He moves through the world quietly,
learning to carry weight on his own.
Some doors were closed, some never existed,
and some he couldn’t keep knocking on.
Some moments slip through his hands,
others arrive late, much later than he hoped.
Shadows of him grow taller every year,
making the room too dark to speak.
No maps, no signals — just the road,
and a tired choice to keep moving anyway.
by Shamsaddin Amanov
Date: 26 November 2025.
View the Original Article: https://theamanov.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-introduction-of-new-religious-view.html
The Introduction of a New Religious/Philosophical View: "Omittoism"
For some time now, I have been contemplating the nature of religion and the concept of God. In the course of this reflection, I have found no compelling truth within the bounds of established, man-made religions. However, the idea of God is not so easily dismissed. With that in mind, I propose the introduction of a new religious and philosophical view: Omittoism, a theosophical approach.
(Keywords: Introduction, New, Religion, Philosophy, Religious, Philosophical, View, Omittoism, God, Human Beings, Belief)
The Verbal Meaning of Omittoism
The term Omittoism is derived from the Latin verb omitto, meaning "to omit," "to leave out," "to neglect," "to disregard," "to abandon," or "to exclude." In German, a comparable term might be unterlassen. The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive doctrine, movement, or theory. Therefore, Omittoism refers to a philosophical and religious viewpoint that emphasizes the rejection or abandonment of divine authority, irrespective of the potential existence of a god or gods.
What Does Omittoism Declare?
At its core, Omittoism is a religious and philosophical stance that centers on one crucial question: the existence of God is of little consequence. Whether God exists or not is immaterial. The critical point is that humans must never permit God to assume superiority over them. The central tenet of Omittoism is to resist subjugation to any divine being, to rebel or act recklessly in accordance with one’s individual nature. Its guiding principle is the protection of human autonomy and human rights.
Should God not exist, there is no emotional turmoil or existential crisis for Omittoists—they remain unaffected, as they would be in a purely atheistic state. In the worst-case scenario, where God exists, Omittoism advocates turning one’s back on God—abandoning, disliking, and rejecting the divine figure. This rejection is rooted in the perception that such a God, given His designs, creations, and moral outlook, is unworthy of reverence. The term Omittoism essentially embodies the stance of being ashamed of having such a creator or creators.
Unlike Atheism, where the existence of God is denied outright, Omittoism acknowledges the potential existence of God or gods, but ultimately refuses to submit to divine authority or divine will. The Omittoist does not subscribe to the notion of servitude, regardless of the existence of a deity. Whether God exists is irrelevant; the Omittoist remains free, unshackled by divine commands.
It is crucial to distinguish Omittoism from Apatheism. Apatheism refers to a passive indifference to the question of God's existence, while Omittoism involves an active rejection and dissatisfaction with the very idea of a deity—should one exist. The two are not interchangeable, as Omittoism is defined by its critical stance toward God.
The distinction between Atheism and Omittoism lies in their approach to God’s existence. Atheism denies God's existence, whereas Omittoism maintains a critical stance even if God exists. For an Omittoist, the concept of a Creator—whether a personal God like the ones described in Abrahamic religions or some other divine entity—is inherently flawed.
What Kind of God(s) Might Exist According to Omittoism?
There are three basic possibilities for the existence of God(s) from the Omittoist perspective:
X: A God or gods we already know—those from established religions, such as the God of Christianity or Islam.
Y: A God or gods we do not yet know—an unknown deity or deities that might exist but have not revealed themselves.
Z: No God exists at all.
Case X: The Known God(s)
If the potential existing God is one we are already familiar with—such as the God described in religious texts (e.g., Jesus in Christianity, Allah in Islam, etc.)—Omittoism does not regard this deity with favor. Omittoism rejects the traditional divine figure, not because of a lack of belief in God, but because the qualities attributed to these deities—such as omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence—are seen as grossly insufficient or contradictory. The Omittoist finds these gods disappointing, particularly due to their perceived negligence and lack of action in the face of human suffering.
