Ninavism - The Philosophy of Immortality
Ordering a Book
Feedback Form
1. Technological Immortality
2. Final Immortality
3. Life Creation and Propagation
4. Life Centres in the Universe
5. Reincarantion Combined with Resurrection
6. Complete Model of Immortality
7. Postimmortality
8. History & Evolution of Immortality
9. Ninavism
10. Supernatural Forces
11. Problem of Evil
12. Epistemology
13. Methodology
14. Compatibilities of Immortalities
15. Heaven(s) & Hell(s)
16. Implementation of Final Immortality
17. Implementation of Present Immortality
18. Paradoxes & Puzzles of Final Immortality
19. Animals & Plants
20. Atheism
21. Population Control
22. Gays
Glossary of Terms
About Web Site
Chapter 9


Summary of Chapter

Ninavism is a set of beliefs that supports Immortality; it is a natural system that is compatible with supernatural. Ninavism does not rely on Supernatural Forces, but it also does not exclude them. Ninavism is a rational view designed to comply with Science; it explicitly supports biological evolution of living organisms. Ninavism provides a rational justification for traditional religions; it serves as their base. Ninavism is the extension of religions into technological and scientific areas that traditionally are not covered by them.
      Ninavism by itself is not a religion, but rather a philosophy. It might serve as a base for new religions formulated in the future. The new religions should not be antagonistic towards the traditional ones. Ninavism is compatible with all religions. It does not raise some religions above others, but rather treats them as correct as long as they support Immortality and Afterlife. Ninavism is against religious exclusiveness, such as denying good Immortal life to followers of opposing religions. Ninavism treats exclusiveness as a way of increasing the number of its own followers, rather than a matter of doctrine.
      Supporters of Ninavism are called Ninavians. Followers of all traditional religions are Ninavians because they support the belief in Immortality. Each religion has a separate way of defining Immortality and God(s). However, from the point of view of Ninavism, the details of Supernatural Forces are irrelevant, of secondary importance, as long as the principal ideas of Immortality are retained. The Philosophy of Immortality can be formulated in many different ways, in general. The subset of a Philosophy of Immortality that is described by this book is called Ninavism - it is a particular version of a Philosophy of Immortality.

Interpretations of Ninavism

Ninavism supports many traditional religious concepts. However, it frequently extends or generalizes them, creating new interpretations. Making new interpretations is quite common in philosophy and religions. What is not that common is that Ninavism does not reject or abandon original meanings and interpretations. Ninavism defines many terms as a long string of alternatives. This procedure is best demonstrated in an example. The definition of the concept of God(s) used by Ninavism is:
GOD(S) =       theological, all powerful, anthropomorphic personal God(s)
                       (usually unspecified and devoid of details)
          OR       natural anthropomorphic forces with powers to create Immortality
                       (Humans of Future or Aliens)
          OR       non-anthropomorphic (non-personal) Supernatural Forces
          OR       ??? (something else not known yet)
Defining concepts as multiple alternatives is the systematic approach of Ninavism. The reason for this is simple. In present times, knowledge is limited. The precise form of God(s) and many other religious concepts are unknown; they might be this or that. Nobody knows which version of God(s), Immortality, or other concept is correct. Therefore, it is good to consider them all as possibly true. If, in the future, it turns out that a particular version is not correct, it will be simply dropped. If, in the future, another version, which is not on the list yet, will turn out to be a contender or true, it should be added to the list. In the end, there might be one winner only, such as a particular version of God(s) or Immortality; or alternatively, it might turn out that more than one version of God(s) and Immortality are true simultaneously. More details are in the chapter METHODOLOGY.

