The Instigator
Antonio8877
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Humanism should replace traditional theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 67512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Antonio8877

Pro

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith.
This kind of progressive philosophy transcends religious, ethnic, cultural,political, ideological and social boundaries, which makes ideal for the modern age, but most importantly it embraces ethical responsibility and secular moral philosophy. This worldview also advocates for beliefs based on (rational and/or physical) evidence. it helps us realize that human life is short and should be lived and experienced to the fullest according to how we see ourselves and others in the here and now.
One great flaw in western monotheistic-based moralities is that they are not thought through and chosen on the basis of individual responsibility like humanism, but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way. As a result, it limits and cuts away certain grains of human nature. it also asserts that morality wasn't evolutionary developed but was given by a supposed creator and thus we cannot be good or do good without him/her/it.
in conclusion, I definitely view that humanism produces the effort to be a free-minded individual in pursuit of worthwhile goals suited to one's individuality is surely central to the very idea of the good: it is what gives us our best chance to be fully human, and at the same time " in the spirit of shared humanity " to develop our affections in our communities, to promote the values of kindness and tolerance, and to celebrate the enjoyment of all the things that make life beautiful and satisfying.
Mike_10-4

Con

I (Con) would like to thank Pro for the 9K accommodation and bring an important subject to the debating floor; may we both enjoy a constructive mutual learning experience.

Pro came out of the gate with an elegant argument, and in return, I will present my argument; using the remaining Rounds in building wisdom, while we hash through the weeds of this debate.

I will present “theism” is not the issue, and to “replace traditional theism” is not the solution towards “humanism.” In general, Pro's nemesis and most of humanity's is not “theism,” but today's classical philosophical perspective of morality.

It may surprise many, including Pro, Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality empirically seems to be part of the physical Laws of Nature, not driven by man-made metaphysical philosophical concepts from past ages.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

Please bear with me as we take a journey following the traceability path from Thermodynamics (moments after the Big Bang) to Morality. The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level, there is a bio-program common to all life, once inanimate matter becomes alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the label “Unalienable Rights” representing a polished version of this bio-program in his following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (http://www.constitution.org...).

The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law:
http://www.youtube.com...

Continuing with our journey, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs (“Theism”), language, etc, the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). A moral individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

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. By the way, throughout the ages, the historical record found not one isolated human culture to be atheistic. This non-atheistic phenomena suggests religious faith based norms (“Theism”) are associated with life having higher cerebral faculties during the evolution of life.

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.

Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights found its way in the design of the US Constitution. This event set off a social experiment, where in a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example, of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of the Laws of Nature, the “invisible hand.”

The “invisible hand” is a function of morality and freedom working within the Laws of Nature independent of “Theism,” of philosophy, of culture, etc. The following short youtube presentation shows the power of morality with life's bio-program (Unalienable Rights) interfacing with humans and the Laws of Nature in the evolution of the standard of living. The presentation starts with the familiar tree pattern (Constructal Law), concluding with the “invisible hand;” stressing the absence of human “masterminds,” while spontaneously working together in the creation of something so simple we all use.
http://www.youtube.com...

On the road to utopia, the diversity of philosophy in “Theism” and culture, is not the issue, when there exist congruence in morality and its relationship to Unalienable Rights. Education is the ends to such congruence, and in saying that, morality should be a subject of study in science courses throughout the world.

Such scientific education in morality, is the path of least resistance (Constructal Law), compared to the insolvable problem for any governance or institutional tyranny demanding “Humanism should replace traditional theism.”

If scientific education in morality becomes common place throughout the world, “theism” diversity may one day fulfill one of its common objectives, to have “Peace on Earth, and good will to human kind.” Needless to say, the same objective is shared by those who embrace their metaphysical concepts pertaining to “secular moral philosophy,” embracing a civil society. A civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. And in saying that, atheist should spend less time criticizing theist and embrace discussions on the scientific nature of morality.

In closing, for those of faith ("theist"), the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God, since theists believe that God created everything. For humans who believe in God, the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting; hence, morality is the fingerprint of God for it is found throughout God's nature.

On the other hand, for atheists and those of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.). God's help is found in the Laws of Nature, of which morality is part of.
Debate Round No. 1
Antonio8877

Pro

Id like to thank pro for accepting this debate and i to, look forward toward an enlightening experience.
The first point i would like to make is that while analyzing pro's first argument, im afraid there has been a misunderstanding of the topic of this debate.

