Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[sayak83]

Where did they mention mean sea level rise?

In the pdf you sent earlier.

 

[Ebionite]

In the pdf you sent earlier.

No, Tooley and Posnert didn't write that. What I quoted from them was only about the Maldives.

Here are some quotes from the PDF which relate to mean seal level. Where do you think Morner is lying?

"And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure."

"Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whenever I see a comment like this alleging some defect in the thinking of those challenging the claims of fanciful thinkers, I make the same comment. If you want to call some aspect of humanism an error and that word is to have some meaning other than an effort to denigrate dissenters and undermine their position without an argument (ad hominem fallacy), then one needs to show some cost associated with the behavior to call it an error. I already know that you can't do that, so I won't ask you to try. Paying professional scientists is neither an error nor a result of humanism. I assure you that the people that mean you and I harm are just as anxious to get that new science if not more so and are willing to fund science for the purpose of subjugating humanity.

The faithful are continually calling those challenging their fanciful thinking myopic or engaging in scientism (meant disparagingly), implying that they are small thinkers missing out on something of value, but reliably fail to produce anything of value for their efforts as evidence. I routinely make this comment to all of them to demonstrate the vacuity of the claim.

Regarding humanism, if mankind saves itself from itself, it will be because of the ascension of humanist values and the subjugation of the "theologies of despair and ideologies of violence" that humanism directly opposes, and why those ideologies oppose humanism. Isn't your religion where you learned to think like that?

To err is human, therefore humanism can't be free from error. It's got nothing to do with whether or not someone believes that catastrophic AGW is a real.

So a deflection then to an irrelevant syllogism based in Shakespeare that addresses none of my comment? You have no rebuttal for any of that? OK. Concession accepted.

 

[Ebionite]

So a deflection then to an irrelevant syllogism

It's not irrelevant. The error of humanism can be traced back to Cicero's hubris. Cicero regarded those outside of Rome to be subhuman.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not irrelevant. The error of humanism can be traced back to Cicero's hubris. Cicero regarded those outside of Rome to be subhuman.

Also irrelevant. You don't seem to know what humanism is.

And there is no "error of humanism."

Humanism is the rejection of faith and received moral values and replacing it all with empiricism and rational ethics, which results in knowledge about reality and a tolerant attitude, as well as the recognition that humanity is capable of nobility if not waylaid by ideologies of despair like Abrahamic religion and authoritarianism, and a desire to empower everybody who complies with the social contract to pursue happiness as they understand it via social and economic opportunity. Any departure from that is the mistake.

The greatest mistake man has ever made was to leach the sacred from nature and invest in an angry, harshly judgmental, unseen ghost living outside of nature and commanding and threatening man. This is the opposite of spirituality, which is unrelated to spirits, and which resides in an authentic relationship with nature, one of connection and belonging.

And you're still evading that post as I expect you to do this one. That's fine. I don't need your answer if it's not an attempt to falsify any or all of the claims made. Deflection is your answer, that is, no rebuttal. The debate ends when one debater can't successfully rebut, and constitutes a concession when he fails to try.

 

[Ebionite]

Also irrelevant. You don't seem to know what humanism is.

Humanism is rooted in the error of atheism. It's relevant because theism is the paradigm that completes with that of secular government. Atheism is symbolised by Babylon, which was identified with the church of Rome. The U.N. adopted the laurel wreath of Rome as it's symbol, and the IPCC is of course part of the U.N.

The human rights of the U.N. exist in opposition to the natural rights of the common law of England, which are associated with deity. One of these is the natural right to life, which is not subject to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

1. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humanism is rooted in the error of atheism. It's relevant because theism is the paradigm that completes with that of secular government. Atheism is symbolised by Babylon, which was identified with the church of Rome. The U.N. adopted the laurel wreath of Rome as it's symbol, and the IPCC is of course part of the U.N.

The human rights of the U.N. exist in opposition to the natural rights of the common law of England, which are associated with deity. One of these is the natural right to life, which is not subject to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

1. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

What makes you think that atheism is in error? Were you one of the recent people that tired to claim that they had refuted it with laughably bad arguments? We had a spate of them so it is hard to keep tabs on all of them. Trust me, atheism has not been shown to be in error. If you believe that you are demonstrably wrong. Now the good news, for you that is, atheism has not been proven to be correct. It appears to be highly likely to be correct but that has not been demonstrated yet.

