Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:01:26 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:06:11 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:44:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:06:42 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

No action or organization or place should be beyond the ability of
government to regulate.

So the hymns that are sung in a church are within the ability of government to regulate?

Within the ability? Yes.

So you would support a government attempt to do so.

Under what conditions?

YOU tell us.


However, there would seem to be very little
reason for there to be any such regulation, and therefore very little
reason for a well-operating system to attempt such.

Irrelevant.

Hardly. You cannot consider my first comment without also considering
the second.

I have the right to do so.

No thought or belief should ever be within its
ability to regulate.

Except, of course, a child's belief in God and the Bible.

I've never encountered a child born with a belief in God or the Bible.

Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's central to the argument. You cannot dismiss as
"irrelevant" every argument you lack the wits to address.

A child wants to read the Bible. Is that OK?

That's something that has to be taught. It is only the teaching I'm
taking exception to, not the beliefs.

But you would outlaw a child's opportunity to be taught beliefs.

No, I wouldn't outlaw anything.

But you said earlier you wanted to outlaw their being taught some beliefs.

I believe that childhood
indoctrination (which is not a suitable way to come by beliefs) is
wrong,

Well, there you go:

https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress...ctrination.jpg

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:18:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:11:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 4:56:57 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:50:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:31:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:06:42 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:00:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Yet you wrote:

"and ought to be limited today in free societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion, or take them to church)."

And I think it ought to be. edit And I hope that one day it is illegal
to teach children about religion.

So you ARE in favor of the government controlling religion? (IE, children are not allowed to participate, parents not allowed to teach it to them, etc.)

No. I'm in favor of government protecting the right of a child to not
be indoctrinated.

Where did that "right" come from, peterson?

I defined it.

When?

When I said "a child has a right to not be indoctrinated".

But you offer no evidence as to where the right came from.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I defined it.

When?

When I said "a child has a right to not be indoctrinated".

But you offer no evidence as to where the right came from.

It's not a claim that requires evidence, or for which evidence would
even make sense. A right is simply asserted. Any right. That right may
or may not be widely recognized. It may not exist in law. But that
doesn't stop someone from defining it and arguing for its acceptance.

A right to life or a right to free haircuts. It makes no difference.
They don't come from anywhere, accept the minds of those who can
imagine them. They are only instantiated by those with the power to do
so- the people in a democratic society, the king in a monarchy.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:24:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:01:26 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:06:11 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:44:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:06:42 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

No action or organization or place should be beyond the ability of
government to regulate.

So the hymns that are sung in a church are within the ability of government to regulate?

Within the ability? Yes.

So you would support a government attempt to do so.

Under what conditions?

YOU tell us.

I might support a law preventing the singing of a hymn that called for
the death or injury of someone (AKA inciting violence). I might
support a law limiting how loud a hymn could be sung if people outside
the church could hear it.

However, there would seem to be very little
reason for there to be any such regulation, and therefore very little
reason for a well-operating system to attempt such.

Irrelevant.

Hardly. You cannot consider my first comment without also considering
the second.

I have the right to do so.

Yes, you do have the right to say foolish things and refuse to support
your own arguments. No disagreement there.

No thought or belief should ever be within its
ability to regulate.

Except, of course, a child's belief in God and the Bible.

I've never encountered a child born with a belief in God or the Bible.

Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's central to the argument. You cannot dismiss as
"irrelevant" every argument you lack the wits to address.

A child wants to read the Bible. Is that OK?

Sure. Indeed, I think exposure to the Bible is a key part of a child's
education, and should be a part of the required curriculum.

That's something that has to be taught. It is only the teaching I'm
taking exception to, not the beliefs.

But you would outlaw a child's opportunity to be taught beliefs.

No, I wouldn't outlaw anything.

But you said earlier you wanted to outlaw their being taught some beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. I said that I thought there ought to be a law
against childhood indoctrination. Very different from what you seem to
think I said.