Firstly, as the thesis statement reads: "Humanism should replace traditional theism" the topic of this debate is addressing two broad moral philosophies; being humanism a secularized moral and ethical philosophy, and absolute based morality being the core moral system that exists in western monotheism. In your first point you clarified your position as theism not being the issue and replacing it with humanism is not the solution. As stated, this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism, but as stated in your statement, you represent neither positions but instead presented a position that is irreverent to the debate topic.

As i read on, i come across a personalized, informed opinion of what morality is, and its origins, which again is not the topic of this debate. However your informed opinion on what morality is and how "Unalienable Rights"," Laws of Thermodynamics","Constructal Law", and Thomas Jefferson's part in writing the U.S constitution is somehow relative is subject for debate. However as i stated above, this is not the debate to either address, discuss or explain suck a position. It is instead a debate addressing two broad, moral and ethical philosophies, and which of these is best suited for the modern age.

"Education is the ends to such congruence, and in saying that, morality should be a subject of study in science courses throughout the world. Such scientific education in morality, is the path of least resistance (Constructal Law), compared to the insolvable problem for any governance or institutional tyranny demanding "Humanism should replace traditional theism.""
What philosophical and scientific view of morality should be taught? Yours? Morality shouldn't be seen and treated as a silver bullet, instead morality should be looked at critically, with total objectivity, discussed, and reasoned with collectively. This is what humanism is, after all, this moral philosophy does indeed educate and encourage rational thinking and look at and addressing issue together. Education is indeed a powerful way to inform and change society, but in what way? Change is needed, but we first need to critically and rationally reach an agreement on what modern civil society needs, and what better way to join human society than using a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively with the use of binding, physical and rational evidence and critical thinking. A philosophy that emphasizes that the core of ethics and morality depends on social responsibility both individually and collectively.

"A civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. And in saying that, atheist should spend less time criticizing theist and embrace discussions on the scientific nature of morality."
Indeed it should be shared and improved by all who live in it, however we offer constructive criticisms to theistic claims and as i stated; evidence should be the ground base for all beliefs, and to question everything, for that is how we are able to make room for new evidence to change our minds. Humanism seeks not to impose or demand, but instead seeks only to question the dominate view that is embraced by a majority of humans, the view that morality is absolute and cannot be questioned or changed since it was not developed naturally, but was instead given by a supposed personal, supernatural deity. To that, in light of new discoveries, and breakthroughs, we must now challenge.

"In closing, for those of faith ("theist"), the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God, since theists believe that God created everything. For humans who believe in God, the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting; hence, morality is the fingerprint of God for it is found throughout God's nature. On the other hand, for atheists and those of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.). God's help is found in the Laws of Nature, of which morality is part of."

Here i see you now take the position of theists as apposed to your original stance of taking neither. However this is a very common argument i hear often, many intellectuals through out history, from Galileo to Sir Isaac Newton who viewed the natural world as a blueprint of a personal, mainly the Judea-Christian God. However like these men and countless others who took this stance, who thought they were discovering this God's work were in fact, discovering a universe that was predictable and deterministic founded on natural laws which revealed that a God wasn't necessary. Everything we attributed to this theistic God from plagues to natural disasters to healing were now revealed to be cons in a deterministic machine that required no God to work. At least we could count on creation, that this God had created us to live in this deterministic universe of laws that was surly created by this God. We could count on that surly we were created in this God's image. Then Charles Darwin opened our eyes to a reality where all life evolved and was still evolving yet still contained some faults that wouldn't be expected to be there in the first place by a supposed perfect supernatural and personal being. Perfect creations we did not appear to be. Rather we appeared to be processes that rose from the clashing deterministic order and chaos of the universe. Quantum mechanics was the last great frontier where the supernatural could perhaps re-invade our lives. However it yet again was revealed to be yet another strange realm with its own core principles that had nothing to do with the supernatural or the personal, theistic God. With anyone with the education or knowledge of the natural world would know that the once God at determined realities destiny and the destiny of all that rest in it, had now become unemployed. Everything this God was supposed to do or had done as was said by traditional and ancient wisdom had now been stripped and replaced with something else., something better, something based on new evidence and knowledge. That is why humanism as a philosophy of ethics, morality and critical and rational thought is so relevant and in dire need of attention in the modern world.

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.goodreads.com...
Mike_10-4

Con

Pro in Round 2 stated, “... im afraid there has been a misunderstanding of the topic of this debate. … As stated, this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism ..."

I take issue with Pro's following assertion, “... this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of 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.

Dissecting Pro's statement in Round 1, “One great flaw in western monotheistic-based moralities is that they are not thought through and chosen on the basis of individual responsibility like humanism, but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way.”

Pro confused civil, or humanist, or religious values with morality. Morality is binary. When one follows a social-accepted-value, is moral; when one does not follow this value, is immoral.

