Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on June 01, 2006, 07:59:14 AM
-
In light of the recent long threads on both religion and mans part in global warming... I ran into this article by Cricton. I think some athiest/agnostics will recognize themselves as well as some of the rabid environmentalists.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think some athiest/agnostics will recognize themselves as well as some of the rabid environmentalists.
Hell, if you can't get your point across in one thread open another and try again.
If you only would be just as thoughtful as you are zealous...
-
If you have a point to make, how about you just give us the Cliff's Notes.
-
Too bad about that lead paint in your crib, lazs
-
5 minutes well spent, good read lazs.
If you ever enjoyed reading one of his books or watching a movie made from one you might find it worthwhile to spend a few minutes reading that article. The guy might not be right but he knows how to communicate. I'm betting he knows what he is talking about.
-
I concur; good read.
Makes you think, makes you question.
TY.
-
yup. good read thanks for posting it lasz
-
good read
-
Thats a keeper lazs. Good find.
-
Oh Please :rolleyes:
Since 9-11 it has now become fashioanble to attach the label "Fundamentalist Religion" to any belief anyone has contrary to your own in order to invoke a suitable level of fear and distrust.
While his arguement at the end about the data and lobbyist spin may be true his presentation is so much horse pucky. His description of an environmentalist pre-polution eden is just rubbish - an invention to support his "religious belief" label.
Anyone who has an open mind has just that - an open mind.
Or will it be soon that anyone who only buys Chevvy is a GM religious fanatic and an enemy of the state...?
Before the 9-11 this speech wouldn't have been written - it's just playing to the crowd.
Laz , why can't you just accept that some people have no religious belief ? Why is it such a huge friggin issue that someone simply MUST have a religious belief. Let it go .......
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Oh Please :rolleyes:
Since 9-11 it has now become fashioanble to attach the label "Fundamentalist Religion" to any belief anyone has contrary to your own in order to invoke a suitable level of fear and distrust.
While his arguement at the end about the data and lobbyist spin may be true his presentation is so much horse pucky. His description of an environmentalist pre-polution eden is just rubbish - an invention to support his "religious belief" label.
Anyone who has an open mind has just that - an open mind.
Or will it be soon that anyone who only buys Chevvy is a GM religious fanatic and an enemy of the state...?
Before the 9-11 this speech wouldn't have been written - it's just playing to the crowd.
Laz , why can't you just accept that some people have no religious belief ? Why is it such a huge friggin issue that someone simply MUST have a religious belief. Let it go .......
Lemme guess, global warming the end is near fundamentalist?
-
Interesting reading.
This quote:
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.
Has earned my vote for chricton as president of the World!
:)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Too bad about that lead paint in your crib, lazs
ouch!
smack the value menu guy.... he is only worth a buck.
-
The basic question addressed is whether or not "the end is near!!!"
The religion thing is not the argument. The science behind the environmentalism is.
-
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.
-
My apologies. :)
-
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".
-
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
-
tell me...is being obsessive-compulsive a religion too?
-
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.
-
Crichton should stick to fiction. It's more entertaining.
-
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. :rofl
-
I'd rather have a fanatical environmentalist in my neighborhood than a fanatical muslim...
:D
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
LOL!
-
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! ;)
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I'd rather have a fanatical environmentalist in my neighborhood than a fanatical muslim...
:D
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?
-
BTW... that was a good read, Lazs.
It's odd that Crichton was comparing environmentalism to christianity in a negative manner draws so much ire from so many.
Sparks... you need to read the opening paragraph to that just a little better. I think you're out of touch with who is being refered to there.
Crichton is pushing the prevelance of science over religion and you're arguing about the definition of religion? I think that's one spot where he nailed it.
The population stuff is pure speculation, but the fundamental argument in the rest of this is very straightforward.
I've also seen much of what he said exact arguments that several posters in these forums use. The "educated" vs "human nature" debate. "racism is taught" was a particularly funny comment I'd seen recently. I guarantee that person thinks he's saying something scientific. I guarantee he doesn't care about any scientific evidence that says otherwise. Ironically, he's also someone that is adamat about keeping religion out of politics.
