Humanism is a Better Morality System than Any Religion

The term "Christian" was given to the followers of Christ by the Romans at the time of Jesus. The term was derogatory in nature, and it is incorrect for someone who claims to follow the Bible to call themselves a Christian. The reason being is that the prophets never called themselves Christians. They labeled their set of beliefs to what we know as Christianity today. This is a separate argument but I want to make this clear before we keep going. You cannot label the followers of the Bible as anything and doing so is using a man-made definition. The Bible never states a name for a religion or anything. Pro argues that I must prove that God exists to be able to prove that objective morality exists. He says that I am straying from the topic and the point I made is not relevant to this debate. The title of this debate is "Humanism is a better morality system than any religion". If you want to talk about morality in any debate you HAVE to discuss what you deem as morally true. You have to discuss what you think is the basis of moral values. Whether your basis is social consensus or you think it is God given. I will discus God because I believe the Bible (given not a religion, but for the sake of this debate) is the foundation for all moral obligations. Therefore is the Bible is the source I will refer to. Humanist will reject the existence of God and therefore you will reject objective morality. That is why I brought up objective morality because you will deny it. You are saying humanism is better morally than any other religion yet your morals are based off of God. Do you see where I'm getting at? Good thing you gave the definition. The reason why she is the first humanist is because she attributed her own importance before God! She defied God and did what she thought was important to her. This would not assume that the Bible is true, but it is simply her putting herself before any divine being. As I stated prior that Humanism is the religion of humanity in other words worship of the human essentially. Pro says humanism has NO faith assumptions! This is a pretty hefty claim that I want the judges to note when we go to vote. I was actually dumbfounded that pro says humanism are no faith assumptions. In fact humanist assumptions all mainly based on faith. There is too much evidence for one to refute. I'm sure you have heard the saying if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swim likes a duck then it must be a duck. Likewise for modern humanism if it has the characteristics of a religion, acts like a religion also been declared a religion legally, then it must be a religion. A follower of the Christ will openly admit that yes we rely on our faith to provide what we deem as true. I believe in God and everything prescribed in the Bible. These things I hold dearly are based off of faith and what I know to be true. However it is strongly based off of my faith. Faith is a strong trust or complete confidence in something. Faith is NOT the same as logic. Faith is simply being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I have faith in God's existence even though I cannot 100% prove his existence. That is what faith is and humanist has the same faith assumptions. I stated in my prior argument a few of faith assumptions you subscribe too. You did not address them but simply said "no it cannot be true its simply logic". Faith is trust in something especially without having logic. I'll state them again and a few more. Humanist assume God cannot NOT exist but have no way to prove it. Humanist assume God does NOT intervene in human life. Humanist assume mankind has no spiritual nature. Humanist assume there are no absolute moral values. Humanist assume their is no sin. Humanist assume ethics are autonomous Humanist assume there is no sin. Humanist assume there is no heaven. Humanist assume there is no hell. Humanist assume there is no life after death. These are ALL faith assumptions because you CANNOT prove any of them to be true. It is ultimately God who determines what is wrong and what is not right for us. The reason we have these feelings are basis of God. Without God there is no nature. God is the creator of everything in life. The reason we changed our morals is because of social consensus. Homosexuality years ago was thought as sinful and now today it is legal in society. Does that mean it is right because we change as a society? No it does not because the basis of our moral values and accountability ultimately go back to God. God holds us morally accountable for our actions in life. Without God we would have a rampant society and there would be no rational feeling that murder is wrong. But we have these feelings not because of what nature says but because of God. Humans do want to die, not sure if you know suicide and those dying for their faith. Moral obligations is rising out of what is considered right and wrong. God wills this moral obligation! Without God as the basis their is NO objective morality just brainless sheep running around. Deuteronomy 22:29 is addressed in two passages: Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this, he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him! Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" " this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 allowed for divorce and also in Matthews. I could go on but I am running out of characters, Numbers 31 Pro says: This verse you argued for saying that they intended to marry the women so it was okay; do you truly believe these virgin women had any choice in it? These were forced marriages so that the men could rape the women under the law. There is no indication of rape of these women. Rape is not directly mentioned but the in the Jewish culture rape was sexually immoral. Rape would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16"18) I have refuted the slavery claim for you. I'll copy it again. Slavery in Bible is not the same slavery that has existed in past centuries. People were not enslaved based on race, or their nationality. People were enslaved based off of economics at the time. Slavery was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay off of their debt. Doctors, lawyers and even politicians sold themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. The Bible is not a way to reform society but to salvation. The biblical point on issues is to approach from the inside out. A slave can be a brother of the Lord. Slave traders are seen as ungodly and sinful in the Bible. Slaves are actually referred to as "bondservants" and their are laws on their treatment. I could go on about this but I think you get the point. The bible teaches children are NOT innocent and they are not without sin. We are born into sin! God prevented further evil from happening by killing off the people. I want to say but I am out of characters.