We believe in a materialistic universe that started with a singularity event (or "Big Bang") about 13 billion years ago and has continued to expand outward. 

In 300 BCE Epicurus was already teaching that "something" can not come from "nothing", based on empirical evidence. This was 2,172 years before the modern law of conservation was "discovered" and proven and verified mathematically and experimentally in the 1800's by Mayer, Helmholtz and Joule.

Therefore, we believe all things arise from prior materials rather than supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. We believe the universe operates according to natural laws; the material elements coming from a "Big Bang" preexisted in some form, they did not arise from "nothing".

"Nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam." (Nothing is ever created from nothing by divine power.) Lucretius, from De Rerum Natura, Book I 

According to Epicurus and Lucretius, everything in the universe consists of atoms and void, and nothing can be created from nothing. This principle suggests that all things arise from prior materials rather than appearing spontaneously. 

Given the vastness of the universe, it is unreasonable to assume that all possible atomic combinations exist only on Earth. If the universe is infinite, then infinite variations of worlds, minerals, and environments could exist—some so alien that their life forms might be unrecognizable to us. 

If beings existed that we might call gods, they too, would be composed of matter, which means they would reside in a physical location and could not, like air, be everywhere at once.

From their world, they would be unable to observe and respond to every individual on Earth, selecting which prayers to grant or ignore. Projecting human emotions and flaws onto these possible beings distorts what would make them truly godlike and worthy of emulation. 

Even if such beings were aware of us, it would not be their duty to police, monitor, or intervene in human affairs. Expecting them to manage an entire planet’s concerns is a form of self-importance-- assuming that godlike beings would willingly dedicate themselves to fulfilling human desires. Such constant expectations would interfere with their own tranquility, happiness, and existence. 

If natural laws are universal, then something that exists outside them would defy existence as we understand it. It would be scientifically unverifiable—unable to interact with the physical world in any observable way. However, if natural laws apply only within our universe, then unknown dimensions or realms may follow different rules. 

Empirical evidence suggests that nothing that lives is truly singular—most organisms, from plants and insects to fish and humans, reproduce. If this principle extends universally, then whatever concept we have of a god cannot be singular—it, too, must have originated from something else. 

By reframing the gods as beings who embody a peaceful, ideal existence, and helping people get rid of superstitious beliefs, Epicurus placed responsibility for human destiny not in fate, and not in divine hands, but in our own.

He taught that rather than seeking intervention from supernatural forces, humans must take ownership of the consequences of their beliefs and actions. 

We reject the idea that all human beings are born guilty of inherited “sins” for actions committed thousands of years ago. Certain religious teachings instill guilt for past "sins" and worry or fear for future punishment.

We reject the imposition of generational guilt on any people based on nationality, religion, race, or country for historical actions committed before their birth or before they reached an age of accountability.

Without the weight of this imposed, inherited judgement, we believe every child should move forward unburdened, with the opportunity to discover their talents, skills, friendships, and to shape their own destiny.

History is filled with religious and political conflicts, competing ideologies, barbaric atrocities, and wars. Some humans choose to do unspeakable evil to others, while others choose to work together towards extraordinary goals.

Rational Hedonists try to refrain from making personality judgements about people based solely on their group identity. Instead, we try to assess their character based on their own actions, public words and behavior. 

Rational Hedonism, influenced by Epicurus, who believed that both animals and humans enter the world in a pure state, viewing life through a lens of nature's imprinted qualities. Personal character is first shaped within the home and later by societal norms and expectations.

Our understanding of “sins” is based on actions committed against:

1. Ourselves

2. Others (including animals)

3. Nature

We as individuals learn to be responsible for integrity in our thoughts and actions. If someone wrongs another but sincerely apologizes or offers to make amends, the responsibility for acceptance then shifts to the wronged party.

We do not dwell on the past; instead, we learn from it and move forward. Human history must be preserved accurately, as a guide to understanding what has and has not worked, but it should not define our future.

Rational Hedonism defends freedom of speech, ensuring that individuals can express their ideas without fear of censorship, ostracism, or cancellation. This right applies equally to all—regardless of ideological alignment.  

A good vocabulary and reasoning skills are important for parents to begin teaching from childhood, allowing children to watch and participate in discussions. Reading, spelling and persuasive writing skills are necessary for lifelong learning, as well as learning to recognize logical fallacies. These are the building blocks of communication skills needed for rational thinking. 

Ideally, discussions first happen among trusted friends, families or groups, where topics can be raised, challenged and honed in a friendly exchange. You each may disagree, but reasoned arguments foster truth--this is where the art of persuasion comes in.

Your right to your opinions and beliefs does not mean others will agree, and you don't need to feel obligated to explain or justify them unless you want to. It might be aggravating and frustrating at times, but others have the same rights.

"Challenge the idea, not the person". Personally attacking (Ad hominem) an individual to try and discredit their ideas or position shifts the focus of the original topic. Neither side should accept this. 