I believe that childhood
indoctrination (which is not a suitable way to come by beliefs) is
wrong,

Well, there you go:

https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress...ctrination.jpg

"Teaching" and "indoctrination" rarely mean the same thing. Usually,
they have opposite meanings, in fact.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

But you would outlaw a child's opportunity to be taught beliefs.

No, I wouldn't outlaw anything. I believe that childhood
indoctrination (which is not a suitable way to come by beliefs) is
wrong, violates what should be recognized as a basic human right, and
that a healthy society would find ways to reduce it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic idea.

However, I don't feel there is a safe or appropriate way for what you seek to
be done, at least under present circumstances.

There is already social disapproval of the more extreme or outrageous forms of
religious belief.

However, it is also true that it is accepted at this time, at least in the United States, as a norm that:

- most people will believe in God, and belong to some organized church, and

- they will pass on their religious faith to their children.

It certainly is true that a young child is at a disadvantage in distinguishing
truth from falsehood; and in distinguishing things that are generally accepted
as fact and backed by evidence from controversial statements.

And, while it is not universally true that religious beliefs are presented to
children in a fundamentally dishonest manner, it certainly is likely that their
highly tentative and controversial nature will not be made clear in how they
are presented. Some people have religious beliefs that co-exist with
open-mindedness, but other forms of religious faith do not.

So, yes, there is a "problem".

But trying to solve it seems to be far worse than the problem.

If you want to influence how other people behave, the most obvious avenue is to
pass some sort of a law. And the regimes that have tried to influence what sort
of religious beliefs parents teach to their children have generally been
totalitarian regimes.

You have said, though, that you don't want to "outlaw anything". Instead,
apparently, you are seeking a shift in public attitudes.

While I think that the moral values inherent in what some have called the
"American civil religion" are good ones, those values reinforce the idea that
the fundamental ideas of right and wrong that the people have should be their
own, rather than being handed to them by the government, and that one of the
forces that helps to ensure this is the existence of strong and vibrant
religious traditions.

Myself, I feel that if, on the one hand, people are intelligent, if they are
given the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, and on the other,
their parents are ordinary average people, who have a religious faith without
being fanatical - and without belonging to a cult that guides them in outright
brainwashing of their children - the fact that children are exposed to religion
at a young age, while perhaps uncomfortable in principle, is not really one of
our more serious problems. Except in extreme situations, childhood conditioning
will be shaken off.

The real problems are more subtle.

If people aren't intelligent enough, they may shake off their childhood
religious faith for stuff that is uncontroversially silly: belief in astrology,
flying saucers, things like that. So I'm all for more and better education in
science and critical thinking.

Because, as those whose faith is more old-fashioned than you or I might be
comfortable with would put it... Satan has a powerful ally in the temptations
of the flesh.

Therefore, fooling around with the First Amendment to fix a problem that
teenage hormones have already largely solved... isn't worth it.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

But you would outlaw a child's opportunity to be taught beliefs.

No, I wouldn't outlaw anything. I believe that childhood
indoctrination (which is not a suitable way to come by beliefs) is
wrong, violates what should be recognized as a basic human right, and
that a healthy society would find ways to reduce it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic idea.

However, I don't feel there is a safe or appropriate way for what you seek to
be done, at least under present circumstances.

There is already social disapproval of the more extreme or outrageous forms of
religious belief.

However, it is also true that it is accepted at this time, at least in
the United States, as a norm that:

- most people will believe in God, and belong to some organized church, and

- they will pass on their religious faith to their children.

It certainly is true that a young child is at a disadvantage in distinguishing
truth from falsehood; and in distinguishing things that are generally accepted
as fact and backed by evidence from controversial statements.

And, while it is not universally true that religious beliefs are presented to
children in a fundamentally dishonest manner, it certainly is likely that their
highly tentative and controversial nature will not be made clear in how they
are presented. Some people have religious beliefs that co-exist with
open-mindedness, but other forms of religious faith do not.

So, yes, there is a "problem".

But trying to solve it seems to be far worse than the problem.

