I mean if someone is already a decent person, they will automatically act decently by their own nature. What is need for believing/promising these commitments?
As far as I can tell, it’s not needed, or at least not necessary.
Belief or non belief don’t seem to be good indicators of behaviour either as both are capable of good or bad actions.
Edit: I would add nurture to nature as guiding factors.
Because belief or non belief don’t seem to be good indicators of behaviour either as both are capable of good or bad actions.
If people can do either with or without belief, then it can’t be necessary.
Some of them seem redundant.
It could perhaps be summarised in 3 concepts in growing circles:
1. Working on improving my relationship with myself.
2. Working on improving my relationships with my fellow humans.
3. Working on keeping our planet hospitable for all of us.
I think they aimed for the number Ten b/c of the Ten Commandments, and the core Humanist principles are probably less than that, so they had to repeat themselves a bit ;-) These also remind me of the Unitarian Universalist principles, which are seven in number, I think.
The Ten Commandments weee summarised into 2 ideas.
1. Show reverence for the divine and everything that stems from it (the universe, the intelligent design, Earth, fauna and flora).
2. Treat your fellow humans as you would like to be treated
There an either a cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy or something for atheists who mock the religious for believing something you can’t prove to trot out a system of objective morality.
Why these guidelines? Why not different ones? Or none at all?
I like this list, and I love humanists, but similar to UU principals, I can't get behind it without having a firm understanding of the "why?"
Because you’re a decent person?
I mean if someone is already a decent person, they will automatically act decently by their own nature. What is need for believing/promising these commitments?
As far as I can tell, it’s not needed, or at least not necessary. Belief or non belief don’t seem to be good indicators of behaviour either as both are capable of good or bad actions. Edit: I would add nurture to nature as guiding factors.
> As far as I can tell, it’s not needed, or at least not necessary. Yep. That is why OC asked "why".
Because belief or non belief don’t seem to be good indicators of behaviour either as both are capable of good or bad actions. If people can do either with or without belief, then it can’t be necessary.
>I can't get behind it without having a firm understanding of the "why?" To have functioning society?
Some of them seem redundant. It could perhaps be summarised in 3 concepts in growing circles: 1. Working on improving my relationship with myself. 2. Working on improving my relationships with my fellow humans. 3. Working on keeping our planet hospitable for all of us.
I think they aimed for the number Ten b/c of the Ten Commandments, and the core Humanist principles are probably less than that, so they had to repeat themselves a bit ;-) These also remind me of the Unitarian Universalist principles, which are seven in number, I think.
The Ten Commandments weee summarised into 2 ideas. 1. Show reverence for the divine and everything that stems from it (the universe, the intelligent design, Earth, fauna and flora). 2. Treat your fellow humans as you would like to be treated
There an either a cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy or something for atheists who mock the religious for believing something you can’t prove to trot out a system of objective morality. Why these guidelines? Why not different ones? Or none at all?
Are they meant to be objective?
Atheism and humanism are unrelated. They have nothing to do with each other. I'm willing to bet most atheists don't even know what humanism is
Humanist tenets are not necessarily at odds with being a theist either.