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?

Tags: atheism, environment, environmentalism, nature, religion

Views: 1438

Replies to This Discussion

So you proof is a misquote, and a book written by a historian? Reaching much?

(Nobody ever wants to talk CO2 and temperature profiles.  It's always polling data.)

But since it's polling data:  this ought to help explain those graphs:


Burning heretics at the stake.  Quite the scientific method.


What is the carbon offset for burning someone at the stake?

Three Oak trees.

Steve - 

The Carbon Footprint of the person you are burning at the stake minus the emissions created by the fire

Finding significance in the graphs above, given the new climate, would be like concluding that the Catholic heterodoxy of "modernism" (whatever it was) was stupid, since all or almost all Catholic priests opposed it.  After the Church made a rule requiring all priests to swear they opposed it.

To me this article sums up and helps me explain why, when the topic of AGW comes up, we can't get discussions of the science going, but instead go to polling data like that shown above. 


No wonder infrared absorption profiles make a side topic we can't get a discussion on, and consensus is front-and-center:  people are talking about what interests them.  Infrared and carbon don't; group consensus does.



Crock-o-bullshit. For instance, they claim deforestation as a factor in global climate warming. Problem with that: There is no deforestation. Because we no longer let wildfires just run themselves out across the continent there is more standing acreage of trees today (in the U.S. and Canada) than there were 200 years ago. 

 For instance: There is no where on earth that we now know for a demonstrable fact that the climate has not ALWAYS been in a constant state of change. 

 For instance: Yesterday, some place (I believe in texas?) hit a record high that had not been seen in 107 years. That means the last time it hit the same temp on the same day in the same place, it was 1907. One year before the first model T rolled out of the factory, at a time when the number of cars in the entire world was a couple thousand at most. 

 For Instance: The idea that there is a scientific consensus is a myth. Re: The Oregon Petition.

 Buying into man made world climate change is the act of buying into a comically bad scientific idea that is a self fulfilling prophesy perpetuated by those who will benefit from it the most.

Careful Denny... you're on the verge of confusing the issue with facts.

One year before the first model T rolled out of the factory, at a time when the number of cars in the entire world was a couple thousand at most. 

But well after we had been burning so much coal for a century that our buildings were coated black. But regardless - average temperature rise is not the same as record highs.

As for the Oregon petition, it's pretty well debunked, but even if all the signers in it had backgrounds in climatology or atmospheric science (instead of .5%), it's still a small number. Consensus doesn't mean 100%. It means the vast majority. Now - I agree, consensus doesn't mean it's right - of course, but it does mean currently, the overwhelming evidence we have does point to that conclusion. Provide new evidence to suggest otherwise (peer reviewed, if you please) and we can talk. 

Ok, show me those facts.  Show me the forest cover world-wide for the past 50 years.


Latest Activity

Jay posted a discussion

An orange in a bag of apples

My name is Jay and I'm a 20 year old male living in Queensland, Australia. I am existentialist in my beliefs and pragmatic in my views. I study and enjoy natural science and have a secondary hobby interest in psychology and the potential origin of conscience for which I have currently made a 3 variable emotional prediction scale test.  Online I can take the time to express and articulate my views coherently, in real life this week, I was diagnosed with bi-polar 2 disorder by my psychiatrist and…See More
8 minutes ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion How goes the war in the group The Great Debate
"That and the SU-24 used Walmart grade GPS for navigation."
27 minutes ago
Native Son replied to Sir's discussion How goes the war in the group The Great Debate
"More likely the Russians are still using the same operations manual from back when they shot down that Korean airliner.  That's the one that says you do exactly what the guy on the ground back at the air base says to do.   Russian…"
1 hour ago
certified male replied to Tim Merrill's discussion Hello, from Ohio
"Hi Tim.  Work in Elyria, live in Amherst."
1 hour ago
certified male replied to Robert Edwin House's discussion Hello everyone
"This site is pretty interesting.  Guys being guys."
1 hour ago
Sam K replied to Sam K's discussion Spectre film
"I agree that it was definitely an attempt to get Bond back to his roots; Skyfall was setting up for this too by bringing back Moneypenny and Q, and the gadget car.Personally I prefer the grittier style of Casino Royale to the campier Bond movies,…"
2 hours ago
Regular Joe replied to Regular Joe's discussion World's Best Whisky Officially Declared
"Japanese whisky has been considered among the best in the world for some time now.  "For some time it was believed by many that whisky made in the Scottish style, but not produced in Scotland, could not possibly measure up to the…"
3 hours ago
Sam K replied to Johnny Luka's discussion Not sure how to handle situation
"It's important to maintain the mindset that there are "lots of fish", and no matter how awesome this particular woman seems at a glance, you don't really know her yet at all and the rest is your imagination of how you'd…"
3 hours ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service