The problem starts when one's beliefs become so narrow that one refuses to consider any other perspective, when one assumes that anyone who disagrees with you must be uninformed, uneducated, or a bad person. Silencing opposition creates ignorance; declaring them unworthy of conversation, irredeemable, and needing to be silenced can make you look weak, unable to listen, imprisoned by your own mindset and unable to defend your point of view.

This differs from someone who has developed maturity, who has explored, compared, and critically examined various beliefs, listened to well-reasoned or impassioned arguments. A sound worldview welcomes examination and adaptation, and through thoughtful reflection over time, they settled on what resonates most with them. Such a person is someone who is content about their decisions, continues to enjoy learning and comparing, and evaluating perspectives, and possesses a deep understanding of the information supporting their beliefs--without feeling the need to convince others. 

While protests can raise awareness, the security felt by shielding one's identity within a large crowd increases emotional energy and triggers herd behaviour where emotions override reason and individual rights get trampled.

People often engage in behaviors with friends, groups or for social media posts they would never do alone, emboldened by social pressure and the illusion of safety. It's easy to feel virtuous, intimidating and aggressive while anonymous, believing there won't be personal accountability or consequences from parents, friends, co-workers, school or employers.

Aggressive tactics—shouting accusations, attempting public humiliation, intimidation, or destroying personal property—do not persuade. Instead, they trample the rights of individuals who are simply trying to go to work, walk in public, and live their daily lives.

Rather than providing information or building sympathy for their cause, If genuine change is the goal, these actions breed annoyance, resentment, anger and stubborn resistance--alienating the very people they claim they want to "educate" and persuade, ultimately stifling their own progress.

The failure of these tactics is evident in the deep polarization of opinions today. These groups repeat the same ineffective tactics from outdated playbooks of unsuccessful ideologies, instead of engaging in honest discussion to change hearts and minds.

If genuine change is the goal, we should articulate our views clearly and persuasively, fostering open dialogue, rational discourse, fact-based reasoning and respectful debate. This promotes a culture of understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.

Rational Hedonism encourages opposing groups to participate in one-on-one discussions, and structured debate, exchanging differing beliefs and ideologies bringing their best reasoned arguments and debated on their merits, rather than dismissed through hostility or emotional coercion. Whether in a home or public setting, open discourse should focus on ideas instead of attacks. We believe in creating an environment where intellectual diversity thrives and subjects can be critically examined, discussed and debated on their merits.

We should articulate our views clearly and persuasively, fostering open dialogue and mutual respect. This promotes a culture of understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.

Epicurus viewed justice as a necessary pact, an evolving agreement ensuring that individuals can safely pursue a pleasurable life. 

In nature, animals live in a constant competition for food, resources, mates and survival. They rarely live together in peace and tranquility. 

Humans however, began forming larger social groups for mutual benefit and protection. Over time, rules emerged, not as divine mandates but as practical measures for the sake of getting along, maintaining order and dispensing punishment for wrongdoers.

Epicurus' believed that "justice" varies across societies, changing as communities grow, evolve, or decline. Laws are not static, but reflect the diversity of human culture, shaped and adapted over time by the needs and agreements of the people within them.   

His view contrasts sharply with Plato's notion of justice which emphasized divinely ordained laws of justice decreed by the gods from heavenly realms or written in stone by the gods, fixed and eternal, for all humanity to obey.

Three of Epicurus' Principle Doctrines state this belief:

Justice is a reciprocal agreement:

31)   Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

Justice applies only where binding agreements exist—animals and certain societies that cannot or will not uphold such agreements are neither just nor unjust.

32)  Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.

There is no absolute justice:

33)   There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times.

These three highlight the practical, adaptable nature of justice in Epicurean thought, rooted in reason and the evolving needs of different countries and communities.

We believe your body and brain serve as a physical vessel made up of atoms, holding together the essence of who you are. When you die, nerves from all five sensations to your brain shut down--it would be unable to sense or reason the vessel "breaks", and the deterioration of the body begins.

Your soul is born with the body and dies with it. We instinctively know this and recognize it in phrases of comfort like,"This is just their body, an empty shell, they aren't there any more". 

Even if a soul were to survive the body’s decay, if it broke free of the body it would be incapable of thought or sensation, as the nerves, brain, and senses—all essential for memory and reasoning—are left behind in the decomposing body. Just as we did not exist before birth, our sensations and experiences end when we die. There is no place of punishment or reward—only the absence of awareness.

Even if the soul did not decompose within the human body, it would be unable to sense or reason because the nerve endings within the body responsible for sensation would decompose, as does the brain, which processes those sensations into reasoning.

Even if souls did exist and survived the decay of the host body, without senses, nerves, and the memory bank of a brain, they would never be able to feel, reason, or even remember the past life.

Just as they didn’t exist before we were born, our sensations and experiences end when we die. There is no place of punishment or reward, or life after death we can experience.

This understanding does not make Rational Hedonists nihilists. Accepting the fragility of existence makes life precious, encouraging us to live creatively rather than destructively, embracing each moment as our one chance in the sunlight. It frees us to fully embrace life--to appreciate the breathtaking beauty and raw power of nature, respect individualism and diversity of thoughts/creativity, value family and close friends, and to enthusiastically pursue a pleasant life, however you define it.