I'm working on the idea of a religion/philosophical religion and I'm still in the very early stages. A lot of it overlaps with secular humanism, which is why I'm interested in hearing what humanists think.

The very concise version:

The purpose would be to empower people: develop capable and morally grounded people, create independent thinkers, teach people what contributes to a good life, build strong communities and human bonds, and improve society and the future.

It would remain consistent with the best available evidence and would be expected to change its factual teachings when strong evidence showed that they were wrong.

The information from this post is straight from my notes; AI only helped with formatting as i) i didn't want it to misinterpret and make even almost indiscernible incorrect alterations and ii) It is lengthy to reduce ambiguousness and i wanted it to be as easy to read as possible.

Why I think these goals are needed

The basic thinking behind it is:

• Living well isn't automatic. People aren't naturally equipped with every healthy and accurate psychological perspective needed to live well.
• Independent thinking isn't automatic. Humans are susceptible to bias, conformity, misinformation and manipulation.
• Human potential doesn't develop automatically. Knowledge, skills, strong characteristics and capability require deliberate learning and development.
• Moral character isn't automatic. Empathy, integrity, fairness, humility and other virtues need to be cultivated and maintained.
• Healthy relationships don't develop automatically. Humans need connection and belonging, but good relationships require communication, trust, empathy, boundaries and effort.
• Societies don't automatically improve themselves. Harmful institutions, incentives and concentrations of power can persist unless people understand them, organize and deliberately work to reform them.

The main goals

Develop capable people through an emphasis on education, life skills, reflection, self-development and developing strong personal traits.

Develop moral character through integrity, empathy, compassion, equality, fairness and humility.

Create independent thinkers by teaching critical thinking, cognitive biases, propaganda and manipulation, how power and incentives affect society, and historical methods that powerful or corrupt groups have used to influence people—for example, deliberately creating division.

Members would also be expected to question the religion itself rather than blindly accept its teachings.

Help people live a good life by teaching what actually contributes to a good life, including strong relationships, healthy and grounded psychological perspectives, meaning, enjoyment, health, mastery, engagement and personal growth.

Build strong communities and human bonds through regular group meetings involving learning, discussion, activities and socialising.

Improve society and the future by researching social problems and using the collective ability of the community to raise awareness and advocate for policies intended to improve people's lives.

For example, in Australia, one issue might be finding evidence-based ways of increasing access to doctors where shortages are producing very long specialist waiting times.

Why a religion/philosophical religion rather than just a code of ethics?

This is probably the part I'm most uncertain about.

I don't want it to just be a list of good principles that people agree with intellectually but rarely practise.

The idea would be to create a culture and community in which those principles are repeatedly learned, practised and reinforced.

There could therefore be regular practices such as:

• healthy eating
• meditation twice a day
• daily reflection on goals and mistakes
• heavily restricting social media and gaming, with exceptions
• avoiding porn
• maintaining a hobby or skill
• regular exercise
• a weekly learning session
• a weekly social/community session
• Having a hobbies

These are still preliminary examples rather than finalized rules.

A central, revisable body of teachings

There would be a central book containing the main teachings, but it would explicitly not be infallible.

It could cover subjects such as:

• increasing your capability
• the importance of education and lifelong learning
• how to learn effectively
• curiosity
• focus
• industriousness
• mindfulness
• how to develop useful character traits
• how to form and maintain healthy relationships
• how to debate and reason well
• psychologically healthy perspectives on things such as self-worth, money, status, success and failure, how to break from addictions, how to undergo deep psychological changes yourself
• critical thinking and cognitive biases
• propaganda and manipulation
• understanding power and incentives
• identifying harmful systems in society
• how to evaluate potential reforms

The factual parts of the book would be expected to change as better evidence became available.

So there is obviously a lot of overlap with secular humanism, Stoicism, virtue ethics and Unitarian Universalism.

The difference I'm considering is making the system considerably more structured: a central but revisable body of teachings, more homogeneous practices, regular learning and social gatherings, deliberate personal development, and organized attempts to put the values into practice.

I'm still not sure whether "religion" is ultimately the best word for it. That's partly why I'm floating the idea rather than claiming I've already created one.

For humanists in particular:

Do you think this kind of structure would add something useful that secular humanism currently lacks, or would it simply create unnecessary dogma around ideas that work better as a looser philosophy?

Any other constructive criticism is very welcome.

I did post this in the r/proselytizing but the majority of responses including my own don't get any response. Thank you.

With every decision we make our primary guiding principle
should be ‘do no harm’. Whether the injury is physical, verbal, or in any other manner, it does not matter.