Case Y: The Unknown God(s)
If a God exists but is unknown or has not revealed Himself to humanity, the Omittoist holds that this deity would also be deemed a disappointment. If God exists and remains silent, allowing the world to descend into chaos, then such a deity is considered an "Idiot God." A humble or modest God who remains silent in the face of human suffering, failing to intervene, is seen as either negligent or inept. This view rejects the notion that divine silence or detachment is acceptable, labeling such a God as intellectually or morally deficient.
Case Z: The Non-Existence of God
Finally, if no God exists at all, the Omittoist does not feel the need to further engage in this discussion. The absence of a God simply removes the need for theological debate or existential worry.
A Critique of Divine Authority
In summary, Omittoism presents a radical critique of the concept of God. It challenges the traditional theological assumption that God, if He exists, should have authority over humanity. The Omittoist view posits that no divine entity—whether known or unknown—should hold sway over human freedom. All potential deities are deemed disappointments, either for their intellectual and moral deficiencies or their absence from human affairs.
This philosophical stance underscores a profound commitment to human autonomy and human rights, prioritizing these values above any theological imperative. While the existence of God may be acknowledged, it does not alter the Omittoist’s firm refusal to submit to any divine authority. The central tenet of Omittoism is that even if God exists, His presence should not override the inherent rights and freedoms of humanity.
The Concept of Divine Power and Human Power: A Reversal of Hierarchical Norms
In most religious systems, the divine is seen as the highest authority, and human beings are often expected to submit to this divine will. This hierarchical relationship between the divine and human beings forms the foundation of many theistic traditions, where obedience, servitude, and reverence are paramount. Omittoism, however, flips this dynamic. It rejects the idea that God—whether in the form of a traditional deity or an abstract force—should hold any power over the individual. Rather, Omittoism proposes that humans are the ultimate authorities over their own lives, thoughts, and actions. This inversion of power structures is a radical departure from the traditional religious view that positions the divine as the ultimate source of moral and existential direction. By rejecting any form of divine authority, Omittoism empowers the individual to take full responsibility for their own existence, free from divine expectation, judgment, or reward. In this framework, human power is not derived from obedience to God but from the inherent capacity of individuals to shape their own destinies.
Religious Evolution and the Emergence of Omittoism: The Decline of the Divine Narrative
Religions have evolved over millennia, often in response to social, political, and cultural changes. From polytheism to monotheism, from animism to abstract philosophical gods, the idea of God has undergone significant transformation. Early religions, grounded in nature worship and animism, gave way to more structured theologies in which divine beings were anthropomorphized and placed at the center of cosmic and moral order. Over time, as human societies became more complex, so did the religious frameworks that governed them. Omittoism can be seen as the next logical step in the evolution of religious thought, a culmination of the historical development of skepticism and secularism. In a world that increasingly values reason, science, and empirical evidence, the divine narrative no longer seems plausible as the central organizing principle of human life. Omittoism emerges not just as a critique of existing religions but as a recognition that the role of religion—once essential for explaining existence—has diminished in the modern world. The collapse of divine authority signals the rise of human agency as the primary force shaping both individual lives and society at large.
Omittoism and the Problem of Meaning: Absence of God, Presence of Purpose
One of the most profound challenges that Omittoism presents is the issue of meaning in a world without a divine architect. If Omittoism denies the authority and purpose of God, what does that mean for human purpose and meaning? Here, Omittoism takes a stance similar to existentialism, where meaning is not inherent in the universe but is something humans must create for themselves. In a world devoid of divine purpose, individuals are responsible for crafting their own meaning through their actions, relationships, and contributions to the world. This could be seen as both a burden and a liberation. The absence of a divine framework does not necessarily lead to nihilism or despair. Rather, it opens the door to infinite possibilities for meaning-making, grounded in human experience, creativity, and mutual understanding. Omittoism rejects the idea that there is a predetermined meaning to life dictated by a higher power, instead positing that meaning arises from human choice, responsibility, and the connections we forge with one another. In this sense, Omittoism provides a path forward that empowers individuals to find purpose in their existence, independent of divine interference.
