Mini - breathe man ...... calm down....
Where , anywhere, dig I take a dig at Christinaity ?? The Christian structure was raised in Chrichtons own article in his comparison of environmetalism to A religion.
NOT ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS THINK THAT WAY! when he's talking about fundamentalists and then pretending that all Christians do is, well, odd.
The fact that people are feeling insulted because they are being compared to Christians is... well... odd. It begins to explain exactly what the author is getting at, but you just don't get it.
You're right - I have absolutely no idea what you are on about there - I'm sorry it makes no sense to me
On what do you base your value system? Science? I mean... science defines your entire belief structure? Really?
Do you think there's anyone out there that actually believes that?
Everyone has a set of beliefs they operate under. Science does not tell you not to murder someone, not to steal, not to rape. That is a fundamental belief in something... good maybe? I wonder what scientist cooked that up.
My value system ? I wouldn't say I have a "system". I make don't consciously compare decisions to a specific set of rules - things are judged on an individual basis as they arrive. No science does not tell you not to murder someone but any human being knows whether killing another is right or wrong at any particular time - and whether it is or not can change according to the situation. Why does that decision making have to be aligned with a belief in "something" - a value set ?
You're reading WAY more into this debate than is there.
Going back to the original debate - my points were:-
1. The principle that real science is being lost or abused by pressure groups is valid and correct.
2. The comparison he made between environmental pressure groups and religious movements was hyped at best.
3. By making the comparison of the behaviour of environmentalists to fundamentalist religious nuts he alienates any useful data ther may be in that community.
It is counter productive. If you tear down the arguement and invalidate the evidence with proof the people who advanced it will fall. You tear down the people and the arguement and evidence remains.
