What's the most popular secular 'religion'?

[Ace101]

I agree that atheism isn't a 'religion' - however from what I can tell, the essential components of major religions (minus the supernatural beliefs) are that they contain:

*A belief that existence has a certain purpose (not even necessarily a 'universal purpose', but at least a purpose to individuals)

*A guide for what is moral or immoral behavior

And from what I can tell, even people who aren't 'religious' (or don't actively participate in religion) usually still believe in the two above things - other than maybe people who are completely nihilistic.

What I'm curious is what are the most popular secular beliefs or philosophies? The first one that comes to mind is generic humanism. (Meaning for example, to a 'secular humanist', atheism is simply the fact that they don't believe in god - but their actual substitute for religious beliefs and practices is humanism).

[Mike Cl]

I agree that atheism isn't a 'religion' - however from what I can tell, the essential components of major religions (minus the supernatural beliefs) are that they contain:

*A belief that existence has a certain purpose (not even necessarily a 'universal purpose', but at least a purpose to individuals)

*A guide for what is moral or immoral behavior

And from what I can tell, even people who aren't 'religious' (or don't actively participate in religion) usually still believe in the two above things - other than maybe people who are completely nihilistic.

What I'm curious is what are the most popular secular beliefs or philosophies? The first one that comes to mind is generic humanism. (Meaning for example, to a 'secular humanist', atheism is simply the fact that they don't believe in god - but their actual substitute for religious beliefs and practices is humanism).

I am not religious in any sense of the word.  So,
1--there is no purpose to life except life itself.  All organisms, no matter size or structure all want one thing--to live.  And I am not nihilistic at all.  So that gross generalization goes exactly nowhere.
2--There are no universal morals.  Cultures determine what are generally accepted as morals or rules for behavior.  But that does not mean I have to subscribe to all, or any, of them.  All morals are subjective, so each of us create our own moral standard by which we live.  So, another of your gross generalizations bites the dust. 

And I'm sure you will be getting quite a few responses soon.

So, Ace, what is your purpose in this life?  And where do you get your morals from?

[aitm]

*A guide for what is moral or immoral behavior

oh please show us the booklet that you were born with, I should SO like to examine it to see how closely it resembles the one I was born with.

[doorknob]

I don't necessarily believe in anything. I just trust my heart to know right from wrong. Just because there is no god doesn't mean there are no rules. Generally the golden rule applies in most cases.

[Ace101]

1--there is no purpose to life except life itself.  All organisms, no matter size or structure all want one thing--to live.  And I am not nihilistic at all.  So that gross generalization goes exactly nowhere.

But everyone lives for something - the only way to not have purpose is to just 'not live'.

2--There are no universal morals.  Cultures determine what are generally accepted as morals or rules for behavior.  But that does not mean I have to subscribe to all, or any, of them.  All morals are subjective, so each of us create our own moral standard by which we live.  So, another of your gross generalizations bites the dust. 

I'd say 'morality' is embedded into genetics - even animals have instincts that guide their actions. They don't just 'kill each other' right and left, so saying it's completely 'subjective' isn't true.

So, Ace, what is your purpose in this life?  And where do you get your morals from?

I follow a diest religion, I believe that purpose in life is embedded into genetics and comes from evolution - e.x. creating a positive legacy, which is the 'purpose' that animals live for despite not knowing what morals are

[Ace101]

I don't necessarily believe in anything. I just trust my heart to know right from wrong. Just because there is no god doesn't mean there are no rules. Generally the golden rule applies in most cases.

What set of guidelines or principles would you use to determine right from wrong then?

[Ace101]

oh please show us the booklet that you were born with, I should SO like to examine it to see how closely it resembles the one I was born with.

Genetics? People don't have to read "raping babies is wrong" in a book to know not to do it.

But we still create moral codes, secular or religious, for maximizing our human potential - that's why govts, politics, exist - to determine the "best" way for people to live

[aitm]

Genetics? People don't have to read "raping babies is wrong" in a book to know not to do it.

But we still create moral codes, secular or religious, for maximizing our human potential - that's why govts, politics, exist - to determine the "best" way for people to live

So you agree that if a religious moral code is to murder infants then their morality is justifiable? Curious indeed as the babble and the quran give that authorization and indeed make it a mandatory act. To which of these wonderful moral religions do you prescribe to?