Omittoism and the Critique of Sacred Texts: Human Constructs vs. Divine Revelation
Another essential aspect of Omittoism is its critique of sacred texts. In traditional religious systems, holy books are considered to be the ultimate sources of truth, divinely inspired and infallible. However, Omittoism views these texts as human constructs—products of their respective historical, social, and political contexts. For Omittoists, texts like the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita are valuable primarily as cultural and historical documents that reflect the values, struggles, and myths of the societies that produced them, but they are not divine revelations. This stance calls into question the validity of religious authority that derives its legitimacy from these texts. By stripping away the notion of divine inspiration, Omittoism challenges the reverence afforded to these texts and encourages a more critical, secular approach to moral and existential questions. Instead of relying on the commandments of a deity recorded in ancient scriptures, Omittoism encourages individuals to build their own ethical frameworks based on reason, empathy, and social cooperation.
The Future of Religion: Post-Theistic Worldviews and Omittoism’s Role
As global society becomes more secular and scientific understanding continues to expand, Omittoism can be viewed as part of a larger trend toward post-theistic worldviews. The decline of traditional religious belief—especially in more developed, secularized societies—suggests a future where divine authority is no longer the central guiding force in human life. Omittoism offers an alternative to traditional religion, one that acknowledges the historical and cultural importance of religion but rejects its continued dominance over human existence. In this post-theistic world, human beings must find meaning and purpose without the crutch of divine explanations. Omittoism is not merely a rejection of religion but a philosophical stance that invites a rethinking of what it means to be human in a universe without gods. It proposes a future where human responsibility, moral autonomy, and the pursuit of knowledge and happiness are paramount, unencumbered by the constraints of divine expectations.
Omittoism and the Rejection of Metaphysical Dualism: A Materialist and Naturalistic Approach
A further important philosophical stance in Omittoism is its rejection of metaphysical dualism—the idea that there is a sharp distinction between the physical world and the realm of the divine or supernatural. Many religions have promoted a dualistic view of reality, where the material world is seen as inferior or temporary compared to the eternal, spiritual realm. Omittoism adopts a materialist and naturalistic perspective, viewing the physical universe and its processes as sufficient for understanding existence. There is no need for an immaterial, transcendent realm to explain human consciousness, morality, or existence. Instead, Omittoism encourages an embrace of the physical world as the only reality we can know and understand. This view aligns with the scientific worldview, where the natural world is studied through observation, experimentation, and reason, and where meaning and purpose are seen as human constructions rather than metaphysical truths imposed by a divine force.
Further Exploration (To Be Continued...)
As this exploration of Omittoism progresses, further attention will be given to its practical implications and how it relates to contemporary discussions on morality, freedom, and the nature of divinity. Future writings will explore how Omittoism interacts with secular humanism, existentialism, and other philosophical traditions, as well as the ways in which this new view might reshape our understanding of divinity and human responsibility.
I had a bird in a cage,
And I killed her.
Even under the melting sun,
My hands still remain cold.
Behind all those iron bars,
The bird still held a freedom
That I never had.
As I never saw the borders,
Kept aspiring for more
And was never satisfied.
She flew and I watched.
I was young,
Foolish,
Jealous —
And I killed her...
Soldat Amanov
23 March 2025
1. https://allpoetry.com/poem/18530660-Confession-by-Shamsaddin-Amanov
2. https://hellopoetry.com/poem/5129019/confession/
3. https://medium.com/@shamsaddinamanov/confession-49e3a59bf078
10 İyul 2024 - Hərbi Xidmətimin İlk Günü. 365 GÜN BAŞLADI.
