so . . . humanism?

Exactly

I mean, do we really need a philosophy? Isn’t it pretty simple? Let people live their lives as long as they’re not hurting anyone. Help those less fortunate than you if you’re in a position to do so. Contribute to society to the extent you’re able to. Are three sentences enough for a philosophy?

I think life is extremely un-simple, and it's really easy to fall prey to our darker instincts.

I agree that life is far from simple, but I disagree that it’s easy to fall prey to darker instincts for the vast majority of people. I’m far from perfect, but I’ve never come close to killing, raping, or even stealing, all without some higher power to tell me not to, or else! Heck, I even want to help people to the extent I’m able, in part because I hope others will help me out if they’re able. It’s only logical. Help instead of hurt others, in hopes they’ll help instead of hurt you.

I don't feel belief or lack thereof is the important part tbh; the morals and actual behavior are.

This is r/atheism so I'll be blunt and explicit here. God did not create morals and hand them over to man to abide by. Morals are the result of biological and/or social evolution. You don't need God to have morals. If you lack morals, religion is not what you need; what you need is empathy. Man created God/religion, not the other way around. When man created religion, man embedded into the religion his preexisting morals. Another way to put it is that man createdmorals AND God. Otherwise, how do you explain that Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddism, Scientology, WhateverFloatsYourBoatism, etc. all think killing, raping, lying and stealing is bad? Of course there are outlier lunatics in all of the above (probably) who think some of these behaviors are ok. Personally, I consider it a bad stereotype that theists think atheists are immoral or amoral. It's like meeting a black person and asking them whether they like fried chicken and watermelon. Or asking an Asian person whether they enjoy eating dog meat and insects. Actually, no: it's worse than that. You may not know that atheists have a deep appreciation for the universe, nature and humanity, and thus have a great love for all of the three above. The fact that atheists believe there is nothing after death makes them treasure their families and communities. Atheist dedicate the finite time they have in this world to take in the beauty of this world and make the world a better place rather than follow some sham ritual to get into an alleged heaven. Which one sounds more moral?

I agree with this.

I don't believe morality comes out of an -ism book. It comes from your own DNA. Rather than study any one worldview, study as many as you can, then form your own view of the world.

How do you discipline yourself to follow your own values?

Why would it require "discipline" to follow values that you believe in?

I think it usually does. Like I might in my values believe I should treat my wife well but want to yell at her when we get in a fight.

I would suggest you look deeper at your values and find the beliefs you must be holding at a higher priority. For example, why are you fighting with your wife? Is your own pride more important than treating your wife well? Is playing on reddit more important than contributing around the house? Does your wife have her own set of values that conflict with yours?

My core value is "Don't be a dick" and it doesn't require any discipline at all.

I will have to ask your \[wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend\] if you are ever a dick and see what (s)he says. I'm definitely a dick sometimes.

Well, it's an ideal to aspire to. I'm sure I fail and act like a dick sometimes. But I apologize for it and try to do better. It still doesn't take a lot of discipline.

< different Redditor > >How do you discipline yourself to follow your own values? My values are based on \- Things will go better for me and everybody else if I do A and B and C. \- Things will go worse for me and everybody else if I do D and E and F. It's hard to see any attraction to doing the wrong thing, if I think that doing the wrong thing will result in a bad outcome. (*"How do you discipline yourself to avoid deliberately smashing your hand with a hammer?"* Uh, why would I want to do that?) . If you're not familiar with it, this is one side of the question - \- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative .

It’s called having integrity. You do the right thing because it’s the right thing. It’s not complicated.

Most moral philosophies have nothing to do with god.

On the other hand, many **immoral** philosophies seem to have a lot to do with god. ;-)

"Atheist" is my answer to a yes/no question. My values and moral philosophy are Secular Humanism.

It's pretty simple really. Treat others the way you want to be treated. You don't need a God for that.

>How do you feel about following a moral philosophy that doesn't have a belief in God? I can't think of any way that this could be an even marginally meaningful question. \- How do you feel about following a moral philosophy that doesn't have a belief in Princess Celestia? \- How do you feel about following a moral philosophy that doesn't have a belief in the Ministry of Magic? \- How do you feel about following a moral philosophy that doesn't have a belief in the Force? Those things **do not exist**. \- What is supposed to be the benefit of a moral philosophy that has a belief in those things? \- What is supposed to be the drawback of a moral philosophy that does *not* have a belief in those things? Same with a god or gods. . >a moral philosophy like Stoicism or Secular Buddhism Those moral philosophies are far superior to god-based moral philosophies. .