Yeah, as to human rights, we have no need for a deity for them. Just a sane and rational basis of moral philosophy is all that it takes. No gods need apply. In fact it can be shown that the morals of many gods can be shown to be inferior to atheistic morals. Tell us your god and his rules and we can probably explain to you why he is or is not moral.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Humanism is rooted in the error of atheism.

Humanism is founded on the belief that reason applied to evidence and utilitarian ethics (the greatest opportunities for the greatest number). There are theists that are humanist, their god belief being essentially the only difference between theistic and atheistic humanists. Atheism isn't an error. Agnostic atheism is the only possible coherent position for a critical thinker to take. And virtually every advancement in the human condition that has occurred since the Enlightenment comes from this philosophy.

Humanism removed the superstition from "sciences" like alchemy and creationism and gave us a rational method for evaluating reality that has made life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media).

Humanism also eliminated the divine right of kings to rule subjects and replaced it with the modern, liberal, democratic, secular state with autonomous citizens guaranteed personal freedoms including freedom from religion. This conversation wouldn't be possible without technology and the freedom to use it, neither of which come from religion.

Religion goes on contributing nothing while interfering with both of these humanistic efforts. Presently, in the States, it's waging war against women and their reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+/marital freedoms. It's trying to tell the FDA what drugs are unsafe based in nothing but ancient values intended to keep fertile uteruses filled and churning out more mouths to feed.

Critical thinking applied to the problem of what is true about the world gave us empiricism (science), which elevated the human condition. Critical thinking applied to the problem of how to structure societies gave us freedom and opportunity, which did the same. And critical thinking applied to the problem of unseen gods gives us agnostic atheism. The first two have been obvious successes, yet you call the third - agnostic atheism - an error despite having nothing to offer in support of that claim.

It's relevant because theism is the paradigm that completes with that of secular government.

And you think that that makes your posting responses to my comments relevant? I disagree. You've ignored virtually every claim and argument made to you just as you will most or all of this post.

Atheism is symbolised by Babylon, which was identified with the church of Rome.

That is not meaningful to me.

The U.N. adopted the laurel wreath of Rome as it's symbol, and the IPCC is of course part of the U.N.

More symbolology? And you see this as sinister, right?

The human rights of the U.N. exist in opposition to the natural rights of the common law of England, which are associated with deity. One of these is the natural right to life, which is not subject to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

For starters, nothing attributed to deities including (and especially) moral codes has any meaning to me, either. And I guess that you're implying that the UN is an enemy to the right to life?

Regarding natural rights and God-given rights, neither exist except as persuasive phrases. Rights come from those who agree that others should have them and are willing and able to defend them, not nature and certainly not gods or religions.

Speaking about the right to life, what are your thoughts on this comment? This guy seems to be complaining that humanists won't let him stone sinners anymore :

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do his duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

 

[Ebionite]

Humanism is founded on the belief that reason applied to evidence and utilitarian ethics (the greatest opportunities for the greatest number).

Utilatarian ethics is a predatory doctrine.

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
John 11:49-53

Atheism isn't an error.

It's an error because to deny the existence of a powerful being who wants to limit his exposure to belief requires knowledge that is indistinguishable from omniscience. That wasn't the original error of Babylon, though, their intent encompassed deicide and idolatry.

Agnostic atheism is the only possible coherent position for a critical thinker to take.

Agnostic atheism is a contradiction in terms. At least agnostics are humble enough to admit that they don't know.

And you think that that makes your posting responses to my comments relevant?

The chain of inference from errors relating to deity to the IPCC makes it relevant.

That is not meaningful to me.

Basic errors have significant consequences. Ignorance has adverse consequences just like errors of judgment do.

More symbolology?

Signs are there for a reason.

For starters, nothing attributed to deities including (and especially) moral codes has any meaning to me, either.

Well, looks like you're screwed, then.

And I guess that you're implying that the UN is an enemy to the right to life?

That's where the trail leads.

Regarding natural rights and God-given rights, neither exist except as persuasive phrases.

They exist in law. Law is about intangibles, and in nature intangibles like gravity are quite real.

what are your thoughts on this comment?

It's devoid of any ethical argument.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure."

"Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge."

There were no tide gages in 1850 that could measure sea levels to give us a millimeter per year measurement. Barometric pressure alone can mar the results over 300 millimeters. The worst part of the problem is the fact that tide gages are messed up by land subsistence --notorious in most harbor areas.