The phrase, “... individual responsibility like humanism ...” implies in a “humanistic” society everyone is “responsible,” I doubt it, because of the binary nature of morality. That is, “responsible” implies moral, where irresponsible implies immoral.

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.

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.

Humanist and religious values are both belief systems. For example, after viewing one of Pro's youtube references in Round 2, “The Humanist Manifesto III” (https://www.youtube.com...), I went off looking for “The Humanist Manifesto I” and found the following, containing 15 affirmations (http://modernhistoryproject.org...):

A new religion for the socialist utopia --- by: Huxwell

"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions... must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present... We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

This went on from the “FIRST” affirmation to the 15th. According to “The Humanist Manifesto I” it is just another religion. One may argue the original “Humanist Manifesto” the Manifesto before “Manifesto I” includes “monotheistic-based” religions, for all those scriptures written about God was written by humans. Is it not logical to conclude all human written scriptures, pertaining to social-, or religious-values, are just “Humanist Manifestos” having the goal of obtaining a civil society?

There is one obvious difference between Manifesto I relative to Manifesto III, that is, replacing the term “religion” with “progressive philosophy” (http://americanhumanist.org...).

The late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religions) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”

Campbell's statement holds true for all those “Humanist Manifestos” whether the religion is secular or not.

The point is, there are many “theistic” belief systems that are simply not going to be replaced by some “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 the last Round, a civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. Empirically, all civil societies are the result of both theist and atheist having the common link of the absolute binary states of morality. As Huxwell stated:

"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion.

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.

For example, the morality factor is a fundamental agent in the foundation of the USA. This youtube overview of the USA stresses the importance of morality throughout the presentation: http://www.youtube.com...

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, stated:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...).

The US is in a post constitutional era. The “progressive” movement started during President Woodrow Wilson's dynasty who was a promoter of Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional change. Wilson stated:
http://books.google.com....

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.”

Wilson also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights:

No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”

Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and today this cancer has metastasize into a large “progressive” centralized government embracing a soft tyranny. For example, there are so many laws on the books, we commit about 3 felonies a day.
http://www.amazon.com...

The US citizens are losing their moral compass substituted by the tyranny of a police state

In closing, one would expect “Humanist” would embrace the scientific education of morality. The question is, would a “progressive” ruling-class oligarch support scientific education of morality being a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature knowing life's Unalienable Rights is the linkage to the Constructal Law? Those Rights, the esteem “progressive” Wilson declared as “nonsense.”
Debate Round No. 2
Antonio8877

Pro

"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.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your response.

Pro keeps asserting his Round 2's position, “... this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism,...” The mantra in Round 1, and the title of this debate clearly specifies that one belief system (Pro’s) “should replace” those belief systems Pro disagrees with. Therefore, my argument stands about “theism” or “Humanism” is not the issue. Pro's nemesis is missing the fact that morality is the issue. 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.”

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.

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.

As I stated in Round 1 and I'll repeat here: Such scientific education in morality, is the path of least resistance (Constructal Law), compared to the insolvable problem for any governance or institutional tyranny demanding “Humanism should replace traditional theism.”

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.

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.

In closing, and if I don't have the pleasure in meeting Pro in Round 4 before the year's end, in the New Year and beyond, in the light of life's Unalienable Rights, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moralpursuit of Happiness.” If all the peoples of the world embrace and respects their neighbor's Unalienable Rights, then all the different instruments of belief may turn into a well-orchestrated symphony of music conducted by morality.
Debate Round No. 3
Antonio8877

Pro

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.
Mike_10-4

Con

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...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Antonio8877 2 years ago
Antonio8877
My apologies, when I pointed out in round 4 to look at a response in round 1, it was actually round 2. Again apologies.
Posted by Antonio8877 2 years ago
Antonio8877
There are numerous types of theism each selective depending on the individual.for example Christians believe in Jesus Christ, Muslims in Mohammed and then you get more modern interpretations such as a belief that God and the universe are one, all things material are contained within a God and so on. See the difference between modern versions of theism and the traditional one? impersonal and personal.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
I would take this debate, however; 4K words is too short. I need 10K or at least 8K.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
What do you mean by 'traditional' theism? Why not theism in general?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Antonio8877Mike_10-4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro erroneously claims that Con must take a pro theism stance. This is not accurate. Nowhere in the resolution, nor round one, is any such requirement issued. Therefore, Con's approach is a valid alternative. With that in mind, Pro's claims of irrelevance are inaccurate. This leads me to the conclusion that Pro didn't sufficiently refute Con's claims. So arguments to Con since Pro had the burden of proof.