Environmentalism: Religion for the Godless
Tricks @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:17 pm
JetBoy JetBoy:
Tricks Tricks:
Economically it isn't.
So money is more important that health. Profit more important than preventing human and animal suffering.
Very interesting way of looking at it.
Oh and the economic turmoil that could come from the reductions the Dippers want us to make will result in those as well
Zipperfish @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:27 pm
God (no pun intended), where to begin with that stinking pile of dung trying to pass itself off as some kind of intelligent commentary.
Firstly, it is not environmentalism that is the religion of the godless; it is science. Science started to do religion in in the time of Galileo and it has steadily usurped power from the church ever since. And a heck of a "religion" it is. Science performs more "miracles" each and every second than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the other religions of the world have managed since the beginning of history.
Scientists tend to be liberals. It's one of those inscrutable facts of life that the intelligentsia are liberal. Maybe it's because intellectuals tend to think differently, tend to be unorthodox. Maybe its because the "religion" of science requires that its practitioners discard all their previous beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is contrary to the core principle of conservatism where conserving, not discarding, traditions is paramount.
So the conservatives (who are over-represented with Christians, Jews and Muslims for the above-stated reasons) can't really take on science and win. Not any more. A sneakier target is environmentalism, which is kind of adjunct of scientific thinking. It's taking off a nice little chunk and attacking it instead.
Environmentalism is, of course, the desire to do something to protect the earth's ecosystems from decay caused by human activities. Such decay is unavoidable, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is perfectly rational and in the interests of societies and individuals to preserve a natural environment capable of sustaining us. Conservatives decry this as socialism--which it is to a certain extent. Of course, you don't hear the conservatives decry the armed forces as socialism (which it is), or Homeland Security or rampant trade protectionism (which are socialist). So if, Matthew Sheffield, socialism is so evil, why are you such an avid supporter of the Iraq War (check his blog), a wholly socialist undertaking?
Ah, now we see his pathetic argument crumbling before us.
Another tactic then is to try to reduce science to just another religion. Note the terms Sheffield uses: "apostates", "believers", etc. But science isn't. Science changes to suit what we observe in nature. Traditional religions are supernatural and facts are discarded, if necessary, in favour of belief. There is no apostasy in science. Scientists have not been known to go out an lynch people, as Mr. Sheffield would have you believe. Patrick Moore may have been "assaulted" with a custard pie. If that's the best comparison to the depredations visited upon us by Christians and Muslims against "unbelievers" then science is batting a pretty good record.
Anyway, I could go on with the swiss cheese argument presented by this intellectual lightweight, but my wife awaits and frankly, this Sheffield character isn't worth it.
Omega @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:32 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
God (no pun intended), where to begin with that stinking pile of dung trying to pass itself off as some kind of intelligent commentary.
Firstly, it is not environmentalism that is the religion of the godless; it is science. Science started to do religion in the time of Galileo and it has steadily usurped power from the church ever since. And a heck of a "religion" is. Science performs more "miracles" each and every second than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the other religions of the world have managed since the beginning of history.
Scientists tend to be liberals. It's one of those inscrutable facts of life that the intelligentsia are liberal. Maybe it's because intellectuals tend to think differently, tend to be unorthodox. Maybe its because the "religion" of science requires that its practitioners discard all their previous beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is contrary to the core principle of conservatism where conserving, not discarding, traditions is paramount.
So the conservatives (who are over-represented with Christians, Jews and Muslims for the above-stated reasons) can't really take on science and win. Not any more. A sneakier target is environmentalism, which is kind of adjunct of scientific thinking. It's taking off a nice little chunk and attacking it instead.
Environmentalism is, of course, the desire to do something to protect the earth's ecosystems from decay caused by human activities. Such decay is unavoidable, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is perfectly rational and in the interests of societies and individuals to preserve a natural environment capable of sustaining us. Conservatives decry this as socialism--which it is to a certain extent. Of course, you don't hear the conservatives decry the armed forces as socialism (which it is), or Homeland Security or rampant trade protectionism (which are socialist). So if, Matthew Sheffield, socialism is so evil, why are you such an avid supporter of the Iraq War (check his blog), a wholly socialist undertaking?
Ah, now we see his pathetic argument crumbling before us.
Another tactic then is to try to reduce science to just another religion. Note the terms Sheffield uses: "apostates", "believers", etc. But science isn't. Science changes to suit what we observe in nature. Traditional religions are supernatural and facts are discarded, if necessary, in favour of belief. There is no apostasy in science. Scientists have not been known to go out an lynch people, as Mr. Sheffield would have you believe. Patrick Moore may have been "assaulted" with a custard pie. If that's the best comparison to the depredations visited upon us by Christians and Muslims against "unbelievers" then science is batting a pretty good record.
Anyway, I could go on with the swiss cheese argument presented by this intellectual lightweight, but my wife awaits and frankly, this Sheffield character isn't worth it.
Firstly, it is not environmentalism that is the religion of the godless; it is science. Science started to do religion in the time of Galileo and it has steadily usurped power from the church ever since. And a heck of a "religion" is. Science performs more "miracles" each and every second than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the other religions of the world have managed since the beginning of history.
Scientists tend to be liberals. It's one of those inscrutable facts of life that the intelligentsia are liberal. Maybe it's because intellectuals tend to think differently, tend to be unorthodox. Maybe its because the "religion" of science requires that its practitioners discard all their previous beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is contrary to the core principle of conservatism where conserving, not discarding, traditions is paramount.
