNBOXING GOD. I feel so many turn away from GOD just because of , shall we say, the packaging, the presentation. That's why I want to untangle, unbox, uncloud GOD.
Nonetheless--- and otherwise, enjoying your concept of beingism. Thanks again, Lonnie Fowler ( for lack of a better term, a free-thinking, independent BELIEVER!). lrf1951

JARL's picture

JARL
(anonymous user)

Godly considerations.

I'm a first time visitor to this site so I may be off but I will speak up nonetheless since I can relate to the content rather well.

Lonnie Fowler: From what I have read here, belief in certain concepts of god could be compatible with the ideas presented here as long as whatever you call "god" isn't relevant to human activity. If you posit the existence of a being that is a director, judge, jury, executioner or rewarder of human behavior then your stance would probably be incompatible with beingism. It would mandate worship or at least some consideration of an unproven entity in our thoughts and deeds. On the other hand, the question of a god as creator of the universe and of the laws of nature doesn't seem to be relevant here since it is rather meaningless: universal laws what governs nature were either set up blindly or purposefully but neither conclusion would change the way reality works, therefore the point is moot. God only matters if you assume that it can intervene, and beingists reject that possibility.

Beingists: Correct me if I'm wrong.

PS: Why is Dubya staring at me?

ineptsegue's picture

ineptsegue
(Beingism Founder)

Re: Godly considerations

I think that's true to the extent there's more ambiguity about whether a god that doesn't intervene can exist than about whether or not a god that does intervene can exist. There's actually evidence *against* the idea that an interventionist god exists; there's only *an absence of evidence for* the idea that a non-interventionist god exists. I'd frame it thusly: Beingism is only fully and clearly incompatible with ideas that are clearly self-contradictory or nonsensical (by nonsensical, I mean that they don't define key concepts in meaningful ways). So some concepts of god (e.g. an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being) are clearly completely incompatible. Beingism is also incompatible with calling concepts that have no evidence for them likely or probably true, though, so between these two factors, I'd say that makes god as a concept that is pretty hard to reconcile with Beingism.

And as for Dubya; well, I think CausalCrunch put him there to motivate people to put up other pictures. :)

ineptsegue's picture

ineptsegue
(Beingism Founder)

Beingism and theism

Well, I don't get to define this by myself, but Beingism is definitely a naturalistic philosophy. I'd say that if you're in agreement that everything in the universe is natural (i.e. that nothing is supernatural), you might be able to maintain belief in a god by some definitions. You could say that some kind of powerful alien has something to do with the ongoing operation of certain parts of the universe and call said alien "god"—or you could just define the universe itself as god, without being exactly *inconsistent* with Beingism. On the other hand, there's just no evidence at all for conclusions like the first, so it seems somewhat arbitrary—and the second definition seems to me clearly inconsistent with what most people mean when they use the word, so there's no real point to using that word to refer to such a concept.

How does all this add up? I guess to my mind, then, stating that there is a god conflicts with the spirit of Beingism, which is about believing in things to the extent to which there's evidence for those things. The concept of god has no clear definition, there's just no evidence for anything like what people generally mean when they refer to it, and the concept is wrapped in a lot of non-naturalistic (mystical and faulty) associations. I think we'd be much better off to just stop using it altogether.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.