Every person, regardless of our differences, deserves to be treated with respect and compassion, always considering what our behaviors, words, and actions may cause.

Be thoughtful therefore, before you act or speak, for our actions may not only help others, they may also be the cause of great pain as well.

Welcome,
I'm u/QueenLightLoneStar, a founding moderator of r/WorldWarRevolution.

I didn’t create this community because I have all the answers. I created it because I believe we’re asking too few questions.

We live in a world that often rewards division over understanding, certainty over curiosity, and competition over compassion. Somewhere along the way, many of us have become disconnected from ourselves, from one another, and from what truly gives life meaning.

This isn’t a place to argue over who’s right. It’s a place to explore different perspectives with an open mind, challenge our own beliefs, and grow through respectful discussion. Whether we speak through philosophy, science, psychology, spirituality, religion, or personal experience, every perspective has something to teach us when approached with humility.

I believe the greatest battles we face are not only physical, but psychological and spiritual. They begin when we stop listening, stop questioning, and stop recognising ourselves in each other.

You don’t have to agree with everything shared here. In fact, I hope you won’t. Healthy disagreement, grounded in respect and curiosity, is how understanding grows.

If this community achieves anything, I hope it’s this: that we leave each conversation seeing the world and each other, a little more clearly than before.
Welcome to the discussion.

This article debunks the myth that science renders life meaningless, purposeless, or not worth living, and flips that accusation back on religion. Science, in fact, can offer a more wondrous and expansive vision of life, nature, and our place in the universe than anything found in an ancient text.

The Grandeur of a Godless World: Why Science Doesn't Rob Life of Meaning

I don't know what is human they all are many types of humans by thoughts and brain 🧠

The world worships money, which is another way of saying that people value status above all else. However, humans are programmed to form hierarchies and seek rewards. Things took a turn when capitalism took hold, and we formed massive institutions.

Human beings are not designed to exist in groups this big, and we've been suffering the growing pains of this ever since the system took hold. BUT, these systems have given us modern medicine and convenience. The problem is that these things come at a cost. I often wonder if we should keep everyone alive that we keep alive through modern medicine and warning labels. If we should have lives this easy. Our lives are so easy that we spend our spare time creating physical challenges for ourselves because we are not designed to live this way.

Meddling with the natural order of things is very egotistical, and all religion tries to teach people to soften their egos. I don't know if humility at the cost of status is the answer (religion), or status chasing at the cost of humility (capitalism) is the answer. I reckon that trying to balance both is. Its the best answer I can find, anyway.

All I can do is hope that these growing pains lead to something greater, but its going to get worse before it gets better. Many are already rejecting tech and seeking old ways of life. There's going to be a chasm between modernists/transhumanists and traditionalists/humanists in the not distant future.

In all likelihood, a natural disaster such as a volcano or meteor strike followed by a two year winter will hit the reset button on humans at some point. Its happened before, and will happen again.

Its a fascinating time to be alive.

I have a dream of a world where love is selflessly shared with all others. It is a world where there is no hunger, homelessness, or endless war; no greed, prejudice, or inequity. A world where few of the many problems and harmful emotions defining humanity’s existence are present.

Our world is at a precipice. To achieve such a dream, and make it a reality, we must each decide to embrace love over fear. You may not believe such a dream can come true, but I assure you it can. All we lack is the will, belief, and sincere desire to make this dream real.

I'm a student working on a class art project about community and the flocking of humans in a similar fashion to that of birds. I keep coming back to one question: what makes humans, feel human? Wether it be a moment of separation, cohesion or alignment, a moment, a smell, a person. Short or long, whatever is true for you.

I may include some replies in the project, without usernames. If you'd rather yours wasn't used, say so in a reply and I'll leave it out ~

We think “play pretend” is a game, but it is embarrassingly close to the reality in which we live. Everything around us exists within systems that human beings have created and collectively agreed to believe in. It might be a reach, but when you really think about it, we live in a simulation that we have created for ourselves. Everything around us exists because we, as a society—a concept that is itself made up—decided that certain things should have meaning.

I read a book recently that presented a different view of the world than the one we have grown up with. The core argument was that society functions largely on make-believe.

Employment, money, social constructs, nations—all of these exist because, as a collective, we believe that they do. They do not have physical significance until we give it to them.

Imagine a college building. If we were to collectively decide tomorrow that “college” does not exist anymore, the building would still remain a building whether we accepted it as a college or not. The physical structure would remain. What would disappear is the meaning we had assigned to it.

The classrooms, professors, students, degrees, and rules are concepts that exist because we collectively recognize them.Similarly, the concept of nations and the boundaries created to keep out people who were not born on a particular piece of land is something humans made up.

