The religion of environmentalism

[lukster]

My apologies.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sparks
Lukster you've read me wrong again.

Nope on both counts.

But Toad this guy is using the religious fanaticism card to fight the environmentalist poor data. That is being as bad as the people he is criticising.  Argue the data, argue the conclusions, lobby against legislation based on incomplete eveidence yes, but don't try to discredit those you are tring to oppose by using cheap scare tactics.  In my opinion it lowers the credibilty of the postion.

It's a red herring  and does nothing to help clarify what we need to know - the real truth on our world climate (which by the way Lukster I don't think either side knows - the science isn't good enough yet)

Making this huge comparison between so-called environmantalists beliefs and a religious structure does nothing to advance things - cheap scare tactics.

I have to disagree with this Sparks. Calling someone a fanatic because they believe something without basis in fact is not a scare tactic. You might call it an attempt to shame someone but scare tactics are more like telling everyone their environment will suffer cataclysmic events if they don't stop contributing to the "global warming problem".

[lazs2]

The replies are as interesting as the article.

To be honest... I did not really look at it as a way to dig at athiests or agnostics so much as the fanatical environmentalists.

I do see his point tho in that the most secular socialist countries have the highest incidence of fantatical environmentalists.   I have no idea how it shakes out but would not be surprised if most of these whackjobs were self proclaimed athiests tho. His theory is as good as any as to why.

I think that his point was that the radical environmentalists don't really care about science that they simply want to believe in the cause.  

I think that he tied it all together quite well.... many here may see themselves in the article as being duped into the whole mother earth and noble savage thing.  I have seen it on this board plenty of times... it is laughable.

All he is saying is that the most radical environmentalists have no proof whatsoever that they are in the least correct... and... that they really don't care... it is not science to them but a religion.   Mother earth... the oneness with nature.... a nature spirtuality so to speak...  

That primitive cultures were somehow better for both man and the planet and "at one with nature".

And thud... I think I got my point across quite well in the other thread but that this is an entirely different point.   Did you read the article?

lazs

[xrtoronto]

tell me...is being obsessive-compulsive a religion too?

[storch]

his argument is brilliant and it takes a swipe at all extremism and at different levels.  he nailed just about everyone equally.  I can picture him clacking away completely seriously yet tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[Sandman]

Crichton should stick to fiction. It's more entertaining.

[beet1e]

Twaddle.



By the way, Sparks - did you see that David Attenborough programme about global warming last night on BBC1 @ 9pm? I was out but recorded it and will watch it today. I might well even post about it...

... but not in this thread though.

[kamilyun]

I'd rather have a fanatical environmentalist in my neighborhood than a fanatical muslim...

[lazs2]

red bottom said... "Too bad about that lead paint in your crib, lazs"

interesting that he uses the same old joke all the time but... revealing... we all had lead based paint all around us and... we learned more than the students of today...  kids graduating in the 50's and 60's (even with lead based paint) were smarter than todays kids... heck... we even knew the capitals of every state and where they were.

beetle pontificates  "twaddle"  this is also interesting given his fervent belief that all of us must change our lives radicaly based on one book he read that is filled with unfounded theory..

Some of the others see it as an attack on their athiesm....  sandie doesn't like it simply because... well... it just doesn't have the right feel to it.

I do notice that it had an impact tho.

lazs

[Thud]

Originally posted by lazs2
And thud... I think I got my point across quite well in the other thread but that this is an entirely different point.   Did you read the article?
lazs

I doubt you believe you did, otherwise you would not have resorted to posting the same argument several dozens of times over instead of adapting it to the comments it received. Would have made it a more varied thread as well, instead of the thirteen and some pages of monotonous yes-no, but I digress...

On the article: I read it and it struck me as the equivalent of kicking in an already opened door or beating the ubiquitous dead horse.
If you take an extremist point of view, regardless of the subject or persons who have it, the dogma's become religion, faith, absolute truth etc. All without any nuance, reflection or reference.
He could have drawn the same obvious conclusions on any other group with extremist beliefs, whether it being hippies, isolationists, xenofobists, veganists, sports fans, reversionists or any other group long past moderacy.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Thud
I doubt you believe you did, otherwise you would not have resorted to posting the same argument several dozens of times over instead of adapting it to the comments it received. Would have made it a more varied thread as well, instead of the thirteen and some pages of monotonous yes-no, but I digress...

On the article: I read it and it struck me as the equivalent of kicking in an already opened door or beating the ubiquitous dead horse.
If you take an extremist point of view, regardless of the subject or persons who have it, the dogma's become religion, faith, absolute truth etc. All without any nuance, reflection or reference.
He could have drawn the same obvious conclusions on any other group with extremist beliefs, whether it being hippies, isolationists, xenofobists, veganists, sports fans, reversionists or any other group long past moderacy.

Would you agree that it is an "extremist" belief that man is altering the environment to the degree of inducing global warming which will have calamitous results? Or, are you one of those who don't see this view as extremist probably because you happen to be a believer?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lazs2

Some of the others see it as an attack on their athiesm....  sandie doesn't like it simply because... well... it just doesn't have the right feel to it.
 

It's boring. I fell asleep. Left a dent in my forehead and a pool of drool on the keyboard. My type of environmentalism extends this far:

I recycle aluminum.
I don't throw garbage out of my car.
I stick to the trails in the wilderness.
I bury my **** when I camp.
I pack out what I packed in.

Other than that... I drive a mid-sized SUV that burns way to much gas for its weight and when they ask for paper or plastic at the grocery store, I always say plastic. It's easier to fit in the garbage can.

[Hangtime]

LOL!

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's boring. I fell asleep. Left a dent in my forehead and a pool of drool on the keyboard. My type of environmentalism extends this far:

I recycle aluminum.
I don't throw garbage out of my car.
I stick to the trails in the wilderness.
I bury my **** when I camp.
I pack out what I packed in.

Other than that... I drive a mid-sized SUV that burns way to much gas for its weight and when they ask for paper or plastic at the grocery store, I always say plastic. It's easier to fit in the garbage can.

Repent sinner!

[Mini D]

Originally posted by kamilyun
I'd rather have a fanatical environmentalist in my neighborhood than a fanatical muslim...

Odd you should say that. In Oregon, we've had more deaths, injuries and property damage occur because of fanatacal environmentalists than terrorists.

A quick question: Which would be more likely to set your SUV on fire?