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?

Views: 1439

Replies to This Discussion

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

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. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10853279/Sinister-grou...

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. 

Coal burning caused global cooling. Reforestation of North America has contributed to global warming. I still give no fucks.
I think the people's republic of china and the ussr disproved the whole atheists = environmentalists argument

Touché.

And India disproves that believers = environmentally friendly. ;)

India also disproved the whole believers = prolifer. The world is a complex place. The main argument of brad's shouldn't be does atheist = environmentalist but do the two agendas correlate in American politics. My guess is yes but probably because the two camps are under the same political umbrella. Just like how minorities like the irish Catholics found common ground with white racists in the south under the democrats during fdr's time.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Milo Morris's discussion Gay Republicans in the group Out to Build Bridges
"While factually true, it fails to contribute to the conversation in any way."
32 minutes ago
Carl Monster replied to Mongoose's discussion Am I Normal Male Brain?
"What is normal? I LOVE multitasking. The more I can do at once, the better. Work, eat, phone, drive, shave, poop. I've tried mixing all of them simultaneously."
1 hour ago
David R. added a discussion to the group Christian Men
Thumbnail

Oops!

I saw a young man today wearing a tee shirt that was a bit confusing -- until I figured it out.  His tee shirt had this on the front:MESSIAHWRESTLINGI finally figured it out: He goes to Messiah College and is on their wrestling team.  (It sounded like it was Messiah-wrestling, which reminded me of Satan!)  ;)See More
1 hour ago
Dominic replied to Milo Morris's discussion Gay Republicans in the group Out to Build Bridges
"There absolutely is diversity in every community about its voting habits and political thought. LGBT is no different despite the stereotype. Overall it's clear LGBT voters, more than the general population, prefer left-wing candidates. In…"
1 hour ago
Dominic joined Ian Wilson's group
Thumbnail

Out to Build Bridges

This is a LGBTQ+ group.  All men are encouraged to join, including straight men.However, unlike the already established AoM group "Gay and Bisexual Men", this group is wide open, no privacy settings enabled.  The overall purpose of the group is to encourage conversations between the straight and non-straight communities.  This already happens in AoM, but it is scattered.  And it can't happen in the private "Gay and Bisexual Men" group.Debate is expected, but this is for building up bridges not…See More
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"With any luck, Ryan will be out. I hear Nehlen is giving him a run, but it's difficult in a state where they open revolted for the right to have illegal aliens milk their cows."
2 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Good. He must spurn the establishment kiss of death, as he has been doing. Paul Ryan is probably suicidal."
4 hours ago
Native Son replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"More a channeling of the tone.  Briefly, between the president and the nominee, there was direct quotation from Theodore, a re-statement of Franklin's New Deal and "the only thing we have to fear is fear" speech, and a…"
5 hours ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service