Simplicity of Traditional Religions

The approach used by traditional religions is a bit different to that of Ninavism. Religions normally define just one version of God(s), Immortality, or other concepts, and rigidly stick to them. There are a few reasons that justify such an approach; firstly, is simplicity. It is much easier to understand a single version, rather than a long list of multiple alternatives. When a priest, imam, rabbi, or other clergy give a sermon to the audience of a few hundred people, they are all different. Some are without primary school education, while others are professors. The religious doctrines cannot be presented separately to farmers, clerks, or scientists. The great majority of followers of traditional religions are neither scientists nor philosophers. The same teaching is for all. Therefore, the easiest approach is to make the doctrine as simple as possible. In this way, all can understand it.
      The second reason for traditional religions to define each concept in one version only is to avoid splitting religions up. If a particular religious concept, such as God(s) or Immortality, is defined in more than one version, then there is a real possibility that one group of followers will be attached to one version, while another group to a different version. History shows that religions were split when one group rejected the interpretation of another group. Religious wars were fought over multiple versions of a doctrine. So, there is a very good reason that traditional religions avoid the confusion of ideas as much as possible.
      The easiest way to make religious concepts simple and to avoid multiple versions, is to say as little as possible about the concept. The most extreme way is to say nothing about a particular idea; that is right, nothing. This can be done in a few ways. For example, by declaring this object unpronounceable or unimaginable. Some religions apply this methodology to the concept of God(s). This is the simplest of all possible definitions, and avoids multiple versions. A similar approach is used by traditional religions with the concept of Immortality, although not in such an extreme way. Leaving out details from a defined concept leaves all possibilities open. The way of defining concepts to be as general as possible leaves all alternatives open. Ninavism, by creating an explicit string of alternative meanings, extends the traditional generality of religious concepts, but with added detail.

Psychological Justification of Ninavism

The traditional religious way of defining concepts as very general and unspecific has serious disadvantage. It is devoid of almost all content. From a psychological point of view, this is not good. People like to imagine ideas, such as Immortality; men like to have examples. Providing details is also important for practical reasons. For example, preparation for Immortality can be done better if a person knows about it a bit; just like holidays. In order to have a good time on vacations, one needs to know the itinerary, attractions, dangers, etc. Describing religious concepts in detail is, therefore, important for practical reasons. This is what Ninavism does by providing multiple interpretations of Immortality and Supernatural Forces. These include meanings used by traditional religions, and a few others not covered by them.
      The methodology of Ninavism enables psychological contemplation of each alternative version, and multiple details; it is like cycling through them. For example, when Ninavians attend prayers in native church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other place of worship, they think only about version of Immortality and God(s), exactly as presented in their respective religion, at that time; they do not consider or analyse other interpretations. However, when they are at home in leisure time, they are free to think and contemplate a second alternative version of Immortality and God(s). This is not a betrayal of their religion, because they do not pray or worship version two of Immortality and God(s). They just think about it without antagonism. When Ninavians are at school or university, they are free to analyse and discuss a third version of Immortality and God(s), without contradicting the previous two versions.
      Any two particular versions of Immortality and God(s) might be incompatible with each other. That is, if one is true, then the other is not. For Ninavians, this does not matter, because all versions are compatible with eternity. In this way, Ninavians do not care which versions of Immortality and God(s) are correct. They support them all, even if their religion is concentrated on just one particular version. Cycling mentally over multiple versions of important religious concepts is very comfortable psychologically. It assures believers that they do not have to rely in their belief in Immortality on the correctness of just one version of Immortality and God(s), but rather on many; and it does not matter which one.

Justification for Traditional Religions

Ninavians who follow traditional religions should not criticize or undermine their own religion by imposing or demanding from them the explicit support for alternative versions of Immortality and God(s). Traditional religions frequently are not able to do that, because they do not have the explicit support for modern versions of Immortality and God(s) in their respective Holy books. The main reason is that these versions were not known in antiquity.
      There is another reason why traditional religions are reluctant to support any modern versions and interpretations of Immortality and God(s). It is because of the reliance of these versions on science. On one hand, the dependence on science is good because it provides rational justification. On other hand, it is bad, because science is notorious for changing mind. For example, one scientific theory might be true in this decade or century, and declared false in the next decade or century. This is due to new observations, experiments, technology, or methodology. Any version of Immortality and God(s) that depends on the correctness of scientific theory, is also changeable. It might be true today and false tomorrow. Religions do not like to be dependent on frequent variations. They prefer to present views that are unaltered for millennia. They do not want changing concepts of Immortality and God(s) every century, because this leads to conflicts and an erosion of beliefs. Religions carry out the good job of sticking to time-proven, unchangeable concepts, versions, and interpretations. However, persevering too much with invariability also has negative consequences, such as dogmatism and an inability to adjust to change.
      Ninavism does not have the problem of unalterability; it is inherently and essentially changeable. It adjusts itself to new scientific discoveries. It drops versions and alternatives that new discoveries prove to be incorrect. It adds new versions when scientific discoveries are made. For Ninavism, the ability to change is ingrained, methodical. At the same time, Ninavism preserves the core beliefs of unchangeable traditional religions. Ninavism combines the best of changeability and unchangingness. It is in the interest of religions to allow multiple versions of Immortality and God(s) implicitly. This means not criticizing alternative versions explicitly. Religions do not need to express open support for other versions. It is sufficient if they keep a diplomatic silence. However, if they ignore this and start criticizing Ninavians, they are shooting themselves in the foot by losing followers.