-
I don't think it all that odd Mini that his comparison irritates some. Many of those who have found their new religion in environmentalism consider themselves to be progressive and open minded. That they should be guilty of what they despise in others is simply too repugnant to accept. We saw these same symptoms of denial in the other thread.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Interesting reading.
This quote:
Has earned my vote for chricton as president of the World!
:)
Exact ,it's not a hazard ... it's a certitude !
-
thud... in the debate I answered every question put to me and then asked the same of the askers... It may have been monotonous but the same lame points were made with slightly different language.... "I believe" became.... "my thoughts are" Athiests became agnostics. Athiests on one hand tried to say that there were "shades" of athiesm while other athiests said that no... there is only one kind.
This article has nothing to do with any of that. The only tenuous little bit is the word religion. Athiests were never even mentioned as such.
So... I will ask you... are you an environmentalist? If so... what shade? The beetle kind who thinks that man is causeing global warming and that we can stop or slow it? or... the sandie kind that thinks.... that we should live but try to not make too big of a mess for no reason?
Does the end justify the means? is it worth making up data if it will help the cause of environmentalism?
lazs
-
I agree with most of the article. I have been thinking on the same lines for some time but without his ability to express it. The point he makes about environmentalism becoming a form of religion concurs with my own thinking on the matter. I'm a skeptic on global warming and many other environmental and ecological issues. But I have found that when I comment on the issue I'm invariably rounded on and shouted down as if I had blasphemed in church.
That's an apt comparsion. I do think that the growth of enviromentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism and UFOology is proportionate to the relative decline of organised religion. People must believe in something. It seems a natural human instinct that this life must have some meaning and that we as individuals are important in the overall scheme of things.
Environmentalism, like any religion has it's extremists and those who half believe in the cause but who the equivalent of those who only go to church at Christmas, births, weddings and funerals. The big problems as I see it is that we may have the freedom to practice our religion or not, (unless we live in an Islamic state) but environmentalism is increasingly forced on us. A whole series of rules we must live our life by. We must recycle, we must pay higher taxes on anything considered environmentally unfriendly. The list gets longer every day. All for the great God: Mother Earth. 'We must save the planet and ourselves'. There is constant talk among the high priests of environmentalism about what we can and cannot eat, or where we can or cannot go, or what machines we can or cannot use. That sounds a lot like a religion to me.
I was disappointed to see David Attenborough jump on the global warming bandwagon and start to dish out the doom monger predictions. Even the best of us fall into the trap.
Those of you who think all this is 'twaddle'. Ask yourself why you believe so fervently in the cause of environmentalism or indeed religion. Does it stand up to scrutiny or is simply because you never thought to question what you have been told by others. Every now and then we should all sit down and think about what we really believe. You might be surprised
-
i'm a 'shade tree enviornmentalist'. there's a big shade tree in my back yard.. I protect and praise it all summer, and debate the effacy of cutting the damn thing down every fall.. i hate raking leaves.
-
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.
You sound more like a consevationist than an environmentalist, many think they are one in the same, they are not.
shamus
-
Anyone who grew up in Southern California in the 60's and 70's should remember well what failing to care about the environment looks like. Or maybe you could ask someone who grew up along the Cuyahoga River... it burned for crise sakes.
It's better now. It isn't better because corporate America decided they hated smog. It's better because environmentalists put the fear in our hearts and in our lungs. Maybe they went too far in some cases. DDT for example may have had a bad rap. But every time someone says "environmentalist wackos" it brings us a step closer to the brown air and burning rivers of 35 years ago.
Now that IS scary.
-
Crichton hit the nail on the head in his remarks about "radical" environmentalism, which is an entirely different breed of cat altogether in comparison to the more mundane form of environmentalism that most of us practice.
It does, indeed, have many of the charcteristics of a fanatical religion. Also, Crichton is dead on target when he states that "radical" environmentalism is almost wholly an urban phenomenon, supported by large masses of city-dwellers who have almost no first-hand experience with the deadly capriciousness of nature.
His views are best represented by the statements; "Farmers know what they're talking about...city-people don't. It's all fantasy."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Anyone who grew up in Southern California in the 60's and 70's should remember well what failing to care about the environment looks like. Or maybe you could ask someone who grew up along the Cuyahoga River... it burned for crise sakes.