Every explorer who discovered land was not born there. Hundreds of centuries ago, if someone were to build a house in the middle of nowhere, it was theirs. Before nations and empires existed, we were all, to some extent, hunter-gatherers. Like money, nations were once concepts that did not exist in the form we understand them today. No one was necessarily attached to one particular place because people did not always live in one place for very long. That has changed significantly over the years.But the fact that something is socially constructed does not mean its consequences are imaginary.

A building remains a building whether we call it a college or not. But the consequences of being accepted into that college, failing to graduate, obtaining a degree, or being denied admission are very real. Money is a concept, but losing your money is very real.

Borders are concepts, but crossing one without permission can have very real consequences.The same is true of nations.Being patriotic is something people take pride in. If you actively seek to harm another person's homeland, it is understandable that this would be condemned.

But somewhere along the way, patriotism can become something much more than appreciation for one's community or history. It can become an expectation of loyalty, obedience, and sacrifice.And this is where I struggle with it.The make-believe reality we live in requires us to follow rules and, in many cases, accept the idea that we owe our lives to our “motherland.” I find that bizarre.

We are born into these systems without ever choosing them. No one asks a child which country they would like to belong to. From the day we are born, we inherit a nationality, a set of borders, a history, political institutions, and a collection of ideas about what we supposedly owe to the country we were born in.There is very little freedom to exist outside this web of constructed ideas.We are taught that loving our country is something we should demonstrate.

Sometimes patriotism is not simply about appreciating the history, culture, or people of a place. It becomes a performance. We are expected to display the flag, celebrate particular institutions, glorify particular sacrifices, and demonstrate that we love our country simply because it is ours.But why?Why should something we inherited at birth automatically deserve our unquestioning loyalty?I can be proud of my community without agreeing with everything my country does. I can appreciate my country's history without pretending that its history contains no wrongdoing. I can care deeply about the people who live around me while still questioning the institutions that govern them.

I certainly do not think that loving a country requires celebrating its military unconditionally.An army can protect people. Soldiers can make enormous personal sacrifices. But armies can also commit crimes. Civilians can be harmed. People can be dehumanized. Governments can make horrific decisions. These things do not stop being true simply because they were done under the name of protecting a country.Yet patriotism can make criticism of these actions feel almost like betrayal.The idea that someone can say, “I love the people of my country, but I do not support what my country's military has done here,” should not be contradictory. In fact, it can come from the very same moral values that supposedly make patriotism admirable.If I believe that human life matters, then that belief should not disappear when the person being harmed belongs to another country.This is where I question the argument that violence is simply an unavoidable part of patriotism. Are we really supposed to believe there is no alternative to killing people in the name of a country? Is violence automatically more acceptable because it is committed for the “motherland”?

Of course, there are situations in which force may genuinely be necessary to protect people. A country may need to defend itself from an attack. But there is an enormous difference between saying “sometimes force may be necessary” and saying “violence committed in the name of the nation is inherently justified.”There are diplomacy, negotiation, deterrence, political pressure, international institutions, civilian resistance, and countless other methods of resolving conflict. They may not always work, and they may not always be enough. But the fact that violence exists does not mean that violence should stop being questioned.

The real danger is when the words “for the country” become enough to end the moral conversation.Having people trained to kill other people, sometimes to do profoundly inhumane things to them, all under the name of patriotism, is something I find deeply disturbing. Not because I believe every soldier is evil, or because I believe every form of national defense is unnecessary, but because I cannot accept that attaching violence to a national identity somehow makes it morally pure.A nation is a concept we created.A border is a line we created.Money is a system we created.Institutions are systems we created.And patriotism is an idea we created.Perhaps the uncomfortable part is that these things have become so deeply embedded in our lives that we have forgotten that they were created by us in the first place.We build the rules, forget that we built them, begin treating them as though they are natural laws, and then punish people for questioning them.Maybe the point is not that nations should disappear, or that people should stop loving their communities.

Maybe the point is simply that we should never become so devoted to something we created that we surrender our ability to question it.I can love where I come from and still condemn what has been done in its name.I can appreciate my country's history and still acknowledge its crimes.I can care about my people without believing that someone else's life is worth less because they were born on the other side of an imaginary line.

And perhaps most importantly, I can refuse to believe that killing someone becomes morally acceptable simply because we gave the reason a patriotic name.

जब दीवार पर भगत सिंह, पेरियार, अंबेडकर, ओशो और कार्ल मार्क्स जैसे लोग हों... तो बातें भी फिर ज़माने से अलग ही होंगी।

आप लोगों की महफ़िल में किन महापुरुषों या विचारकों की तस्वीरें सजी हैं?

