Humanism should replace traditional theism

I employ Con to see reason in what im trying to say time and time again. The debate topic is the thesis statement, taking neither position is jumping off the topic at hand. "my argument stands about "theism" or "Humanism" is not the issue" 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. For someone who does not wish to take neither side, con seems to take interest in the theists position of the debate and seems to time and time, jump from topic to topic. I insist Con makes up his mind, and cease this irrational and contradictory stance for risk of unnecessary provocations. "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." That is because humanism doesn't act under a divine authority. 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. we don't persecute, we protest. We don't kill for our views, we discuss and welcome criticism. Humanism is not a "one-size-fits-all" kind of philosophy,since humanism is subjective to each individual on all levels of society, it allows for complete flexibility. "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." 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. What caused them t change? Evolution of human society caused this, everything changes with time, as new ideas flush in, old ones are chucked out. That seems to work just fine. A devote Evangelical Christian has a very different opinion on homosexuality, abortion, and how to live human lives to the fullest compared to me. Why is that? Again beliefs that don't advocate change are prone to fail as we evolve and develop. "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." The only misconception here is Con treats morality as if it is a silver bullet which i mentioned in Round 2 but id hate to repeat my self so please do read over again and see if you come to the same conclusion. 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 don't think im the one here whose imposing. Very disappointing. http://www.samharris.org... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.imprint.co.uk... "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." If you would look at my previous points you'd know that im not the one whose pushing anything. 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. Ahhh "scientific vantage point?" Con hasn't supplied enough peer reviewed, carefully research scientific evidence to support your claim about the origins of morality. Not very impressive im afraid. Handwriting of god? Read the point i made at the end of round 1. "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." Asian, 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.