Humanism should replace traditional theism

Pro keeps asserting his Round 2's position, “. .. this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism,. .. ” The mantra in Round 1, and the title of this debate clearly specifies that one belief system (Pro’s) “should replace” those belief systems Pro disagrees with. Therefore, my argument stands about “theism” or “Humanism” is not the issue. Pro's nemesis is missing the fact that morality is the issue. All belief systems, including “Humanism,” wants peace on Earth, a better life for its followers, etc; in fact, the most violent belief system claims to be “the religion of peace. ” Yet, we still have wars, what's up with that? Even Pro's position (a “Humanist”) presents a attitude that could lead to violence by insinuating that all other beliefs is a “one-size-fits-all way,” and therefore, “Humanism should replace” all those belief systems with a new “one-size-fits-all. ” Since all belief systems wants peace on Earth, a better life for its followers, why not morally follow your belief? The answer is, lack of understanding the subject of morality. Pro gives a very good example of the typical misconception about morality. Pro stated in Round 3, “. .. what type of morality should be taught? The Christian's? the Muslim's? Yours maybe? We ought to teach a morality that is universal and not subjective to each person. ” Pro, you disappoint me. You did not read my argument in Round 1. I sure hate to repeat it here in Round 3, so I recommend you should reread my argument that morality is an outgrowth of the physical Laws of Nature via life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality is “universal” a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature, not driven by man-made metaphysical beliefs from past ages. As I stated in Round 1 and I'll repeat here: Such scientific education in morality, is the path of least resistance (Constructal Law), compared to the insolvable problem for any governance or institutional tyranny demanding “Humanism should replace traditional theism. ” Once one understands morality from a scientific vantage point, “the Christians” will “love thy neighbor as thy self,” also, “the Muslims” will finally embrace their “religion of peace,” and yours truly, “yours[Con] maybe,” will follow my belief of using the scientific method to read the handwriting of God (the Laws of Nature). As for you “Humanists,” please do your thing and don't push off your belief system on to the rest of us in a new “one-size-fits-all” philosophy. Once all those who follow their belief system, including “Humanists,” understands morality from a scientific vantage point, the evolution of a civil society will march forward on the road to utopia. In closing, and if I don't have the pleasure in meeting Pro in Round 4 before the year's end, in the New Year and beyond, in the light of life's Unalienable Rights, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness. ” If all the peoples of the world embrace and respects their neighbor's Unalienable Rights, then all the different instruments of belief may turn into a well-orchestrated symphony of music conducted by morality.