|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 6, 2010 21:57:20 GMT -5
"Welll by that he either means to live a good life or worship a diety just in case. For obvious reasons worshipping any random diet is stupid so I'll assume thats not it." deity* "Ruining your good naturedness with his sin then he just thought you meant you should worship the christian diety just because..." First off you assume that we're talking about a Christian deity, and second that this supposed religious person is condemning an atheists. While I could go on about how both of those assumptions were never apart of this thread it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. "So as far as the enviorment goes there really is pollution and that really does have a bad effect on the environment. There's no science that disproves the thesis "Pollution is bad" therefore we need to stop polluting..." First I do also realize that there is pollution in the world, but it would be worth it to mention that you trust a scientist’s words just as much as any religious person trusts their beliefs. Again this is slightly off topic in that global warming is not limited to human pollution. Global warming is a theory that can't be entirely proven because there are so many variables. Again this is not the point of the discussion. The question asked is why some people (environmental atheist) willingly "go green" in believe in a theory that may or may not be true, while trying to serve a god that may or may not exist in case he does, is considered foolish. As for morals, there's a pretty lengthy debate thread already posted for that discussion, this thread isn't talking about the origin of morals... Yes i trust a scientists words, and I do realize that they are sometimes wrong, and I realize that pretty all the time they don't believe that was they are saying is without a doubt 100% true, or at least they don't if they are a good scientist. Thats why they have theories. However it's perfectly acceptable to have a certain level of trust for a scientists words because scientist are constantly modifying what they believe about the world. They use the scientific method so that they can come to an unbiased conclusion based on the evidence. Also going green isn't that terribley hard. It just means you have a basic understanding of the dangers of pollution and that you'll act accordingly. It's nothing like devoting your entire life to a diety. I wasn't talking about the orgin of morality I was simply thinking that you possibley meant that someone should live a good life so that they may have a good afterlife if one exists. The orgins of morality of very different from that since thats kind of very self centered seeing as you're only being a good person to save your own ass. |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 6, 2010 22:54:42 GMT -5
you know..its funny cuz enemynarwahl and dandy are the only ones who got the point  the question was completely invalid, and trolling on our part you two are the only ones who figured it out  to the rest of you...hehehe...thanks for letting us have so much fun |
|
theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Post by theeverbored on Jul 6, 2010 23:05:05 GMT -5
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 6, 2010 23:28:24 GMT -5
The earth is a real, physical thing and human society has done real, physical damage to it. It is in the best interests of anyone planning to live on our planet for any amount of time to not ruin it.
I'm an atheist and the earth is intensely important to me. I don't see the conflict here.
Also: Pascal's Wager is, quite frankly, bollocks.
I propose to you a magical blue celestial ocelot who lives in the fourth dimension, controls the universe, and is particularly interested in human affairs. I propose to you that I have spoken telepathically with this ocelot, whom I will hereafter call Lynn. Lynn has revealed to me rather frankly that she requires every human to do a five-minute handstand twice a day, once at noon and once at midnight, to prove his or her worth, or else his or her post-mortem soul will be ground between two infinitely heavy stones lined with intensely sharp blades for eternity.
Lynn exists outside our dimension, so there is no feasible way to prove or disprove her.
If you accept Pascal's Wager as a valid idea, it follows that the best course of action here would be to continue through the rest of your life doing handstands twice a day, just in case, because if you don't and Lynn is real, you will suffer greatly after your death.
This is obviously a silly idea, but it's a very good example of how fundamentally flawed Pascal's Wager is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 6, 2010 23:57:56 GMT -5
Yay I'm one of the only people who got it. This is clearly because of how awesome I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 9, 2010 21:23:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thequirkyduo on Jul 11, 2010 10:24:55 GMT -5
I don't care if the question is trolling - I still feel like answering it! My question to the atheist environmentalist is: if you disregard Pascal’s wager, how then can you jump through so many hoops, and limit yourselves based on something that may or may not exist? I fail to see how being an environmentalist is a wager on anything's existence. Are you talking about global warming and climate change? Because if so, the existence of climate change and a recent warming trend are very real. The following list was taken from the EPA website www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html as aspects of climate change that scientists know with virtual certainty. - We know that as human beings we are changing the composition of the atmosphere by emitting increasing amounts of greenhouse gases.
- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
- An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.
- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
The list above is completely logical, and all of its statements are widely supported in the scientific community. I do not feel that when I recycle a can, ride my bike to school, or forgo meat for environmental reasons that I am making a wager on anything. Living an environmentally conscious life is a choice, and one that does not have a detrimental effect on anyone. In fact, even if you are skeptical on the existence of global warming and climate change, I don't see how you could see any wrong in the lifestyle that I choose to lead - if anything I'm providing a little extra insurance to those who disregard the necessity to protect this planet. In terms of your question about religion, I do not see any proof for or against the existence of a god. And although many aspects of global warming cannot be taken as fact, they are a whole heck of a lot more finite than anything I've read about religion. Until such a time when I can see such logical evidence for the existence of an afterlife and for a god, I will continue to live my life as I am now. |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 11, 2010 12:13:56 GMT -5
its funny cuz we had you two in mind when we made this thread |
|
|
|
Post by thequirkyduo on Jul 11, 2010 18:59:03 GMT -5
orily? well, my thoughts have been shared.  (i don't know about morgan's however) we may have to discuss this on call at a later date. xD |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 13, 2010 18:24:59 GMT -5
if you insist, it was meant as a joke question, but we can still discuss it when i get normal effing internet... |
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Jul 16, 2010 8:26:28 GMT -5
While talking to Bombmaniac we got to thinking about some stuff… There are so many environmentalists who are atheists; I figured I would pose this question. The argument about whether or not there is a god has been going on since the beginning of man, with neither side able to give a definitive answer. There is no clear answer either way, if you believe you believe, if you don’t you don’t. An idea was presented by French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Presented with this idea, most atheists would laugh in your face telling you that going through life, limiting yourself, and making yourself subservient to a god that may or may not exist, on the off chance that it does…is preposterous. My question to the atheist environmentalist is: if you disregard Pascal’s wager, how then can you jump through so many hoops, and limit yourselves based on something that may or may not exist? There is science both ways on most environmental issues, which would provide proper indication for either perspective. As such, the most you can be doing, is wagering on the side of caution by “going green”. There is no doubt that in many cases “going green” is an inconvenience…so how can you allow yourself that inconvenience based solely upon a wager? If your answer is that “we live on this world and if we do not accept that wager we will die”, then I ask you, suppose god is real, and suppose heaven and hell are real…would you take the chance? If there is indeed an eternal afterlife, would not a person’s life on this planet be insignificant in relation to that afterlife? Therefore, if you accept the wager for one, you should accept the wager on both. Your thoughts… My outlook on it, as an atheistic environmentalist, is that we live on this world and don't do anything to help it, future generation may be harmed or die. Not really looking out for myself, nor is there really any extended inconvenience to throwing a few cans into a recycling bin, then taking the in to the same curb as the garbage. Also, science tends to support more the direction that we are negatively affecting the environment. Now, you are comparing this to Pascal's Wager, which I understand, but really Pascal's Wager is more of a hyperbole of this situation. For me to commit to Pascal's Wager I would have to live a life not only of hypocrisy, but limiting myself in certain areas, as opposed to recycling which is an added burden not a limit on how I live life. Not only this, but you also want me to assume that there is a God that exists that judges all my deeds in life fairly and not biased to a known religion on Earth, which is an illogical thought as there is no indication that if there is a god, the he doesn't belong to one of the known religions; he/she is almost exclusively spoken of in accordance with an organized religion that believes their way is correct. |
|