It's better now. It isn't better because corporate America decided they hated smog. It's better because environmentalists put the fear in our hearts and in our lungs. Maybe they went too far in some cases. DDT for example may have had a bad rap. But every time someone says "environmentalist wackos" it brings us a step closer to the brown air and burning rivers of 35 years ago.
Now that IS scary.
Maybe it's just me, but seeing my local river catch fire would probably provoke more of a call to action then an environmentalist "putting the fear in my heart and lungs". Stupid hippie. :p
-
Originally posted by Mini D
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?
Speaking of which...
Story Link (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/UPDATE/60602008)
Judge denies pretrial release for environmental radicals
June 2, 2006
EUGENE — A federal magistrate judge has denied pretrial release for two environmental activists charged with sabotage and arson, citing a risk to public safety.
Nathan Fraser Block and Joyanna Lynn Zacher are two of 13 arrested in Operation Backfire, a sweeping federal investigation of multistate sabotage and arson.
Block and Zacher are accused in two arsons in 2001, one at a former truck dealership in Eugene and another at a tree farm in Clatskanie.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Coffin said evidence indicates the two support more violence because they think previous acts were ineffective.
Both face a minimum of life plus 45 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
Their defense attorney said the clients were not involved in all the counts against them. The 13 Backfire co-defendants are scheduled for trial Oct. 31 in Eugene.
I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Speaking of which...
I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.
They are making a "stand"
get it?
The most important thing in the world is that they took action and made a real difference.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.
eliminating non native species.
you're next :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :furious
or maybe a more tame explanation is clearing land to grow pot on
#!%*!#!*&#*! hippies
-
I've told this story before... but it will fit in here nicely:
A friend went down to a company in California to help with a manufacturing problem they had. They were making a chemical that contained ferous cyanide. This is a cyanide that's already bound to an iron molecule and is not a poison any more than salt is. They could not start up the plant because their cyanide count in their waste water was too high. Despite the fact that it's not a poison, it still has the word "cyanide" in it and that sounds poisonous. They had a cyanide destruct system in line but it wasn't cleaning things up enough (the destruct system was pre-planned to avoid issues with perception at the EPA). My friend offered a simple suggestion as step one of solving the problem... test the water coming into the company. It turns out that the water coming into the company had cyanide levels 1000 times that of the water going out. There was an indian reservation upstream of where the county got their water that specialized in silver jewelry. They commonly use sodium cyanide to clean the jewelry and rinse it down the drain. Sodium cyanide is the poisonous stuff and small amounts will kill you. They "allowed" the plant to come up with an exception that was objected to by local environmentalists.
-
too much salt will kill u :mad: :furious :furious :noid :noid :noid :p
-
OK Mini ......
I don't like bulk quoting but if it helps a point .......
have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
I absolutely 100% agree with his view of the challenge - "truth from propaganda" .... and we are in a propaganda filled world.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.
On the nail 100% - couldn't agree more.
The next paragraph he devotes to promoting his own "I'm not against the earth" credentials.
Next we start to get to it.........
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion.
compare that to his previous statement about peoples own "sense of the world" in particular ..."is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us". This statement is fact to him because he chooses to believe it from his college education.
Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
It starts with a sarcastic swipe at aetheists - ( any good politician slides in an atack on the character of his opponents) then tags on his belief about religious need (see above) - a belief he has hopefully validated by the "college education" label. He then expands that by saying that for a person to have a meaning in their life they require a God or equivalent - a religion.
That is the point he has moved from factual arguement to personal opinion and where I diverge.
Mini - you said Crichton is pushing the prevelance of science over religion and you're arguing about the definition of religion? I think that's one spot where he nailed it.
I think you need to re-read ...Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
[/b]
He then spends the next 5 paragraphs aligning his definition of environmentalists to the Christian framework.
he spends the next 13 paragraphs explaining how vulnerable we are in natures raw environement - hardly relevant to a real arguement assessing of the relative value or accuracy of opposing scientific research of environmental impact.
Now he goes back to it ...But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?
He then gives the next 5 paragraphs to shotgunned facts that we are expected to take on faith (funny that..).
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature.
and blows of any real interest in the sources with ..
.. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.
another sarcastic and arrogant swipe at readers who may not follow his idea of the truth - only the enlightened few like him would chose to want more.
