Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

Pro said:” Humanism asks that we provide a lifetime of jubilant dedication to family, friend, nation and world. It asks that reason, learning, and individual liberty replace the superstition and tribalism of darker times.” Rebuttal: This argument assumes that Secular Humanism is the “light” and the older system is the “superstition of darker times”. The last century of secularism’s ascension yielded 250 million more deaths than the sum of all measured human history before it. (Clarke, Who Really Cares, 2006) Limiting this count to post 1950, that’s over 150 million deaths; a number similar to the entire world population just 2000 years ago. [1] If my opponent wishes to assume that Secular Humanism provides a lifetime of jubilant dedication to family, friend, nation and world, then I would respectfully ask for a definition. What, dear opponent, is your definition of “lifetime”? ======================================== Pro said: It is makes no claim to divine inspiration, or efforts to appease the credulous swarms with promises of magical wish-granting. Lacking the ability to provide fantastic dream-world rewards, Humanism offers its followers only hard work. Rebuttal: My opponent forgets, as per the rules, we are both assuming an atheist worldview. My position does not presuppose magical wish-granting, dream-worlds or divine inspiration. This is an attempt at misdirection, in which my opponent hopes to wound me by attacking a religious world view. I will maintain good conduct and discipline and not discuss religion here.======================================== Pro said: “There is no guarantee that this work will bear fruit.” Rebuttal: Obviously.======================================== Pro said: “Humanism does not fear human emotion, but seeks to fulfill it…..Released to pursue bliss, wealth, status, joy, love and fulfillment, the human is capable of achieving great things.” Rebuttal: Bliss, wealth and status are not virtues that can be synonymously listed with love and fulfillment. Bliss is inherently self-motivated. Status requires other human beings to be below you, by definition. Wealth is the ultimate historical motivator for human suffering. Explain why Humanism elevates these three as virtues. I see them as an anathema to human virtue.======================================== Pro established: "Humanism" is more a definition than a title. This worldview could be called "libertarianism,""Capitalism," "Utilitarianism," "Social Ethics," or "Epicureanism" were it to abandon the creed that humans shouldrely on human means to achieve human ends. This specific rejection of priestly power sets it apart, and earns the ideology its animosity. Nevertheless, even if the name "Humanism" is wrenched away from this worldview, theworldview itself would continue to exist. We Humanists would have to rename it, but we would eventually agree on something. I'm certain it would be catchy.” Rebuttal: I believe my opponent is attempting to say:” Humanism by any other name is still humanism”. I fail tosee how this supplies any backbone to the burden. I could easily counter by establishing that Fascist Humanism is therefore of equal virtue as Liberal Humanism. I hope my opponent is not trying to paint every secular ideology with the same brush.======================================== Pro wrote: “As Eric Hoffer wrote, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." For the priestly class, Humanism is the Devil – and must be defeated at all costs. “ Rebuttal: This presupposed that culture believes in a supernatural demonic power. This is yetanother appeal to misdirect the debate to religion.======================================== Pro said:” And so, the priests and their minions hurl the most vile and fantastical accusations at those who proclaim the philosophy of reason, human effort, and unearned love.” Rebuttal: I am neither priest nor minion. Additionally, I have provided ample objection from secular sources that would challenge your worldview. You have thus far debated with the most terrible manner of condescension. Is it not true that Humanism is not universally accepted amongst atheists? Isn’t there some method of appeal you would have to convince them that you’re right? Why is your entire argument built on religion? Does religion need to exist to define your worldview, the way that evil needs to exist to define good? Just what would that imply? ======================================== I extend all my arguments. The opponent did not refute the previous round, but rather chose to write an essay on his personal feelings concerning Humanism. ======================================== Who Really Cares?, Arthur C. Brooks, 2006 [In text Citation] http://populationmatters.org...