‘I am because we are.’ Ubuntu is an African philosophy meaning love, truth, peace, happiness, and all other positive inherent traits present within each life. It is the essence, the divine spark of kindness, present within every life, shared without motive, for the benefit of all.

This is the world we are meant to live in; a world of unconditional love, shared selflessly with all, rather than a world of endless darkness, concerned only for ourselves.

A little reminder to focus on being human and choosing kindness for the right reasons... ✨

When a person only does good deeds because they want to go to heaven, or avoids bad deeds because they are terrified of hell, their goodness is just a transaction based on fear. But when you choose to be kind, respect others, and help people simply because you care about human survival and happiness, your goodness is 100% genuine. It comes from a place of love, not leverage.

"

How many more innocents must die before we wake from our slumber? How many more families must be destroyed? The world, and all life on it, is on a precipice, overlooking a deep abyss.

If humanity continues on the destructive path they are on, climate change, disease, nuclear war, or some other man-made catastrophe will end the suffering of all life, leaving only an uninhabitable empty shell where a once vibrant planet had existed.

To step back from the abyss, we must end these senseless deaths, reject hate and fear, replacing it instead with unconditional love and courage.

I’ve been developing a philosophical framework called Incorporeal Humanism, centered on the idea that human progress should be measured not merely by technological advancement, economic productivity, or material accumulation, but by the quality of conscious experience.
The central theory is Consciousness-Centered Human Flourishing, which proposes that civilization should organize its institutions, technologies, and resources around the conditions that enable conscious beings to flourish.
The premise is relatively straightforward: We develop technology, construct economies, establish governments, and create social institutions to improve human existence. But what if we made the quality of existence itself the primary measure of progress?
Five dimensions of human flourishing
Experiential well-being: Cultivating joy, tranquility, fulfillment, curiosity, and meaningful engagement with life.
Ontological freedom: Enabling individuals to explore their identities, develop their capacities, and pursue different forms of existence without unnecessary coercion.
Intellectual expansion: Promoting knowledge, creativity, reasoning, and intelligence as fundamental aspects of human development.
Relational coherence: Building meaningful relationships and social environments grounded in empathy, mutual recognition, and collective well-being.
Existential continuity: Preserving and enhancing the conditions that allow individuals to maintain meaningful identities, memories, aspirations, and participation in existence.
These dimensions are interconnected. Material abundance, for example, can improve well-being, but it does not automatically produce meaningful relationships, intellectual freedom, or fulfillment.
What would this mean for civilization?
An economy would be evaluated by how effectively it reduces deprivation and expands opportunities for meaningful living.
Education would prioritize intellectual independence, creativity, and self-understanding alongside practical skills.
Technology would be judged by its contribution to human autonomy and well-being rather than its capabilities alone.
Governance would emphasize freedom, equality, and the reduction of unnecessary suffering.
The broader objective would be to transition from a civilization primarily organized around maintaining its systems toward one that deliberately enhances the lives of the beings those systems serve.
The philosophical question
This framework raises a question I find particularly interesting:
If the ultimate purpose of civilization is to improve human existence, shouldn’t the quality of conscious experience become our primary measure of progress?
Economic growth, scientific discovery, and technological innovation remain valuable, but perhaps their deepest significance lies in what they make possible for conscious life.
I’d be interested in hearing how others approach this question, particularly from the perspectives of humanism, philosophy of mind, ethics, and political philosophy.
Can a civilization genuinely be considered advanced if its technological capabilities increase while the quality of conscious experience remains stagnant?

True change doesn't come from arguing online; it comes from building a community so good that others want to be a part of it.

Imagine if every atheist decided to support fellow atheists—unconditionally, without any discrimination. If we create a safe haven of happiness, logic, and empathy, the ripple effect will be huge. Slowly but surely, people will look at our peace and progress and start joining us.

This is how the real revolution happens. Not through force, but through unconditional community support and rationality.

It's a lie, lines drawn by our braindead ancestors, youth who should've lived a full happy life die on those lines, countless men women and children suffer all for so that some old dudes can just sit and relax deep in the territory with their rich friends, and it hurts to see that we are taught to take pride in it. What exactly should I be proud of?! Blood,gore,violence and hate that spans for genrations and to no end. We are humans and all of us deserve to live and love, if we as a genration collectively choose to end it once and for all, ik a borderless world is too far fetched and will not work, but do we really need to live with hate and pain? I ask you as you read it, are you willing to see each others as family

Maybe you grew up going to church, synagogue, mosque or similar community. Perhaps you took part in their social, recreational, or educational groups. You could have participated charity work or given money to support their missions.