If you want to influence how other people behave, the most obvious avenue is to
pass some sort of a law. And the regimes that have tried to influence what sort
of religious beliefs parents teach to their children have generally been
totalitarian regimes.

You have said, though, that you don't want to "outlaw anything". Instead,
apparently, you are seeking a shift in public attitudes.

While I think that the moral values inherent in what some have called the
"American civil religion" are good ones, those values reinforce the idea that
the fundamental ideas of right and wrong that the people have should be their
own, rather than being handed to them by the government, and that one of the
forces that helps to ensure this is the existence of strong and vibrant
religious traditions.

Myself, I feel that if, on the one hand, people are intelligent, if they are
given the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, and on the other,
their parents are ordinary average people, who have a religious faith without
being fanatical - and without belonging to a cult that guides them in outright
brainwashing of their children - the fact that children are exposed to religion
at a young age, while perhaps uncomfortable in principle, is not really one of
our more serious problems. Except in extreme situations, childhood conditioning
will be shaken off.

The real problems are more subtle.

If people aren't intelligent enough, they may shake off their childhood
religious faith for stuff that is uncontroversially silly: belief in astrology,
flying saucers, things like that. So I'm all for more and better education in
science and critical thinking.

Because, as those whose faith is more old-fashioned than you or I might be
comfortable with would put it... Satan has a powerful ally in the temptations
of the flesh.

Therefore, fooling around with the First Amendment to fix a problem that
teenage hormones have already largely solved... isn't worth it.

John Savard


All religion is based on lies even if those who preach it believe. In the
religious those phenomena which give rise to UFO belief are interpreted as
miracles.

Some religions are more harmful than others but they are all based on lies.
Superstition is the other person's religion. But so is ones own.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:55:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

But you would outlaw a child's opportunity to be taught beliefs.

No, I wouldn't outlaw anything. I believe that childhood
indoctrination (which is not a suitable way to come by beliefs) is
wrong, violates what should be recognized as a basic human right, and
that a healthy society would find ways to reduce it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic idea.

However, I don't feel there is a safe or appropriate way for what you seek to
be done, at least under present circumstances.

I disagree. There does not exist a single right that is absolute.
Every right that we define has the potential of coming into conflict
with others. And we have a pretty well thought out, effective system
of dealing with that, between the legislative process (attempting to
define the resolution in advance) and the judicial process (finding a
resolution after the fact). Is the system perfect? Certainly not. But
on the whole, I'd suggest it has done, and continues to do, a pretty
good job.

There is already social disapproval of the more extreme or outrageous forms of
religious belief.

However, it is also true that it is accepted at this time, at least in the United States, as a norm that:

- most people will believe in God, and belong to some organized church, and

Which I have no legal objection to.

- they will pass on their religious faith to their children.

And which I also have no legal objection to.

So, yes, there is a "problem".

But trying to solve it seems to be far worse than the problem.

Trying to solve it by legislation seems far worse than the problem, I
agree. But I've been very clear that I don't propose that.

If you want to influence how other people behave, the most obvious avenue is to
pass some sort of a law. And the regimes that have tried to influence what sort
of religious beliefs parents teach to their children have generally been
totalitarian regimes.

As noted, I don't generally believe that it is the role of law to
change behavior or to change social norms. Only to regulate norms
already in place (or in some cases, well on their way to being so).

You have said, though, that you don't want to "outlaw anything". Instead,
apparently, you are seeking a shift in public attitudes.

Precisely.

While I think that the moral values inherent in what some have called the
"American civil religion" are good ones, those values reinforce the idea that
the fundamental ideas of right and wrong that the people have should be their
own, rather than being handed to them by the government, and that one of the
forces that helps to ensure this is the existence of strong and vibrant
religious traditions.

My view is that religion stands in the way of establishing good
standards of right and wrong, as does any externalized moral code.

Myself, I feel that if, on the one hand, people are intelligent, if they are
given the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, and on the other,
their parents are ordinary average people, who have a religious faith without
being fanatical - and without belonging to a cult that guides them in outright
brainwashing of their children - the fact that children are exposed to religion
at a young age, while perhaps uncomfortable in principle, is not really one of
our more serious problems. Except in extreme situations, childhood conditioning
will be shaken off.

