Humanism should replace traditional theism

The first point i would like to make is that while analyzing pro's first argument, im afraid there has been a misunderstanding of the topic of this debate. Firstly, as the thesis statement reads: "Humanism should replace traditional theism" the topic of this debate is addressing two broad moral philosophies; being humanism a secularized moral and ethical philosophy, and absolute based morality being the core moral system that exists in western monotheism. In your first point you clarified your position as theism not being the issue and replacing it with humanism is not the solution. As stated, this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism, but as stated in your statement, you represent neither positions but instead presented a position that is irreverent to the debate topic. As i read on, i come across a personalized, informed opinion of what morality is, and its origins, which again is not the topic of this debate. However your informed opinion on what morality is and how "Unalienable Rights"," Laws of Thermodynamics","Constructal Law", and Thomas Jefferson's part in writing the U. S constitution is somehow relative is subject for debate. However as i stated above, this is not the debate to either address, discuss or explain suck a position. It is instead a debate addressing two broad, moral and ethical philosophies, and which of these is best suited for the modern age. "Education is the ends to such congruence, and in saying that, morality should be a subject of study in science courses throughout the world. 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. "" What philosophical and scientific view of morality should be taught? Yours? Morality shouldn't be seen and treated as a silver bullet, instead morality should be looked at critically, with total objectivity, discussed, and reasoned with collectively. This is what humanism is, after all, this moral philosophy does indeed educate and encourage rational thinking and look at and addressing issue together. Education is indeed a powerful way to inform and change society, but in what way? Change is needed, but we first need to critically and rationally reach an agreement on what modern civil society needs, and what better way to join human society than using a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively with the use of binding, physical and rational evidence and critical thinking. A philosophy that emphasizes that the core of ethics and morality depends on social responsibility both individually and collectively. "A civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. And in saying that, atheist should spend less time criticizing theist and embrace discussions on the scientific nature of morality. " Indeed it should be shared and improved by all who live in it, however we offer constructive criticisms to theistic claims and as i stated; evidence should be the ground base for all beliefs, and to question everything, for that is how we are able to make room for new evidence to change our minds. Humanism seeks not to impose or demand, but instead seeks only to question the dominate view that is embraced by a majority of humans, the view that morality is absolute and cannot be questioned or changed since it was not developed naturally, but was instead given by a supposed personal, supernatural deity. To that, in light of new discoveries, and breakthroughs, we must now challenge. "In closing, for those of faith ("theist"), the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God, since theists believe that God created everything. For humans who believe in God, the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting; hence, morality is the fingerprint of God for it is found throughout God's nature. On the other hand, for atheists and those of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc. ). God's help is found in the Laws of Nature, of which morality is part of. " Here i see you now take the position of theists as apposed to your original stance of taking neither. However this is a very common argument i hear often, many intellectuals through out history, from Galileo to Sir Isaac Newton who viewed the natural world as a blueprint of a personal, mainly the Judea-Christian God. However like these men and countless others who took this stance, who thought they were discovering this God's work were in fact, discovering a universe that was predictable and deterministic founded on natural laws which revealed that a God wasn't necessary. Everything we attributed to this theistic God from plagues to natural disasters to healing were now revealed to be cons in a deterministic machine that required no God to work. At least we could count on creation, that this God had created us to live in this deterministic universe of laws that was surly created by this God. We could count on that surly we were created in this God's image. Then Charles Darwin opened our eyes to a reality where all life evolved and was still evolving yet still contained some faults that wouldn't be expected to be there in the first place by a supposed perfect supernatural and personal being. Perfect creations we did not appear to be. Rather we appeared to be processes that rose from the clashing deterministic order and chaos of the universe. Quantum mechanics was the last great frontier where the supernatural could perhaps re-invade our lives. However it yet again was revealed to be yet another strange realm with its own core principles that had nothing to do with the supernatural or the personal, theistic God. With anyone with the education or knowledge of the natural world would know that the once God at determined realities destiny and the destiny of all that rest in it, had now become unemployed. Everything this God was supposed to do or had done as was said by traditional and ancient wisdom had now been stripped and replaced with something else. , something better, something based on new evidence and knowledge. That is why humanism as a philosophy of ethics, morality and critical and rational thought is so relevant and in dire need of attention in the modern world. Sources: . https://www.youtube.com... . https://www.youtube.com... . http://www.goodreads.com...