[Shiranu]

*A guide for what is moral or immoral behavior

That is culture, not religion (which is simply a product of culture).

[Ace101]

So you agree that if a religious moral code is to murder infants then their morality is justifiable?

That makes no sense, I said that good/bad is determined by evolutionary genetics - people have instinctive knowledge of right/wrong on a basic level.

But if that were all to human morality, then there'd be no point in philosophers or thinkers like Plato, Thomas Jefferson, etc - human morality's based off of basic evolutionary genetics, but it's more complicated than that since humans can reason.

Curious indeed as the babble and the quran give that authorization and indeed make it a mandatory act. To which of these wonderful moral religions do you prescribe to?

So many ignorant assumptions here - I said I'm a diest - I believe that morality is an inherent part of nature, and it's based off of the cause/effect of actions - human 'morals' might be subjective, but the observable effects of actions aren't.

Animals don't have 'morality' but their purpose is to adapt and pass their genes or 'legacy' onto the next generation. Even animals don't live "just to live" - they have a purpose for living.

[aitm]

even animals have instincts that guide their actions.

Now hold on there kitten, ya know, many years ago we were taught that animals have an instinct to do certain "things" birds make nests, spiders make webs, things do shit that we have no idea how. We also claim that many animals are natural enemies, for instance Cheetahs have to teach their young to hunt, to kill. Why do they have to do that? Do you really think that little cheetahs will kill if not taught? Yeah most likely if hungry they will, but I have seen videos of both young cheetahs and Impalas being raised together with nothing that resembles a chase and kill attitude, for that matter in the last ten years we have seen hundreds of videos of animals of differing and opposite species co-habitating better than humans do. So maybe we may need to re-think this whole- "humans are superior" concept eh?

Morality MUST be taught, it is not a natural assumed condition. I can tell you that if you give a three year old a gun and have another three year old take the first one favorite toy the first will indeed have no problem shooting the second. They have no idea the concept of morality, that is why we must teach it. It is based on whatever society we were born into.

[aitm]

people have instinctive knowledge of right/wrong on a basic level.

That is either plain ignorance speaking or worse…arrogance. People MUST be taught morals, it is not some f-ing instinct.

[Ace101]

Now hold on there kitten, ya know, many years ago we were taught that animals have an instinct to do certain "things" birds make nests, spiders make webs, things do shit that we have no idea how. We also claim that many animals are natural enemies, for instance Cheetahs have to teach their young to hunt, to kill. Why do they have to do that? Do you really think that little cheetahs will kill if not taught? Yeah most likely if hungry they will, but I have seen videos of both young cheetahs and Impalas being raised together with nothing that resembles a chase and kill attitude, for that matter in the last ten years we have seen hundreds of videos of animals of differing and opposite species co-habitating better than humans do. So maybe we may need to re-think this whole- "humans are superior" concept eh?

Who taught the first cheetah then? No it's a scientific fact that animals (humans included) are born with certain natural instincts - sure they can be conditioned by environment, but the genetic disposition is still there. Domesticated animals like housecats for example were bred over hundreds of years - but wild cats aren't as easily conditioned to behave as docile.

Morality MUST be taught, it is not a natural assumed condition. I can tell you that if you give a three year old a gun and have another three year old take the first one favorite toy the first will indeed have no problem shooting the second. They have no idea the concept of morality, that is why we must teach it. It is based on whatever society we were born into.

That's a pretty fringe idea which seems based on outdated psychology - the idea that we're born just a 'blank slate' and only shaped by environment, truth is it's a combination of environment and genetics - not all or one.

[stromboli]

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260

Secular humanism.

[Ace101]

That is either plain ignorance speaking or worse…arrogance. People MUST be taught morals, it is not some f-ing instinct.

Maybe you should speak for yourself. No one had to teach me that raping children is wrong in order to know not to do it.

Plus the majority of religious people don't actually kill infidels (even though their Holy Books tell them to) - so if what you said was true, then 100% of Christians and Muslims would be terrorists

Your theory is definitely on the fringe, if you think that genetics have no role in determining behavior - even across species. This is pretty much established science.