Unity of Religions

Some current-age religions have ambitions to become the only religion on the earth. However, in current times, no religion is clearly dominant. Until the 19th century, Christianity seemed to be on the way to achieving this goal. It was spreading rapidly and almost conquered the world. However, now Christianity is in retreat. The main enemy is no other religion, but rather Atheism. The hopes of conquering other religions, such as Islam, are next to none. Christian-dominated countries could destroy weaker Muslims ones, but they are not able to conquer their souls; not to mention Buddhist and Hindu countries. The next contender to world domination is Islam. It is nowhere near to winning the hearts and minds of the world. The followers of Islam betray themselves by mass migration to richer Christian-dominated countries, where they frequently live as second-class citizens. Jews abandoned their dream of world domination a long time ago. Buddhism was, at one stage, spreading rapidly around the globe, but it turned out that Buddhists are also not Saints; some of their countries committed atrocities equal to those of other religions. In the end, there is absolutely no hope that any religion will dominate the world. Religions need to coexist.
      Infighting inside religions is the next source of disunity. Christians spent lots of blood in religious wars in Europe in the Middle Ages. Christianity has already passed the stage of physical wars, but they are still in the internal wars of doctrines. Now is the turn for Islam, with heavy fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In the case of irreconcilable differences between religions, Humans of Future might split, building Final World for each faith separately. The development of technology on the earth excludes the possibility of science being used in the future by one religion only. For example, technology developed by Christians is quickly adapted by Hinduism or Islam. The hiding of technology by different religions could hamper the overall goal of building Final World. If religions remain divided, then none of them might be able to reach the final goal. Therefore, it is better for all religions to unite and support the common goal of constructing Final World. Ninavism provides one such path towards reconciliation.


Both exclusive and inclusive religions promise salvation to their own followers. The difference between exclusive and inclusive religions lies in the way they treat people who reject religion. A particular religion is exclusive if it supports damnation or condemnation of those who reject that religion, like, for example, followers of other religions. A particular religion is inclusive if it refrains from damnation or condemnation of the people who reject that religion.
      The oldest traditional religions, such as Australian Aborigines, Animists, and Pagans, were inclusive. They were either universalists; that is, supporting the salvation of everyone, or they promised the special protection of Supernatural Forces for their own followers without saying anything against other religions. In the current age, Hindu and Buddhist religious groups are usually inclusivist, because they do not condemn followers of other religions in strong terms, even if they place their own followers at the highest place. Traditionally, Christian religions were exclusivist, but this has changed recently. The Catholic church is officially inclusivist, but some Evangelical groups still are exclusivist. Islam was traditionally exclusivist, and in large parts, it still remains so, even if some Islamic groups are inclusivist.
      Each religion is rightfully entitled to believe that their faith is the best way to salvation; competition between religions is healthy. For example, Christians believe that faith in Jesus is the best way to salvation; this is correct. Hindus believe that faith in Brahma(n) is the best way for achieving eternity; this is correct. Muslims believe that faith in Allah and the Koran is the best way to salvation; this is correct again. The same with Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, and all other religions. The competition between religions improves them all.
      Religious exclusiveness carried out by some religions in the past was a propaganda tool designed to increase the numbers of their own followers. It was effective in antiquity, but it does not work well in the current age. Ninavism considers exclusiveness to be detrimental to a belief in Immortality.