One notable exception is in Alaska where tide gages show that sea levels are falling. In fact in one day of 1964 we saw a sea level lowering of 67 feet. A lot of folks say it was the earthquake that had the shore rising. That's fair, but then why can't we say other so-called rising sea levels are really just land subsistence?

 

[Ebionite]

The worst part of the problem is the fact that tide gages are messed up by land subsistence --notorious in most harbor areas.

You mean subsidence, right? Here's Mörner's take on it:

Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.

One notable exception is in Alaska where tide gages show that sea levels are falling. In fact in one day of 1964 we saw a sea level lowering of 67 feet. A lot of folks say it was the earthquake that had the shore rising. That's fair, but then why can't we say other so-called rising sea levels are really just land subsistence?

I guess you could make a distinction based on proximity to geologic fault zones. That wouldn't account for subsidence due to the weight of manmade structures, though.

 

[F1fan]

Utilatarian ethics is a predatory doctrine.

Because they are helpful to all, and not just the select few, which means the select few have to accept equality, thus no advantage?

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
John 11:49-53

Irrelevant to anyone who doesn't assign these texts meaning. The question is why do people in the 21st century need to believe these texts? Why can't such folk think for themslves?

It's an error because to deny the existence of a powerful being who wants to limit his exposure to belief requires knowledge that is indistinguishable from omniscience. That wasn't the original error of Babylon, though, their intent encompassed deicide and idolatry.

No such beings are known to exist, so irrelevant.

Agnostic atheism is a contradiction in terms. At least agnostics are humble enough to admit that they don't know.

Arguably all people are agnostic where it comes to religious beliefs and claims, and that is the case due to a severe lack of evidence, and the ideas being inconsistent with reality. Atheist is the recognition that reigious ideas lack evidence, thus can't be judged true by a rational mind.

The chain of inference from errors relating to deity to the IPCC makes it relevant.

No deities are known to exist.

Basic errors have significant consequences. Ignorance has adverse consequences just like errors of judgment do.

We see the examples of religious believers.

Signs are there for a reason.

These old symbols are a tradition of belief, and some folks can create meaning by adopting these tradtions of belief. Not all need to create meaning this way.

Well, looks like you're screwed, then.

No, humanists can think for themselves. We are accountable to ourselves so take morality very seriously.

Have you ever wondered how Baptists ended up being slave owners and becoming the Confederacy? Or how Catholics and Lutherans could exterminate the Jews via the political policies of the Nazi party? Following dogmas does not guarantee morality.

That's where the trail leads.

Sounds very conspiracy theory.

They exist in law. Law is about intangibles, and in nature intangibles like gravity are quite real.

Only because they have utility for humans. Whether that is the "chosen few" or all people depends on one's moral view. The moral will see all as equal.

It's devoid of any ethical argument.

I notice you don't explain where it is deficient.

 

[Ebionite]

Because they are helpful to all, and not just the select few, which means the select few have to accept equality, thus no advantage?

They're not helpful to those that they victimise.

No such beings are known to exist, so irrelevant.

Like I said, errors of ignorance still have consequences.

Not all need to create meaning this way.

It's not about need, it's about justice.

No, humanists can think for themselves. We are accountable to ourselves so take morality very seriously.

What a joke! Humanist morality is conditional on U.N. policy.

Sounds very conspiracy theory.

That's nothing but a dog whistle. At it's root it's religious prejudice, not conspiracy.

Only because they have utility for humans.

Humans are self-important fools.

The moral will see all as equal.

The unholy doctrine of depravity.

I notice you don't explain where it is deficient.

Not my job.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Utilatarian ethics is a predatory doctrine.

You don't understand utilitarianism. There is nothing predatory about it.

It's an error because to deny the existence of a powerful being who wants to limit his exposure to belief requires knowledge that is indistinguishable from omniscience.

And you don't know what atheism is, either. I'm an atheist, and I don't make that claim. Like the majority of atheists, I'm agnostic about gods. I don't believe in them, but I don't claim that none exist.

Agnostic atheism is a contradiction in terms. At least agnostics are humble enough to admit that they don't know.

You're still in your own world.

looks like you're screwed, then.

I wrote, "nothing attributed to deities including (and especially) moral codes has any meaning to me, either." Screwed, huh? I have been the author of my own moral code, and it has served me well.

They exist in law.

I wrote, "Regarding natural rights and God-given rights, neither exist except as persuasive phrases." Those are manmade rights. They don't come from gods or nature. They exist because men enumerated them, enacted them into law, and defend them.

It's devoid of any ethical argument.

Agreed. North is a Dominionist. He argued for stoning people. His ethics come from the Old Testament.

Humanist morality is conditional on U.N. policy.

You also don't know where humanists get their moral compass from. It's not the UN.

Humans are self-important fools.

Many are, including many who speak for gods and many of those who defer to them.

 

[Ebionite]

You don't understand utilitarianism. There is nothing predatory about it.

It's a predatory because in the context of humanism the measurement of greater good doesn't consider the natural rights of the minority. For example if killing a minority group and taking their land is consistent with UN policy, then there's no negative value attached to that, and the equation is measured only in terms of the value of the land that is acquired by the survivors.

You're still in your own world.

I'm not here to convince you that it's any better than yours.

I have been the author of my own moral code, and it has served me well.

Well, you're not going to admit otherwise, are you, given your position in this argument?

Those are manmade rights.

No, they're from Elohim. It's documented in the dooms/judgments of King Alfred the Great, which begins with a Saxon version of the ten commandments.

His ethics come from the Old Testament.

Bollocks. The death penalty has a sound ethical basis (lex talionis), and that wasn't his argument. The unjustified hatred against YHWH forms part of the proof of the justice of YHWH.

You also don't know where humanists get their moral compass from. It's not the UN.

That's not how it works at scale, when human rights are tested in a court of law.

Many are, including many who speak for gods and many of those who defer to them.

No argument there. What matters is the rational basis of wisdom, and it's not found in the hubris of Cicero's humanism.

 

[wellwisher]

Are you not accusing the scientific community of lying? Sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory to me. In lieu of critical thinking, you've simply gobbled up political propaganda that was spoon-fed to you.

Science in its purest form will leave no stone unturned, especially since science is based on specialists. Science will approach research by looking at things, from many angles. Since science does not have it own money, but is beholden to Government, Business and private donations to do science, if the people with money decided not to turn over all the stones, but only research selected stones, the targeted science will still be good. However, we not longer have an integrated picture in terms of the data. We have more of a specialty approach than a generalist approach needed for integrated conclusions.

For example, if you were a researcher working for a tobacco company, you will never be assigned a project that will make tobacco look bad, since this would chop off the nose to spite the face. If such a project was allowed, so the lawyers can get ahead of potential law suits, it would never get published in the general literature. It would remain Company Confidential.

What would be published, will be the tobacco related science that can make tobacco look good, as a way to promote the industry. It will still be good science, in terms of following science procedures, but the specialty approach is not designed for the causal readers to draw the best global conclusions, based on all possible data. It is designed to funnel thinking. This is where politics comes in; spin.

It appears not enough people have worked in industry to see how funded science tends to favor the donors such as the business you work for. Currently if you are with the man made climate change program, it is an open lane to resources, publication and the talk circuit. If you are not with the program, that lane is not as open. Scientists have learned to play ball, since one can still do good science, no matter which rock you chose or are required to look under, so why not make it easier on yourself and enjoy the gravy train?

The problem is some data, like the giant under sea volcano, that appears to be impacting El Niño, which in turn is well known to impact climate since 1600's, is showing how fast nature can alter climate. Instead of 100 years, it only took weeks. But there is no money to look into this deeper therefore the impact is not settled science.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You mean subsidence, right? Here's Mörner's take on it:

Correct me if I'm mistaken but what I got was that when he considered the possibility of rising land masses he deemed that it is "just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that." Then you contradicted him by considering the situation in Alaska--

I guess you could make a distinction based on proximity to geologic fault zones. That wouldn't account for subsidence due to the weight of manmade structures, though.

Are we saying that tide gage measurements taken where there is a "proximity to geologic fault zone"?

My take is that there very well may be rising sea levels, but so far there's a lot of arm waving nonsense and few hard numbers. For me it cannot yet be taken seriously.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a predatory because in the context of humanism the measurement of greater good doesn't consider the natural rights of the minority.

That's incorrect. Utilitarianism is simply the belief that the greatest good is that which generates the greatest opportunity for the greatest number. Humanism specifies that that means promoting human development and creating free, tolerant societies.

For example if killing a minority group and taking their land is consistent with UN policy, then there's no negative value attached to that, and the equation is measured only in terms of the value of the land that is acquired by the survivors.

You seem to fixated on the UN. What you describe probably doesn't happen, and if it does, it's a breach of humanist values.

Well, you're not going to admit otherwise, are you, given your position in this argument?

I wrote, "I have been the author of my own moral code, and it has served me well." You have a pretty low opinion of humanity, but that's basic Christian doctrine, which depicts man as sin-infected, hopeless, and useless without God. That's exactly the opposite of the humanist assessment of man, who is understood as possessing the potential to be noble.

What should a moral code do for one? Help one find and keep love and respect, leave one living in peace relatively conflict-free, and leave a person feeling little in the way of remorse, guilt, and shame. I can assure you from experience that the Golden Rule works when applied. I'm a humanist and have been for decades. I have no need or desire to lie to you or anybody else.

No, they're from Elohim. It's documented in the dooms/judgments of King Alfred the Great, which begins with a Saxon version of the ten commandments

Did you want to try to rebut my argument, or are you satisfied with the above, which is nothing but what you believe instead by faith? Elohim has the same ontological status as ghosts and demons - creatures that many people claim exist, but nobody can find.

Bollocks. The death penalty has a sound ethical basis (lex talionis), and that wasn't his argument.

I wrote, that, "[North's] ethics come from the Old Testament." His argument was in favor of stoning as a means of executing the people he deems worthy of execution, which is out of his Old Testament.

 

[F1fan]

They're not helpful to those that they victimise.

And who does utilitarian ethics victimize? Is it a secret? Are they secret victims?

Like I said, errors of ignorance still have consequences.

I can see that in your answers. You have yet to show any gods exist outside of human imagination. Nor has any other believer.

It's not about need, it's about justice.

How are signs and symbols about justice? You make claims but doesn't explain how they are true.

What a joke! Humanist morality is conditional on U.N. policy.

This is a claim, what is the evidence and explanation?

That's nothing but a dog whistle. At it's root it's religious prejudice, not conspiracy.

How is the UN an enemy to the right to life? You think it is, but offer no evidence or expanation. It's almost as if you have adopted some conspiracy theory and don't know why you believe any of this.

Humans are self-important fools.

And you work to demonstrate this is true? How do you explain humans who help others out of decency? How do you explain people who are rational and come to sound conclusions due to critical thinking?

The unholy doctrine of depravity.

So you oppose equality, and that negative attitude isn't depraved? Explain.

Not my job.

So it isn't your job to explain your claims? Could it be that you don't understand why you believe what you do?

 

[F1fan]

It's a predatory because in the context of humanism the measurement of greater good doesn't consider the natural rights of the minority.

False, humanism values all humans, and advocates for the welfare and health of all humans regardless of status.

For example if killing a minority group and taking their land is consistent with UN policy, then there's no negative value attached to that, and the equation is measured only in terms of the value of the land that is acquired by the survivors.

What UN policy are you referring to? And feel free to offer evidence for your claims.

I'm not here to convince you that it's any better than yours.

You are succeeding in not convincing anyone.

Well, you're not going to admit otherwise, are you, given your position in this argument?

You assume he has something to admit. Is it hard for you to acknowledge that all humans have their own agency and decide for themselves waht is moral, including people who agree to follow the doctrines of their religious leaders, even if that means hijacking planes and flying them into builidngs? Or rejecting climate science and it's prediction of dangerous weather patterns, but Christians don't care because they believe the Second Coming is coming? These religious extremists, and even those less extreme but equally irrational, are the ones who can't admit they don't behave in moral ways. Atheists and Humanists have to think for themselves, and this consideration means they have to be accountable to themselves. That's called character.

No, they're from Elohim. It's documented in the dooms/judgments of King Alfred the Great, which begins with a Saxon version of the ten commandments.

Oddly humans created the god you appeal to. No gods are known to exist independently of human imagination.

Bollocks. The death penalty has a sound ethical basis (lex talionis), and that wasn't his argument. The unjustified hatred against YHWH forms part of the proof of the justice of YHWH.

All of this thinking is the tradition of belief that has been shown to be unreliable into the 18th century. This is why first world nations have adopted secular forms of law and politics. The religious can keep their sets of rules, but have no legal authority where it comes to human rights.

That's not how it works at scale, when human rights are tested in a court of law.

Right, secular courts of law. Religion has shown itself to be arbitrary and unreliable. I argue that this is due to there being no God to help keep the religious in line. Secularism avoid the problem of quibling humans who believe it is they who speak for the absent God.

No argument there. What matters is the rational basis of wisdom, and it's not found in the hubris of Cicero's humanism.

Yet you haven't expalined that you understand humanism, or that it is what you think it is.