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: 1335

Replies to This Discussion

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.
When you talk numbers in china it always amazes me. Take Christians for example, they are an extreme minority there yet their are more Christians in china than in either Germany or Italy, just due to sheer population size.

I lived near the Chinese community in Ottawa once and heard through friends that every now and then you could rent a cheap apartment there that the locals won't touch due to poor fengshui.

What is the folk religion called in china? Or is that just an umbrella term for a vast collection of various traditions in china?
The world is still a big place. I'm glad to hear it.

I believe religion/faith and environmental consciousness are unrelated.

I think taking environmental crisis seriously and noting its rapid decline is smart and logical, and to put religious biases or use ignorance as an excuse is just unmanly. There's irrefutable evidence of our oceans decline; rising acidity levels and the landmass of trash accumulating in the Pacific, not to mention the changes of fish population and levels of radiation in their meat.  

Personally, religion and faith for me is like a private relationship. It's helpful and lends support, but as soon as it starts affecting other decisions and clouding logic or judgement, it's overstepping my boundaries.

I can comment some on the computer model issue.  I am not an expert on simulation, but I am on CS generally.

When I was planning to be an astronomer (before I found how cool CS is), I was fascinated by the TTAPS study (letters are for its authors; S is Sagan).  These scientists noticed that when there's a dust storm on Mars, the surface temperature plummets as sunlight is blocked.  They made a computer simulation to see what would happen on Earth if a nuclear war kicked up dust and smoke.  They found significant temperature drop.  Thence the term "nuclear winter."

Naturally they wanted to make the model more accurate.  It was vastly oversimplified:  no layering of the atmosphere, no latitudes, no oceans, no weather.

As they added details, the results changed.  Unlike Mars, Earth has a weather layer distinct from the stratosphere.  The nuclear war wouldn't get dust and smoke into the stratosphere (where it would take a long time to settle); it would stay in the weather layer, where it would be washed out by precipitation.  The oceans would do a lot to moderate the climate.  Nuclear winter became nuclear autumn and then nuclear cold snap.

Climate models have a similar problem.  CO2 does a lot to block infrared radiation... unless there's water vapor in the atmosphere, which already blocks that radiation, and the equatorial regions are saturated with it.  It's tough to say what increased CO2 would do to cloud cover.  If it increases it, Earth is more reflective (cooler) and better insulated (warmer).  If it decreases it, go with the reverse.

Climate models (so I read -- this is not direct knowledge) have so far been unable to even predict the past.  They require fudge factors to work for one period, but then can't predict another time period. 

However you want to understand global temperatures... best not trust the models yet.  When they can predict the past, then we can have some confidence they'll predict the future.  That's not within our capabilities yet.

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?

First off... are you new to TGD? We rabbit trail. Alot.

Second. Have you ever met anyone, atheist or not, who actually admits that they willingly destroy the environment?

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.

RSS

Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Regular Joe's discussion THE WORLD'S MANLIEST TEA
"European? I'm pretty sure there are literally millions more non-Euros drinking tea than Euros but whatever. ;)  I got it at a sushi place in my building but I suspect that anywhere that has a decent selection of tea will have…"
5 minutes ago
Daniel Offenbacher added a discussion to the group Addicted to pomade
Thumbnail

Best water based pomade for under $8?

I use Murray's, but it hasn't been holding well or giving me much height lately, due to the humidity. I live in Maryland and it is very humid, all year round. It doesn't work well because of that. I love Murray's because it lasts a while and it works well with my wallet. I have a minimum wage job that makes it hard for me to buy expensive products. So, what is the best water based pomade for under $8? I'm looking for one with high hold and low to medium shine.See More
7 minutes ago
Lucius Artorius Castus replied to David Johns's discussion Teen boys today
"But it would still be pointless, no?"
9 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Regular Joe's discussion THE WORLD'S MANLIEST TEA
"Where do you get it?  And, how is it iced?  I don't drink hot tea.  Too European.JB"
9 minutes ago
Daniel Offenbacher joined Maximilian Hermann Reese's group
Thumbnail

Addicted to pomade

A group dealing with hair-pomade. Whether you've got a pomp, waves, or  a classic barbershop-style; You love pomade?- You're welcome.Come and join the discussion on pomade and all things related to pomade! See More
13 minutes ago
Daniel Offenbacher replied to Rob --'s discussion 22 year old wanting a style change?
"I can only answer for hairstyle. Go with an undercut (shaved on the sides and back, long on the top) and part it to the side with some product. I just got one myself and I love it. It's easy to manage and it looks good for all occasions. You…"
14 minutes ago
Regular Joe posted a discussion

THE WORLD'S MANLIEST TEA

I have tasted the world's manliest tea!It tastes like camp fire and leather! It's like the scotch of teas! Gents, meet lapsang souchong! Fun facts:It was invented by soldiersThe leaves are smoke-dried over pine wood fireTea dealers describe it as tasting like cigars and single malt whiskyWinston Churchill was a lapsang souchong drinkerMy wood-chopping abilities have increased by 267% after drinking this tea(4/5 of those statements are actually true.)So if you ever want to have scotch-like…See More
15 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Andrew's discussion Starting a Landscaping LLC
"You might not need an LLC.  LLCs are for limitation of liability in case you get sued.  Landscapers don't get sued much.  Getting an LLC isn't a terrible idea, just in case ... but I don't know that its…"
15 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service