HƏRBİ XİDMƏT TARİXÇƏM:
1. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 18 Sentyabr 2024
2. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 23 Sentyabr 2024
3. Gün Növbətçisi - 25/26 Sentyabr 2024, 2-ci növbə
4. Gün Növbətçisi - 28/29 Sentyabr 2024, 3-cü növbə
5. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 03 Oktyabr 2024
6. Gün Növbətçisi - 10/11 Oktyabr 2024, 1-ci növbə
7. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 19 Oktyabr 2024
8. Gün Növbətçisi - 20/21 Oktyabr 2024, 2-ci növbə
9. Patrul, Eskadrelya - 25/26 Oktyabr 2024, 3-cü post, 1-ci növbə
10. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 30 Oktyabr 2024
11. Gün Növbətçisi - 30/31 Oktyabr 2024, 3-cü növbə
12. Gün Növbətçisi - 03/04 Noyabr 2024, 3-cü növbə
13. Gün Növbətçisi - 17/18 Noyabr 2024, 2-ci növbə
14. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 22/23 Noyabr 2024, 2-ci post, 1-ci növbə
15. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 25 Noyabr 2024
16. Gün Növbətçisi - 27/28 Noyabr 2024, 1-ci növbə
17. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 29 Noyabr 2024
18. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 30 Noyabr / 01 Dekabr 2024, 2-ci post, 1-ci növbə
19. Gün Növbətçisi - 03/04 Dekabr 2024, 2-ci növbə
20. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 05 Dekabr 2024
21. Gün Növbətçisi - 05/06 Dekabr 2024, 1-ci növbə (Cəzalı Xidmət)
22. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 08/09 Dekabr 2024, 2-ci post, 2-ci növbə
23. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 10 Dekabr 2024
24. Gün Növbətçisi - 18/19 Dekabr 2024, 2-ci növbə
25. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 20/21 Dekabr 2024, 1-ci post, 2-ci növbə
26. Gün Növbətçisi - 27/28 Dekabr 2024, 3-cü növbə
27. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 01/02 Yanvar 2025, 1-ci post, 1-ci növbə
28. Gün Növbətçisi - 03/04 Yanvar 2025, 3-cü növbə
29. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 09/10 Yanvar 2025, 1-ci post, 2-ci növbə
30. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 11/12 Yanvar 2025, Padnus yuma
31. Gün Növbətçisi - 14/15 Yanvar 2025, 1-ci növbə
32. Gün Növbətçisi - 27/28 Yanvar 2025, 2-ci növbə
MƏZUNİYYƏT - 30 YANVAR - 09 FEVRAL (10 GÜN)
33. Gün Növbətçisi - 16/17 Fevral 2025, 1-ci növbə
34. Gün Növbətçisi - 22/23 Fevral 2025, 2-ci növbə
35. Gün Növbətçisi - 26/27 Fevral 2025, 1-ci növbə
36. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 02/03 Mart 2025, 2-ci post, 1-ci növbə
37. Gün Növbətçisi - 06/07 Mart 2025, 2-ci növbə
38. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 08 Mart 2025
39. Patrul, Post (Vişka) - 10/11 Mart 2025, 2-ci post, 3-cü növbə
40. Patrul, Baş İdarə - 14/15 Mart 2025, 2-ci post, 2-ci növbə
41. Gün Növbətçisi - 18/19 Mart 2025, 2-ci növbə
42. Gün Növbətçisi - 25/26 Mart 2025, 3-cü növbə
43. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 28 Mart 2025
44. Patrul, Post (Vişka) - 30/31 Mart 2025, 1-ci post, 2-ci növbə
03 APREL 2025 - BÖLÜYÜM DƏYİŞDİRİLDİ - 1 AY XİDMƏT YOXDU.
45. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 26/27 Aprel 2025, Stəkan yuma
46. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 10/11 May 2025, Stəkan yuma
47. Gün Növbətçisi - 17/18 May 2025, 3-cü növbə
48. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 20 May 2025
49. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 25/26 May 2025, Stəkan yuma
50. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 04/05 İyun 2025, Padnus yuma
51. Gün Növbətçisi - 11/12 İyun 2025, 1-ci növbə
52. Tərəvəz Naryadı - 16 İyun 2025
53. Yeməkxana Naryadı - 22/23 İyun 2025, Padnus çırpma
54. Gün Növbətçisi - 27/28 İyun 2025, 2-ci növbə
"I don't know when, I don't know how, but I know one thing for sure, something will happen, and something good will happen."