Now the scare tactic - the "we all know what they're like and they're out to get you !! " ... Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
A blinding flash of the bleeding obvious put in for emphasis.
The last 7 paragraphs are a good and sensible standpoint. We need to move away from politicised and coporate sponsored reasearch and try to find the truth about how our planet works - yes the truth because I believe WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW - NOT GREEN PEACE, NOT THE UN, NOT EXXON, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, NOT THE DEMOCRATS - NO-ONE KNOWS
So Lukster Many of those who have found their new religion in environmentalism consider themselves to be progressive and open minded. That they should be guilty of what they despise in others is simply too repugnant to accept. We saw these same symptoms of denial in the other thread.
I am not in denial or have any religious belief in tree hugging. What you find hard to accept is that anyone can live without a religious belief - trust me you can.
Mini - I whole-heartedly agree that we as a society handle our enviroment badly and often on poor research or data - in both directions. That lobby groups and minority intersts cause us to ignore good science and promote bad is clear. But this guys attempt to marginalise these groups by using the religious fundamentalist tag is crude and merely muddies the water. He has sound principles but poor execution.
Sparks
-
read it all.
The guy makes sense and most "global warming, conserve fuel " types don't make sense.
-
Gotcha sparks. You dismiss what you don't agree with. He's not defining religion, he's making a very clear comparison to christianity. Very little of that is perception. It really is a direct comparison on most levels.
As far as fitting "his definition of an environmentalist"... I find that a particularly funny statement. Afterall, the "Religious Right" is responsible for GWB being in the white house... right?
I also like your "he states this as fact" for religion always existing in some form in every culture ever to exist. Hehehehe... name one that didn't. History is a ***** some times.
You're nitpicking some very fundamental things and it just doesn't work.
-
I never said or implied that no one can live without religious beliefs Sparks. I will say that those who buy into anything with proof, and this includes atheism and environmentalism, are engaging in the practices associated with religion. The degree to which they adhere determines their religiousity. Since you agreed with much of what Chrichton said surely you see the correlation.
-
Mini - I believe he DOES make a definition of religion. To repeat with emphasis
You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
He then happens to use christianity as the model - he intention is merely to effectively label environmental groups as religious fundamentalists.
In as far as the comparison being direct - and this relates to what I raised about "his definition" - he finds it necessay to build on the Eden principle that it is all flowers and guitar music and that environmentalists believe this is the achievable end point. I don't think that is true and actually devalues his comparison. Many of the whacko environmentalist groups have "back to nature" agendas but not of the Eden variety. This is his interpretation to fulfil his comparison. he has to devote a full 13 paragraphs of examples to argue it.
Afterall, the "Religious Right" is responsible for GWB being in the white house... right?
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at there ... :confused:
Yes your probably right I can't think of a society without a religion in it but his arguement is that because religion is in every society then every individual in the society must have a religious belief - remember but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious
This is on an individual level. I do believe every society has people who do NOT hold a religious belief.
Fundamental things yes - nitpicking no.
As I said the guy has a sound principle - that environmental measures should be based on sound non-partisan science and not pressure groups - but his method is crude and counter productive.
Lukster .. I will say that those who buy into anything with proof, and this includes atheism and environmentalism, are engaging in the practices associated with religion.
(I'm assuming you meant without proof) .. a simply put point and one that Lazs ascribes to - but one I fundamentally disagree with. That is just something we have to disagree on. From my perpective that makes any simple opinion an act of religion - I don't see it.
As far as Chricton goes - I agree with his core arguement about science and environmental pressure groups, I just think he has fallen into the same trap of pandering to the media and tried to label the people he wishes to discredit as the currently fashionable demon. As I said earlier - pre 9-11 this speech would not have been written. He would do better to discredit them on the basis of the science he wants people to pay attention to.
-
Yeah, I meant without proof.
I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to indicate our environment goes through cyclic phases of cooling and warming. Predicting catastophic events that can be prevented by our environmentalistic efforts is very similar to the preaching of hell and brimstone. This is undeniable.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Mini - I believe he DOES make a definition of religion. To repeat with emphasis
He then happens to use christianity as the model - he intention is merely to effectively label environmental groups as religious fundamentalists.