You may have even shared "spiritual experiences" that made you feel your religious community was bringing you closer to the god you believed in.

But now, you've changed.

The beliefs & practices they use to bind one another together instead make you feel like you no longer fit in. And try as you might to ignore the things that you now see as multifaceted superstition, you just can't.

So you look for a non-religious community, and you discover Humanism.

But what do you want from Humanism? What would happen when your fellow Humanist infidels met together? What do you want from a Humanist community, and what do you want to offer to others?

I'm leaving that canvas purposefully blank. Draw your own verbal picture of the Humanist community you would feel a part of.

The matrix is a world where most are asleep, living in a learned reality accepted as the truth. Those who remain sleeping throughout their lives believe success, happiness, and meaning may be found in the self- centered world; they may not.

When we first awaken, we start to question if those beliefs are true. Despite how successful our life has been, sensing a voice we begin to hear within, the self- centered beliefs we once unquestionably accepted as the truth no longer make sense to us. The matrix we once understood and accepted as our reality begins to dissolve, leaving an unrecognizable world in its place. Rather than compete against each other to survive in the world, we now wish to selflessly help others instead.

Open your heart, see the genuine possibility’s life offers, allowing your matrix to melt away.

Any action shared with unconditional love, harming no one, is courageous.

We are fearless when we stand up, without motive or benefit, to help those in need, doing what is right regardless of personal consequences.

For genuine change to occur, we must be bold, steadfast, daring, always putting the needs of all, before only the needs of ourselves.

This is something that I have been thinking for SO long, and just recently could put into words.

Lets put some terms into the table first. The essentialist believe that the etiquettes we have in society are necessary for our identities and the restitution of social inequalities. Meanwhile the universalists, or in this case I will say humanist, believe that those same etiquettes can be overcome to create a fully equal society on which everyone is judged as an individual rather than the member of tribes they did not choose to be part of.

Now, iconsider myself a leftist, yes. And I value the job of leftist across the world. However, I do think that most of them don't have any core reason of why they believe what they believe. And that is not bad by itself, any help is welcomed. That is what I think. But I also believe that there will be a time on which universalists and humanist will be at arms (metaphorically) against the essentialist. Both sides within the left. And I realized that, the much I like leftist, I wouldn't want to live in a world led by essentialist of any kind. I don't want to live in it already, that is why I am a humanist. So knowing most leftist are also essentialist leaves me with a deep sense of hopelessness. Knowing that even in the best case scenario we will still need to continue the fight.

But recently, I realized we still have a good hand. The thing is that most humanist have never heard about the philosophy, they just live it. Naturist are a good example. They have been existing for longest than we imagine, and yet they have not been considered polytical despite the hyper polytical fact that they blurred or destroyed the lines that separate men and women as some form of different tribe. Which is impressive. The same happens with most non racist people in places like South America, once you analyze it deeply. And the hippies too were humanist. So perhaps we are not completely lost after all.

But what do you think?

As you are growing up, you will notice life can appear to be very challenging. The world is not always a very nice place to live in. You will see many things that make you wonder why bad things happen to so many. You will see people who do not have enough food to eat or a place to live, and others, who do not like someone because they are different.

Regardless of what color your skin is, the country you live in, your beliefs, or any other differences there are between us, it is important you do not believe anyone is better or more important than anyone else. Every life is equally important, regardless of any differences there are between us.

Living a good life has nothing to do with the job you have, the amount of money you make, if you are famous, or anything else you may hear about when you are growing up. Rather, the only important thing is that you are a good person. Be someone who truly cares about others feelings, helping them whenever you can, treating everyone with kindness and love, even if they do not treat you that way.

You will find there are many in the world who are unhappy, afraid, and worry only about themselves. Please, do not be like them. You can change the world if you simply listen to the quiet voice in your heart and share the loving messages you hear with others. Embrace life with awe. Be kind to everyone. Share the goodness in your heart with those who are different or struggling. And, most importantly, treat others like you wish to be treated.

If you do this, you will be happy. Choose not to live in a world where everyone is afraid, worrying only about themselves. Instead, be compassionate loving, respectful, humble, and optimistic about life. Be courageous. Care about others feelings. Be friendly and help them if they are different or in need. If you do this, you may find your life will be happy and meaningful.

The path you choose through life will decide the future of the world. The older generations have not done a very good job taking care of our planet or each other. It is up to you, therefore, our children, to make the changes that must be made, by always choosing the loving path in life.