Tolerance - this is a very magical word to me. I don't know the invention date of tolerance, I haven't researched yet. But I am sure about one thing.
Not Hitler, Not Bush, Not fission bombs, Not climate change, Not overpopulation
One thing that will ruin the world is "Tolerance".
It is a very dangerous tool for the wrong hands. Very dangerous tool for the age we live in. Tolerance, as of 2020, is everything. Everything, but itself.
What is really tolerance?
Is it real or myth? Does it really work or not?
How do we define tolerance? How do we assess behavior that is out of tolerance?
But is tolerance good for us? Are we really sure about that? I am suspicious.
Even I am afraid we are not talking about the same "tolerance". I am afraid it has a "unique" definition for each person.
Will you tolerate my understanding of tolerance? If yes, don't. If no, tell me why?
During the Second Karabakh War, we see amazing solidarity between Azerbaijani people. A soldier in the frontline congratulated his daughter's birthday on TV, then some group of people found the family and gave birthday gifts to the little girl saying these are coming from his father. There are many examples like this, for example, while writing this, I witnessed another one on Facebook, an old man donated his (probably) the last 180 manats (~90 euro) to the military fund with wrecked shoes. Now some people are trying to find that old man for buying him brand new shoes.
This war repaired the solidarity of the Azerbaijani people. President Ilham Aliyev is usually posting the names of newly liberated lands on twitter at the end of the day. All the people in Baku are celebrating this by applauding in their balconies with the national anthem and so on.
If we go back a little bit earlier, the strongest solidarity in the last 25 years was witnessed in the summer of 2020 after Armenia killed the Azerbaijani high official military servant, General Major Polad Hasimov. After his death, thousands of people gathered in front of the Azerbaijani Parlament, demanding war with Armenia.
Azerbaijan is the Democratic Republic. However, it doesn't really work so in real life.
(I will continue later...)
Azerbaijan and Armenia started the Second Karabakh War (First one: 1988-1994) on the 27th of September 2020. As of today, the 6th of October 2020, the war is ongoing. Azerbaijan is fighting for its internationally recognized territories (by the United Nations, the highest international body with 200 member countries) which are occupied by Armenia. Armenia is fighting to keep Nagorno-Karabakh by claiming that this territory belongs to them because of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia.
In the latest news, the Azerbaijan side claims that they have liberated some parts of the occupied lands, while Armenians call it a "tactical withdrawal" as a trap. All in all, one thing is sure that both sides have lost a considerable number of their soldiers (and civilians) and they keep losing more. Azerbaijan wants to end the occupation of 30 years after realizing negotiations didn't work and will never work at all. Armenia still declares that they want peace, but the understanding of peace is very different for the parties. For Azerbaijan, peace means Armenia withdraws from the occupied territories, while for Armenia, peace means that the war stops, the sides sit at the table, and try to solve the problem, which is high probably equal to status quo = nothing really changes, as the last 30 years.
Peace for Azerbaijan: Withdrawal of Armenian troops
Peace for Armenia: Negotiations / which is eventually --> Status quo
Azerbaijan started the war with real threats, high tech weapons in the Azerbaijani Military made a real difference. Turkish Bayraktar and Israeli Harops became a gamechanger in the war for the first week in favor of Azerbaijan. Many of the tanks and other heavy weapons are already destroyed by these drones. However, Armenian troops are located in their places for the last 30 years, so Azerbaijan is fighting against 30 years' experience and preparation. In addition, the natural position of Armenian troops is very suitable for the war since they have the mountains and they can observe the field and shoot from above.