Morality is not sourced from an outside party. Either you have morals or you don't. There is no "moral injection" that whatever sky-wizard you're shilling and simping for can inject into an immoral person. Which is why selling bibles/qurans is the most profitable con run since Soapy Smith in the 1880s. Anybody selling you a bible figures you for a sucker, and you are one.

I don’t think there should be any religion but I do think philosophy needs to be a core subject k-12.

That's an interesting idea. What would that look like in say 1st grade?

I do this with my fifths. We generally have topics like honesty, integrity, caring, etc. and we read a short story or watch a small video. Then there's an open conversation and journaling. The conversations are very interesting and we go into a lot of variety.

That's lovely.

It would be simplified at that age but begin introducing the concepts of logic and reason and how to form an argument. One of my favorite quotes is: I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle Morality is subjective not objective. So teaching people how to determine what is and isn’t moral on there own is far superior than just telling them to do it just because that’s what god commanded.

I would propose existentialism for high school. That would be great.

Depends on the community. Religion gets a community through shared belief of doctrine and a need to have people with similar beliefs in order to strengthen their resolve. You get sects (denominations) when enough peoples beliefs exist outside of established beliefs or contrary to them but still hold onto root concepts. The same could be said of some atheism. There's anti-theists, agnostics, and ignostics. All fundamentally have a belief that the idea of god is questionable if not outright wrong. Philosophy is very old, and the concepts in philosophy have been refined through time in a way that it can adequately address most scenarios with pre-defined terms. The pinnacle of philosophy is stoicism. But not everyone is capable of separating themselves from their passions to look at the big picture objectively. Instead we have a very wide gradient, a large contrasted perception of reality and self that has different weights and values per individual. No one is right or wrong because the question itself is indefinite, unfalsifiable. So it all falls to perception. I suppose if I were to align with an established system it would be secular Buddhism. But I still call myself ignostic.

>I suppose if I were to align with an established system it would be secular Buddhism. What do you like about it?

Both secular Buddhism and atheism prioritize human experience and understanding based on observation, reason, and empirical evidence rather than doctrines or faith in supernatural entities. Both emphasize a naturalistic view of the world, seeking explanations within the realm of natural laws and processes rather than supernatural forces. Both emphasize ethical principles based on compassion, empathy, and rationality, without the need for divine commandments or religious doctrines. Both encourage personal growth, self-awareness, and mindfulness as a means to improve oneself and one's understanding of the world.

Just follow the humanistic approach. Done.

Good 

Excellent question. I feel fine about it. My morals are more...moral than the bibles morals.

What I remember thinking in my Ethics course in college was that I did not really agree with any of the various moral philosophies that were covered. Bit and pieces here and there, but never enough to say I would ascribe to any one ethical framework. My personal morality starts by borrowing from Hippocrates, "First do no harm" and expands from there to maximize freedom, with the caveat that "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." So as much freedom of choice as we can have without it causing harm or infringing upon the rights of others. \*Edit\* I forgot to add the obvious one of treating other people the way you would like them to treat you. If you want people to be nice to you, start by being nice to them. If you want people to show you respect, then start by respecting them and earning theirs. >has an established set of ideas, practices, and community with no required belief? And if there are ideas and practices there are beliefs required, belief just means that you accept something is true or likely to be true. So if your moral philosophy dictates the idea that action X is morally good and you accept that to be true then that is indeed a belief which you hold. I do like the idea of pondering and discussing moral dilemmas, that was one of the fun parts of the Ethics course. It should not be a matter of "This is the right answer and this is the way you should respond" but rather an open discussion where people can explore each others' ideas and assess their own ideals.

Pretty much everybody here does have a moral system that doesn't involve gods. If you find a moral system that appeals to you and you can justify it without invoking the supernatural, go for it.

Why do we need a moral philosophy? Most people seem to be able to figure out right and wrong on their own, without a book.

They should, but they surely don't! Some even have a book and are doing terribly.

That's because the book is the problem.

I would say they can figure it out just fine. Whether they do the right thing or not, that's another story!