Humanism should replace traditional theism

In this final Round, I'll try to address most of Pro's points. I would also like to thank Pro for bring an important subject to the debating floor. I could only hope the insight of morality for both “Humanism” and the many sects of “traditional theism,” will one day achieve harmony in the evolution of civil societies. Pro stated, “Can Con not see what the thesis statement states? By taking neither position is stepping into another debate that is fundamentally irreverent to the concept of humanism or traditional theism since neither positions are looked at, However as i seen Con repeatildy take the position of theism as con did in rounds 1 and 2.”Then Pro should not have a problem with my arguments, if I “repeatildy take the position of theism as con [I] did in rounds 1 and 2.” The way I interpret the title of this debate is one belief system (“Humanism”) “should replace traditional” belief systems (“theism”). In place of getting into the weeds of countless belief concepts of “traditional theism,” I took the position to add constructive depth to this debate by focusing on morality being the foundation of all belief systems, and if not properly understood, the belief system becomes dysfunctional; including “Humanism.” Pro should indorse the scientific approach to morality throughout all educational systems during his crusade of “Humanism,” while such education in morality will naturally embrace peaceful diversification of all those “traditional” belief systems, in the harmony of preservation and advancement of a civil society. Pro stated, “The suicide bombing committee is entirely faith based, the Christian crusades were also entirely faith based. Who would do these things if it wasn't decided that god wanted it? Who would do that i ask? Last time i checked, i have never seen a nonbeliever, or even anyone who calls themselves humanists ever do anything that we have seen throughout recorded history even in today's era commit the most vile, disgusting and above all inhumane acts in the name of their beliefs, philosophies, worldviews or even opinions.”Like “humanists,” Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and many of their followers were “nonbelievers.” Marx stated, “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, in abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” http://books.google.com... Karl, Friedrich and their followers were “nonbelievers.” Those tyrannical “nonbeliever” oligarchs generally leave a trail of blood in their wake, for example, the former USSR murdered many of its own citizens (https://www.hawaii.edu...). Over the last century, excluding wars, Marxist governments murdered about 95,200,000 of their own citizens. A good example when “nonbelievers,” relative to a belief system, "abolishes ... all morality." Pro stated, “Again, morality is subjective depending on cultural and religious boundaries, and i gave examples in the previous round where i explained homosexuality and slavery. These attitudes were once considered immoral and moral respectably.”Social evolution in the US was based on Jefferson's following celebrated statement:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently conservative. For example, slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, as a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, homosexuality, etc, in time during the evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights guides legislation in man-made laws.Such cultural evolution has symmetry in the evolution of most belief systems, for example, no longer are humans burned at the stake in those “western monotheistic-based” religions, also, the doors of churches, synagogues, etc, are not closed to homosexuals. Such evolution within “theistic-based” religions become global effecting other societies. However, not all “theistic-based” religions evolve at the same rate, for today, the head of homosexuals are physically hacked off relative to the proud visual demonstrations of one known theistic-dogma. The day may come, when infidels and homosexuals can keep their head in the evolution of such dogma. Pro stated, “Your opinion on what morality is contradicts all evidence based research on human morality, con fails to give detailed evidence for his claims and again treats it as a universally accepted fact.”I Thank Pro for his four references on the definition of morality. As I stated in paragraph 4 of Round 1: In general, Pro's nemesis and most of humanity's is not “theism,” but today's classical philosophical perspective of morality. Stanford University's definition of morality indorses my thesis in Round 1 relative to the “universal morality” (http://plato.stanford.edu...): “What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.”Relative to this “universal morality” in Round 1 I stated, The empirical evidence of the diversity of language, “Theism,” and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates morality is the thread that runs through the tapestry in group formation.Also in research, “comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them.” As I stated in Round 1: Again, morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.Also in the book “The Root of Morality” (https://books.google.com...), there are discussions on the “binary mode” and “valorized binary” nature of morality, supporting the positive- and negative-feedback nature of morality I presented in Round 1. I hope these references clears up Pro's following statement, “detailed evidence for his [Con] claims and again treats it as a universally accepted fact.”Pro stated, “what scientific evidence have you presented that supports your claim 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." stating that something is scientific and ought to be taught as scientific yet has no scientific evidence to support it? That is rather dishonest.”Again, as I did in Round 1, I present the following scientific references: http://www.amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com...