Where did he say "religious fundamentalists"? He's comparing it to religion... you seem to be defining religion as one sect... fundamentalists. I'm pretty sure you'll find people across the whole spectrum of belief from both sides.In as far as the comparison being direct - and this relates to what I raised about "his definition" - he finds it necessay to build on the Eden principle that it is all flowers and guitar music and that environmentalists believe this is the achievable end point.
At the extreme, that is very much the case. I don't believe he said everyone was the same in that regard... you're just taking it that way.Many of the whacko environmentalist groups have "back to nature" agendas but not of the Eden variety. This is his interpretation to fulfil his comparison. he has to devote a full 13 paragraphs of examples to argue it.
I think you're in a bit of denial here. The "back to nature" agenda is eden based. You're just quibling on exactly what their version eden would be like.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at there ... :confused:
I'm pointing out that christianity is being painted with a very broad extremist brush these days.Yes your probably right I can't think of a society without a religion in it but his arguement is that because religion is in every society then every individual in the society must have a religious belief - remember This is on an individual level. I do believe every society has people who do NOT hold a religious belief.
I disagree. Once again, you're nitpicking the definition of religion. Everyone holds beliefs outside of the provable. Everyone holds some beliefs contrary to what they are told or what they've been shown. This is a fundamental result of independance and choice. It's a matter of what level they take them too, but they are ALWAYS there. Even the belief that you don't hold any type of religious beliefs is ironic.As far as Chricton goes - I agree with his core arguement about science and environmental pressure groups, I just think he has fallen into the same trap of pandering to the media and tried to label the people he wishes to discredit as the currently fashionable demon. As I said earlier - pre 9-11 this speech would not have been written. He would do better to discredit them on the basis of the science he wants people to pay attention to.
I think he's pointing out that one end of the spectrum is not nearly as different as the other end as they'd like to believe. That's not to discredit anyone, it's to point out that one should be carefull when throwing around a term like "religious fanatics" while frothing at the mouth.
-
MinD, say what you mean you blow-hard.
-
He says christianity, you say religious fundamentalists. You're the one stereotyping and then complaining about the comparison.
Holding a belief is religious. Everyone does it. If you believe you don't, you just don't get it.
If you do something, you do it for a purpose. That purpose is basically your religion, whether you chose to acknowledge that or not. You are typing in response to this man's article because you BELIEVE he is wrong. You BELIEVE that his statements don't coincide with the TRUTH that you understand.
You cannot be devoid of some kind of belief system that dictates your life. It is impossible. There are only those that BELIEVE they are devoid of a belief system.
-
Hmmm... a post disappeared.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hmmm... a post disappeared.
do you really "believe" that?
-
I don't BELIEVE you.
-
Religious Fundamentalists ? He mentions them here (I've posted this before):
Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
WOW - you're a bit sensitive about the christian link aren't you ?? His point was not comparing to Christianity specifically - he used the Christian comparison to label the extreme environmental movement as "a" religion and then having given the environmentalist movement religious attributes he tags on fundamentalism.
This is away from the thread topic a bit but you raised it .. twice actually.
Once again, you're nitpicking the definition of religion. Everyone holds beliefs outside of the provable. Everyone holds some beliefs contrary to what they are told or what they've been shown. This is a fundamental result of independance and choice. It's a matter of what level they take them too, but they are ALWAYS there
This is true ... what level they take it to is from an opinion through religion to fanaticism.
Holding a belief is religious. Everyone does it. If you believe you don't, you just don't get it.
To hold any belief is religious ?? that's a bizarre definition.
If you do something, you do it for a purpose. That purpose is basically your religion, whether you chose to acknowledge that or not. You are typing in response to this man's article because you BELIEVE he is wrong. You BELIEVE that his statements don't coincide with the TRUTH that you understand.
Again bizarre - to align an opinion as a religious belief is pretty extreme - to say that to debate a postion is act of religious faith is ...... I don't have words .....
You cannot be devoid of some kind of belief system that dictates your life. It is impossible.
That is your view, and your view only as a person of religious faith (I'm guessing you are). What do you find so threatening about the idea that someone rejects that concept? Why do you feel you need to prove to that person they actually DO have a religion ? Or to ridicule them if they say they don't ?
