Humanism should replace traditional theism

"This statement appeared in Round 2 not in Round 1. Therefore, my argument stands about "theism" is not the issue. Pro's nemesis is missing the fact that morality is a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature, not metaphysical" Be that as it may, the thesis statement is the topic of the debate. As it clearly states, there are only two positions to take, con seems to think that morality is part of the "physical laws of nature" and somehow the U.S is mixed with it all is again, not in the thesis statement. If it read: Morality is metaphysical, then your arguments would stand relevant. However, this is not the case. So again, stating what morality is not the subject of this debate. "Therefore, my argument stands about "theism" is not the issue." Con is now stepping into a completely different debate that has nothing to do with the concept of humanism or traditional theism., and as i stated repeatedly has nothing to do with the topic of this debate as stated in the thesis statement. "Pro confused civil, or humanist, or religious values with morality." No im afraid i did not confuse anything with anything, western monotheistic-based moralities are indeed thought to have been imposed on the outside in a one size fits all way, what this means is instead of reaching a universal consensus based on discussion, reason, and argument, but is instead enforced as if it is perfect and that it transcends all boundaries. "When one follows a social-accepted-value, is moral; when one does not follow this value, is immoral." Homosexuality was once considered to be a so immoral act, and in some societies,still remains so, yet i for one do not see it that way in the slightest. Slavery was also considered moral. In the modern age however we don't think those values are moral anymore, we believe in the equality of women, in the protection and self-sustainability of the Eco system, and again the total equality of homosexuals. All these values are recent and have no basis in religious scripture which is the basis of religious based absolute morality. "I doubt it, because of the binary nature of morality. That is, "responsible" implies moral, where irresponsible implies immoral. " This statement makes little sense since responsibility whether personal, collective or moral is a profound stage to base morality and ethics on. Taking responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of social problems and what might count as a solution. It would also imply a certain emotional connection with outcome. If you take responsibility for the conference you will tend to feel pride and satisfaction if it is successful, and disappointment if it is a failure: the outcome will become an important part of how you self-evaluate. Those who don't take responsibility aren't being immoral, but are instead admitting to their own demise and failure, which of course no one wants. "The question is, why single out "western monotheistic-based" values? Those values are benign relative to Middle Eastern "monotheistic-based" values, supporting a mode of conquest by killing infidels." The demographic study " based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers " finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world"s population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) around the world as of 2010. -http://www.pewforum.org... Those who adhere to the western monotheistic based values represent 55.3% of the global population (In 2010). That means a majority of humans follow belief systems that as Con pointed out "support a mode of conquest by killing infidels." That is why im signaling out western monotheistic-based morality since it is followed by a majority of humans. Im challenging the majority view. "Finally, ending with the phrase, "... but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way." What does that mean? Pick anyone, and they will have a different interpretation of the Bible. In addition, there are many different versions of the Bible. The spectrum of faith, is on the individual level, therefore, "a one-size-fits-all" simply does not exist." I already responded to this in my second point, and in terms of theistic based absolute morality of what the personal theistic wants, "a one-size-fits-all" does indeed exist I chose humanist manifesto III since it has been altered and changed based on new evidence and views, since it was written in 2003. Manifestos I and II were written in 1933 and 1973 respectably. The central theme of all three manifestos is the elaboration of a philosophy and value system that is compatible with modern society. The fact that these manifestos changed does not in anyway signal weakness, but instead shows strength. The main core principle in humanism is critical thinking, objectivity, and beliefs based on evidence. Manifestos I shows this as it stated:"Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." This is false since as Stephen Hawking pointed out in his lecture on the origins of the universe: " The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going."-http://www.hawking.org.uk... New evidence arose and therefor change was implemented, facts if your rational should change ones worldviews. "Campbell's statement holds true for all those "Humanist Manifestos" whether the religion is secular or not." humanism being classified as a religion matters not, what it stands for is important. As E.M.Forster stated: "The four characteristics of humanism are curiosity, a free mind, belief in good taste, and belief in the human race."-http://www.brainyquote.com.... At the end, it contains no holy books, no rituals, no "one-size-fits-all" morality. it stands for something bigger, and far more realistic that is grounded in rational thought, evidence, and emphasizes the uniqueness and value of human beings in all societies. The question really is, why not teach this? make it a subject in schools? its grounded in real philosophy and that based on rationalism, and for once spreads a positive message. " "humanistic" secular philosophy anytime soon, for the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the Big Bang; hence, faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof, and therefore, the evolution of belief systems will continue." As i stated in round 2, everything traditional theism has offered in place of this supernatural, and personal being has instead in light of new discoveries being replaced by something else, something better. Yes, this will continue to improve belief systems, but in the modern age, traditional theism must be replaced by something else. Something better, realistic, and enthusiastic, and based on evidence. Humanism offers this, since its objective, friendly and non hostile or imposing, and indeed, welcomes discussion and argument to reach a universal consensus. There are also women in science as well by the way. "Man's "scientific achievements" are shared by atheist and theist. It would be constructive, if atheist would have a "... deeper appreciation of brotherhood ..." towards their theist brethren. Relative to "... a new statement of the means and purposes of religion," the scientific method is common to all religions, and morality should be a study in educational institutions. Due to the lack of moral education, it is clear this "progressive philosophy" is not working well in the "progressive" political arena." Who ever said that atheists don't? There is a difference between the individual and the individual's belief. Does questioning a particular belief also mean that we don't like the person? of course not.Morality should indeed be studied and given important status in schools, but the question is, 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. We have a universal man rights charter, so why not a universal charter on morality that is based on discussion, argument, and grounding evidence? Perhaps Government should stop wasting time and start looking at the bigger picture, after all a nation is only strong when its people are. Again i find the concept of humanism and its strong moral and philosophical principles to be the best candidate for educating and the best solution to traditional theistic absolute morality.