I, of course, view religion as one of our primary, most serious, most
dangerous societal problems. And the continued existence of religion
as the cultural norm suggests that childhood conditioning is rarely
shaken off.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:36:06 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I, of course, view religion as one of our primary, most serious, most
dangerous societal problems. And the continued existence of religion
as the cultural norm suggests that childhood conditioning is rarely
shaken off.

In that case, I can see why some may fail to take seriously your claim not to
be seeking legislation to deal with the problem, since that is usually the only
quick way to change anything.

Backing up, you also said:

My view is that religion stands in the way of establishing good
standards of right and wrong, as does any externalized moral code.

Hmm.

Perhaps I'm being Machiavellian or something...

If one feels that a substantial portion of the population is not, in fact,
intelligent enough to behave morally simply for... philosophical reasons... and
something like fire and brimstone religion is instead what is suited to their
mental level,

then, even if one's own ethical beliefs would prevent one from actively
promoting a religion in which one does not believe,

one might be inclined to breathe a sigh of relief that religion does exist,
giving people an externalized moral code that at least reduces the amount of
lying, cheating, and stealing in which the proletariat engage.

In other words, I think you suffer from an excess of optimism.

John Savard

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:56:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:36:06 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I, of course, view religion as one of our primary, most serious, most
dangerous societal problems. And the continued existence of religion
as the cultural norm suggests that childhood conditioning is rarely
shaken off.

In that case, I can see why some may fail to take seriously your claim not to
be seeking legislation to deal with the problem, since that is usually the only
quick way to change anything.

But I'm not proposing a quick change. I don't think that is possible,
and I certainly don't seek a legislative solution that is
substantially different from the societal consensus. What I seek is to
change the consensus.

Backing up, you also said:

My view is that religion stands in the way of establishing good
standards of right and wrong, as does any externalized moral code.

Hmm.

Yes, that's what I believe.

Perhaps I'm being Machiavellian or something...

If one feels that a substantial portion of the population is not, in fact,
intelligent enough to behave morally simply for... philosophical reasons... and
something like fire and brimstone religion is instead what is suited to their
mental level,

then, even if one's own ethical beliefs would prevent one from actively
promoting a religion in which one does not believe,

one might be inclined to breathe a sigh of relief that religion does exist,
giving people an externalized moral code that at least reduces the amount of
lying, cheating, and stealing in which the proletariat engage.

The problem is, the external moral codes that most religions offer
encourage lying, cheating and stealing. They do not reduce those
things, they increase them.

I do not believe that most people are too intellectually weak to deal
with rational moral codes. Indeed, most people develop such codes
anyway, which create dissonance when they conflict with the awful
codes their religion offers. Without the religion, they'd be much
better off. And more moral.

In other words, I think you suffer from an excess of optimism.

I don't think so, but better that than pessimism, IMO. I'd rather aim
for a high standard than settle in advance for a low one.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 6:03:38 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The problem is, the external moral codes that most religions offer
encourage lying, cheating and stealing. They do not reduce those
things, they increase them.

This claim seems to me to be a complete inversion of the truth. Religions
encourage lying? That's completely crazy in light of the commandment not
to bear false witness. Religions encourage stealing? That's ludicrous in
light of the commandment not to steal. I see atheism as encouraging these
things since there is no moral compass.

I do not believe that most people are too intellectually weak to deal
with rational moral codes. Indeed, most people develop such codes
anyway, which create dissonance when they conflict with the awful
codes their religion offers.

Like thou shalt not kill? :-)

Without the religion, they'd be much better off. And more moral.

You'd change your mind really fast if you were dumped into such a destructive
society.

In other words, I think you suffer from an excess of optimism.

I don't think so, but better that than pessimism, IMO. I'd rather aim
for a high standard than settle in advance for a low one.

Atheism will never attain that in a majority of the population.