-
He defines fundamentalism and then says how FUNDAMENTALISM is the same on both sides of the camp. The exact same religion with a different set of values inserted.
As for sensitive about Christianity... yeah.. I guess so. Seeing as how I can't help but feel you meant that as a dig of some sort. Which, of course, is becoming more and more the norm.
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.
-
Sparks,
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.
-
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
:confused:
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The religion thing is not the argument. The science behind the environmentalism is.
In Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis you can see why some today hearld science as the rallying point of experience and discussion.
I disagree both with Bacon's premise and Crichton's.
Thanks for the post. It is a good read and worth reading.
hap
-
sparks... we really don't know what you "believe" in but I am sure that you have plenty of beliefs that are faith based. we all do... that was pretty much the point of the article.
To say that there are not nutjob environmentalists who have substituted environmentalism for other religions is to not be aware of your surroundings.
There is probly as many (percent wise) fundamental religious to religious ratio as their is fundamental whacko environmentalists to conservationists ratio.
I think the word that is the irritant is "religion" if he were to just say core beliefs it would not have angered the athiests and nutjob environmentalists near as much.
lazs
-
Yep... that's it lazs.
"Religion" is for idiots. Intelligent people are above it. Religion will run the world into the ground and only the intelligent will be able to save it. Join them or you will perish.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Those of you who think all this is 'twaddle'. Ask yourself why you believe so fervently in the cause of environmentalism or indeed religion. Does it stand up to scrutiny or is simply because you never thought to question what you have been told by others. Every now and then we should all sit down and think about what we really believe. You might be surprised
LOL Cpxxx - sorry for late response...
I don't consider myself to be "an environmentalist". I don't bother sorting my rubbish out into different types, and I don't participate in that kerbside recycling programme. I do take all glass to the bottle bank, but that's about it.
However I do believe the concerns expressed by scientists - lately by Attenborough - with regard to the effects of too much CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and the long term effects that this will have on planet Earth. OK, it's not going to happen next week, next month or next year, but I see no reason to doubt those climatology predictions given in the Attenborough programme: 38° in Britain on a June day in 2050 is definitely a cause for concern, what with a rising population and ailing water supply infrastructure.
However, I don't give a horse's arse about religion (never have, never will) and quite what the global warming issue has to do with religion remains a mystery. Still, I'm not interested in an explanation, I'm afraid. When it comes to religion, I simply switch off.
-
Oh boy...here we go again.
-
I guess anther thing that bothers me is that on this board... the ones that tell me I have to do this or that thing or give up this or that or I will destroy the planet.... when you corner them they claim to not be environmental whack jobs at all...
In fact.... they don't do anything they don't want to do so far as conservation.... they only want to ban things that they don't care about.
They would have me not own a toy that get's 12 mpg but they would jump in a jet to travel half way round the world to see a sight or a new resteraunt.... they would have me reduce emissions by some 0.000000013 percent for looks but can't be bothered to sort their own garbage..
The real problem is anyone whos religion or... core beliefs... allow them to think that they have the right to tell others what to do. Any excuse... no matter how phony will do for such people... they embrace every study no matter how bogus that will allow them to exert power over others.
lazs
-
MANBEARPIG, I'M CEREAL!!!
-
Originally posted by lukster
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?
I believe that our (mankind's) current knowledge on the subject does indicate that human activity (read emissions) does have some influence on global warming, whether this influence is substantial or even noticeable is still a matter of discussion. The former has been irrrefutably concluded in laboratory tests, till the latter is revealed further by science noone can claim the extent of global warming that is caused by human activity.
Reducing emissions as such is something we should all strive for when feasible alternatives are available, global warming in itself can currently not be used as a definitive and measurable argument to support that though.
So if someone says that the trend of global warming is caused entirely or for a given portion by pollution and he/she can not be swayed by the current ststus of scientific knowledge you might qualify it as extremist, I think though that both you and I will measure the extremism in this by the cure/solution the person in question proposes.
-
Wow Lazs - sounds really bad. Tell us - just WHO has told you that you have to give up any of the things that you hold dear? Anyone I know?
-
wow thud... that is the best most reasonable post I have ever seen you do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wow thud... that is the best most reasonable post I have ever seen you do.
lazs
Maybe it is the exception that confirms the rule... ;)