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 Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Exactly. It's an officer doing his job. "Terry stops" ARE "stop and frisk". You've bought a lie. Stop believing it."
18 minutes ago
sumanta nandi updated their profile
20 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Shane you're talking about something different here.  This is a situation where an officer who's patrolled an area for a long time observes suspicious activity (24 times).  This does not appear to be a "stop and frisk"…"
26 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I'd be good with an Anderson Cooper "town hall" style debate. We won't get it though because he has a co-moderator next debate."
34 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Did they use the word "racial"? Because the Supreme Court in an 8-2 decision sure as fuck doesn't think it's racial profiling. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 It's called "behavioral…"
42 minutes ago
Native Son replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I did not do a second by second parsing of the debate. What I saw, was both candidates were relying on the debate tactics the got them the primary victories and party nominations. Clinton doing her "cool, collected professional" bit, and…"
46 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Every LEO I've ever heard talk about it, says it's is profiling.  I don't know where you are getting your information, but feel free to share it with us..."
53 minutes ago
Native Son replied to GK's discussion Calling in sick to attend a job interview?
"One discreet way I've seen, and used, is this: You get the interview, etc., scheduled. You inform your employer you have an appointment and need to take such-and such a date off work. I wouldn't specify you're taking a sick day…"
1 hour ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service