Religions in Final Immortality

According to Ninavism, the same individual might be Christian in one Reincarnation, Hindu in another, Muslim in next, and also Buddhist, Jew, Animist, etc. The question arises: what is the religion of such an individual when one is Resurrected in Final Immortality? The answer is none. Religions are practiced only by living creatures that are far from perfection, such as humans. In perfect Final Immortality, nobody believes in anything because everyone knows; belief is not necessary anymore; there are no religions in Heaven(s). More details about this are in the chapter EPISTEMOLOGY.
      The lack of belief does not deny the presence of traditional Supernatural Forces in Final Immortality; they might be there. They are not an object of belief there, but rather the subject of scientific knowledge. Most traditional religions confirm this using phrases, such as 'direct presence of God in Heaven'. In modern language, this means the scientific confirmation of Supernatural Forces, without any beliefs.

Competition Between Religions

Ninavism does not replace individual religions. There is no one universal faith. Religions are not the same or equivalent. They have different theologies and liturgies. Ninavism provides a conceptual background to all religions, but differences remain and this is correct. Attempts to reduce all religions to just one might weaken all of them, and actually could be an obstruction to Immortality.
      The support for competition among religions shows that they are different to science. It is common in science that alternative theories compete against each other. However, in the end, all efforts are made to produce just one winner. If one scientific theory cannot win over competitors, this is considered a weakness. In a situation where no theory emerges as a clear winner, that particular area of knowledge might be declared to be unscientific. Religions are different to science. There is no need to declare one belief to be superior to all others. Actually, the emergence of a winner might weaken all religious movements. This shows that the truth of beliefs is different than the truth of scientific theories. The detailed analysis of the religious truth is in the chapter EPISTEMOLOGY.
      CMI is a generic Immortality common to all religions and philosophies. Ninavism also creates generic Supernatural Forces common to all religions and philosophies - the chapter SUPERNATURAL FORCES provides more details. On the surface, it would seem that Ninavism could drive traditional religions into extinction. However, this is not so, for several reasons.
      Morality or particular religious practices are hard to generalize. For example, it is difficult to create a universal generic morality. The generalization of religious ceremonies, liturgies, and prayers faces similar problems. For example, it would be counterproductive to create just one generic liturgy common to all religions. Each religion and philosophy has its own set of civil structures, clergy, hierarchies, buildings, and material possessions, that cannot be made generic, or the same. The limited diversity of religions and philosophies is good, because this leads to competition between religions, and their improvements. However, too much diversity is harmful. For example, if each person on the earth had their own separate religion and belief in Immortality, it would be disastrous because all of them would be weak. Beliefs need to be organized into a few groups, each with a large number of followers. Limited competition between groups is advantageous, but too much tension is not good, like, for example when it leads to religious wars.

New Philosophical and Religious Movements

Transhumanism, Posthumanism, and Singularitarianism are modern philosophical and religious movements. Transhumanists believe that future technology will transform ordinary humans into Transhumans. In the language used by Ninavism, Transhumanism roughly corresponds to technological Immortality. Posthumans are people of the future who are so different from present-day men, physically and intellectually, that they can hardly be called humans. Biological species that evolve from humans will be Posthuman. Creatures that are built and designed by current humans to resemble people are also Posthuman. Posthumans are related to Transhumans. For example, computers and Robots thinking independently from humans are both Transhuman and Posthuman. In the language of Ninavism, the Posthuman God roughly corresponds to Humans of Future.
      Singularitarians are people who believe that Transhumanism or Posthumanism can be achieved very quickly, like in the 21st century. They place hope in information technology by writing software and building computers that are able to design new and better computers without a human's aid. The new self-developing computers would have the ability to design and build things much better and quicker than humans. Most Transhuman, Posthuman, and Singularitarian philosophies support the concept of Immortality. For this reason, they are fully compatible with Ninavism. Anyone who believes in Immortality is a Ninavian. Therefore, most, if not all Transhumanists, Posthumanists, and Singularitarians are Ninavians. All of them might also be followers of any particular tradition religion.
      Transhumanism, Posthumanism, and Singularitarianism are seen by some traditional religions as competition. It does not discredit them or traditional religions. In the world of business, many companies compete against each other - it does not discredit any of them. In the world of faith, many religions compete by offering similar versions of the same product - Immortality. This competition is healthy and actually leads to the improvement of Immortality itself. No religion or philosophy has a monopoly on Immortality.

Key Points of Chapter: