Without getting into whether there are or aren't gods, I'd like to do some research on you guys.
Atheists in my experience, without an exception to date, are an environmentally-minded crowd. They tend to vehemently oppose anything that looks like industrial wrecking of nature, believing as they do that this Earth is the only one we've got and that no higher power will stop us from mortally wounding it.
Many atheists will also bring this up against religion: the whole dominion of the earth, the expectation of the end times and the new earth, the call to be hard-working and industrious, the call to have children (overpopulation), and the idea that god wouldn't allow us to affect the climate, etc. etc. To many it seems religion has a "whatever, it's all going to be destroyed anyway" attitude.
But I know religious people aplenty, however, who think the Creator is to be seen in nature and NOT in man-made things, and therefore removing the influence of nature from people could be seen as pulling them away from the influence of god. There are certainly many people of faith who felt called to protect the environment or work in environmental conservation.
How do your beliefs affect your attitude about the environment?
For those of any faith, how does your faith affect your regard for the environment, or does it at all? For those who in the "this is the only life I've got" crowd, how do you feel about it? If you call yourself an environmentalist, what is the reason?
While talking about climate change is a worthwhile conversation in and of itself, could we please steer back towards the main question?
I still want to know how your beliefs, actively or passively, affect your outlook on the environment. How do they affect your actions toward the environment? If they don't, why not? I appreciate those who have shared what they do/don't do to help the environment.
A big thank you to Tesh for trying to get back on topic. I like what you said about faith being like a personal relationship that lends you support, but it doesn't dictate all your decisions.
Please sound off if you are a non-green-minded atheist please so you can be the first exception to my experience of all atheists being very green-minded. Any very green religious people want to get into the doctrine of environmental stewardship and how they practice it?
1. Actually, yes I am. But I know you get off topic. That's fine. I just think saying anything about climate change is going to end in chasing our tails around that. The ones who don't value evidence will continue to be given evidence and continue to not value it.
2. No, I haven't. But it's easy to see them give faux lip service to the environment issue and see through to the fact that they really don't care. They may not say it, but they as much as tell us by how they speak about it.
Chinese are extremely religious, and Christianity is all over Russia. The leaders of those countries might not be particularly religious in a political sense. Fair enough. I'd accept that atheists in power aren't caring about the environment. But I'd have to say the same about all the American presidents who claim to be religious, as well as all the other world leaders who are religious.
I think though if you look at several Nordic countries, you'd see atheist leaders who make the environment a huge priority.
What I glean from you point is that personal beliefs of politicians aren't as powerful as other political influences.
But what about individual people upon whom rests fewer pressures?
These are great points. Worth adding to this discussion. This reminds me of Bron Taylor, a professor whom a good friend of mine had the fortune of studying under.
He talks about "dark green religion" as being apparent in movies like Avatar.
What Taylor says about surfers is very true. Except for the drug-head beach bum surfers, I'd say most surfers I know form a kind of cult of submission to nature, as I see happening in my own life. Surfing forms spiritual bonds between people and coaxes you to love civilization less and the chaotic nature of the natural world more, especially the sea.
That is an interesting article that makes some valid points that I agree with (even though it is from the Wall Street Journal). I do consider myself to be an environmentalist but I also recognize that some environmentalist "dogma", for lack of a better term, makes no sense. I would be crucified by some of my friends for saying this, but we really should get behind nuclear power. At least until alternative energy sources are capable of replacing it. Beats the hell out of coal.
I really don't know where I stand on nuclear power. They're talking about building a fourth nuclear plant here in Taiwan. If they don't, there will be a 10% power deficit and we'll have to start buying electricity from China. So it becomes not just an environmental worry, but a political one. On the other hand, the first 3 were build by foreign companies. This would be the first that Taiwan is building itself, and I won't even take my car to a Taiwanese mechanic because of their propensity to cut corners and do everything as cheaply as possible.
The other side of that is that Taiwan's population is shrinking, and I can't help but think with fewer people and a little attention to efficiency we could find a 10% power savings somehow. But solar and wind only accounts for like 2-3% of all power generated here, so I understand that's not a viable option. Every electronic device here has a tag that rates its power consumption, so if you buy a dehumidifier, refrigerator, or light, you can buy one that's super efficient with electricity. idk, it's a hard topic for me.
Nuclear is great, but once you build a nuclear plant, it's kind of there forever. In Tennessee the nuclear plant was way out in BFE where no one even saw it. In Taiwan, the nuclear plant might ruin one of my favorite beaches. I have absolutely no say or vote, so I'm curious to see what will happen.
At the same time, if they build a nuclear plant along the same plans as the ones as used in the US, Germany and other Western nations, they produce some of the safest/cleanest energy there is.
I know the anti-nuclear crowd love to point out certain disasters, especially the most recent Japanese ones. But I'd say, rather than look at the Japanese situation as such a disaster, understand just what it took to create that disaster: one of the larger earthquakes on record, plus aftershocks and whatnot. THEN they got hit with massive waves from tsunami effects.
There has also been recent talks about Germany shutting more of their own reactors down. The environmental crowd hail this as a win for them, but the real reason they're getting shut down?? Security issues.
Yeah, I think the worry over a disastrous meltdown is overblown. I don't really worry about that if it is stringently constructed and operated.