Armenia also has the advantage of hitting major Azerbaijani cities from its own lands. Not an honorable advantage, but still an advantage. Armenia and Russia have a mutual military defensive agreement and if Azerbaijan attacks the internationally recognized territories of Armenia, Armenia can officially call Russia for military aid. By knowing this, Azerbaijan is not giving this chance to Armenia. However, nobody knows what will be the strategy of Azerbaijan on this matter if Armenia keeps bombing major Azerbaijani cities. One of the biggest threats is Ganja. Ganja is the second biggest city of Azerbaijan, with 500.000 civilian population. In early October, Armenia launched 4 missile rockets to Ganja and 1 person died. They repeated it 2 days later. Armenia also targeted Mingachevir city, the 4th biggest city of Azerbaijan, and the rockets fell beside the energy blocks without exploding.
Armenia declared a full mobilization while Azerbaijan declared a partial mobilization for the war. It is possible that Azerbaijan calls the whole young men for military service soon. Almost everyone in Azerbaijan supports the war because people think that "this is the war to end all wars". In some sense, this is true. In the last 30 years, there have been a lot of clashes between the neighbors. The clashes were happening for 4-5 days, then it was always followed by a ceasefire. If we use some empathy, this is very hard for the parents who lost their children in the clashes. If nothing is really happening, why did their children die for? For the motherlands, or for nothing?
10 days just passed, but it feels like 60 days. People who are not fighting on the field are constantly checking their cellphones to learn what is going on. In the last days, I have a serious headache because of looking at the screen the whole day. The best scenario for any war is that one side wins quickly so that everyone can get rid of disturbing uncertainty and face the real consequences. This war looks like it will go for a long period.
War is a terrible thing. War is a disgrace for humanity. Not for humanity actually, it is a grace for civilized societies, otherwise, by calling it a disgrace, we would target the 99% of human history, which is full of blood and terror. Every person with a sound mind knows this: Do not kill. Not as a part of the Ten Commandments, but as a part of basic ethics and morality.
But conflicts like "Nagorno-Karabakh" is not that simple. If one side is a real aggressor, you can't really watch and accept it. Does war always mean attacking or is it a defense mechanism?
Personally, I don't want to die (who wants?). But I believe some kind of secular determinism. A determinism that is not mystical. If things happen, it means things happen. Not necessarily for a reason, but because they are happing. Not written before, just happening. If I am taken to the war, then I am taken to the war. If I die, I just die.
Social distancing is the most miserable way of trying to solve the problem. Nothing else could be this ridiculous because we don't really have that imaginary space, as of 2020. Social distancing is very efficient according to the theory, but it is, simply put, not practical. Many organizations use social distancing as cover to run their events. No one really knows what happens behind the curtain. Social distancing started as a tool to prevent the spread of the disease but it turned out to be a myth. I called it miserable because it doesn't do anything much and it aims to hide our weakness against nature. Instead of saying "Oops, I don't know what to do here", it just says "Ehm, I might have a plan". For a modern human being, it is hard to obey anything that is not human.
Sure, I know what you think, what is wrong with fighting, resisting, surviving? Actually nothing, but if a modern society, institutions, and governments use it for a purpose, then social distancing sucks. Now, you can't have 50 people protesting in downtown because of 18 reasons instead of 17 reasons. From personal experience, my government (Azerbaijan) enjoys the moment. The Dictator is having a great time and he knows that he is safe until at least 2022. I don't think he was this much comfortable in the last few years.
Whatever happens, things always adds some power to the existing power. We are just waiting for an overdose.
Amanov, "Before 18:18", August 8, 2020
Amanov, "The Final Puke", August 10, 2020
Amanov, "The Night in Beirut", August 16, 2020
Amanov, "The Old Man is Tired", August 23, 2020
Amanov, "The Flow in the Chess Board", August 27, 2020