So the conservatives (who are over-represented with Christians, Jews and Muslims for the above-stated reasons) can't really take on science and win. Not any more. A sneakier target is environmentalism, which is kind of adjunct of scientific thinking. It's taking off a nice little chunk and attacking it instead.
Environmentalism is, of course, the desire to do something to protect the earth's ecosystems from decay caused by human activities. Such decay is unavoidable, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is perfectly rational and in the interests of societies and individuals to preserve a natural environment capable of sustaining us. Conservatives decry this as socialism--which it is to a certain extent. Of course, you don't hear the conservatives decry the armed forces as socialism (which it is), or Homeland Security or rampant trade protectionism (which are socialist). So if, Matthew Sheffield, socialism is so evil, why are you such an avid supporter of the Iraq War (check his blog), a wholly socialist undertaking?
Ah, now we see his pathetic argument crumbling before us.
Another tactic then is to try to reduce science to just another religion. Note the terms Sheffield uses: "apostates", "believers", etc. But science isn't. Science changes to suit what we observe in nature. Traditional religions are supernatural and facts are discarded, if necessary, in favour of belief. There is no apostasy in science. Scientists have not been known to go out an lynch people, as Mr. Sheffield would have you believe. Patrick Moore may have been "assaulted" with a custard pie. If that's the best comparison to the depredations visited upon us by Christians and Muslims against "unbelievers" then science is batting a pretty good record.
Anyway, I could go on with the swiss cheese argument presented by this intellectual lightweight, but my wife awaits and frankly, this Sheffield character isn't worth it.
Awesome post!
BartSimpson @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:36 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
God (no pun intended), where to begin with that stinking pile of dung trying to pass itself off as some kind of intelligent commentary.
Firstly, it is not environmentalism that is the religion of the godless; it is science. Science started to do religion in the time of Galileo and it has steadily usurped power from the church ever since. And a heck of a "religion" is. Science performs more "miracles" each and every second than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the other religions of the world have managed since the beginning of history.
Scientists tend to be liberals. It's one of those inscrutable facts of life that the intelligentsia are liberal. Maybe it's because intellectuals tend to think differently, tend to be unorthodox. Maybe its because the "religion" of science requires that its practitioners discard all their previous beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is contrary to the core principle of conservatism where conserving, not discarding, traditions is paramount.
So the conservatives (who are over-represented with Christians, Jews and Muslims for the above-stated reasons) can't really take on science and win. Not any more. A sneakier target is environmentalism, which is kind of adjunct of scientific thinking. It's taking off a nice little chunk and attacking it instead.
Environmentalism is, of course, the desire to do something to protect the earth's ecosystems from decay caused by human activities. Such decay is unavoidable, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is perfectly rational and in the interests of societies and individuals to preserve a natural environment capable of sustaining us. Conservatives decry this as socialism--which it is to a certain extent. Of course, you don't hear the conservatives decry the armed forces as socialism (which it is), or Homeland Security or rampant trade protectionism (which are socialist). So if, Matthew Sheffield, socialism is so evil, why are you such an avid supporter of the Iraq War (check his blog), a wholly socialist undertaking?
Ah, now we see his pathetic argument crumbling before us.
Another tactic then is to try to reduce science to just another religion. Note the terms Sheffield uses: "apostates", "believers", etc. But science isn't. Science changes to suit what we observe in nature. Traditional religions are supernatural and facts are discarded, if necessary, in favour of belief. There is no apostasy in science. Scientists have not been known to go out an lynch people, as Mr. Sheffield would have you believe. Patrick Moore may have been "assaulted" with a custard pie. If that's the best comparison to the depredations visited upon us by Christians and Muslims against "unbelievers" then science is batting a pretty good record.
Anyway, I could go on with the swiss cheese argument presented by this intellectual lightweight, but my wife awaits and frankly, this Sheffield character isn't worth it.
Firstly, it is not environmentalism that is the religion of the godless; it is science. Science started to do religion in the time of Galileo and it has steadily usurped power from the church ever since. And a heck of a "religion" is. Science performs more "miracles" each and every second than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the other religions of the world have managed since the beginning of history.
Scientists tend to be liberals. It's one of those inscrutable facts of life that the intelligentsia are liberal. Maybe it's because intellectuals tend to think differently, tend to be unorthodox. Maybe its because the "religion" of science requires that its practitioners discard all their previous beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is contrary to the core principle of conservatism where conserving, not discarding, traditions is paramount.
So the conservatives (who are over-represented with Christians, Jews and Muslims for the above-stated reasons) can't really take on science and win. Not any more. A sneakier target is environmentalism, which is kind of adjunct of scientific thinking. It's taking off a nice little chunk and attacking it instead.
Environmentalism is, of course, the desire to do something to protect the earth's ecosystems from decay caused by human activities. Such decay is unavoidable, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is perfectly rational and in the interests of societies and individuals to preserve a natural environment capable of sustaining us. Conservatives decry this as socialism--which it is to a certain extent. Of course, you don't hear the conservatives decry the armed forces as socialism (which it is), or Homeland Security or rampant trade protectionism (which are socialist). So if, Matthew Sheffield, socialism is so evil, why are you such an avid supporter of the Iraq War (check his blog), a wholly socialist undertaking?
Ah, now we see his pathetic argument crumbling before us.
Another tactic then is to try to reduce science to just another religion. Note the terms Sheffield uses: "apostates", "believers", etc. But science isn't. Science changes to suit what we observe in nature. Traditional religions are supernatural and facts are discarded, if necessary, in favour of belief. There is no apostasy in science. Scientists have not been known to go out an lynch people, as Mr. Sheffield would have you believe. Patrick Moore may have been "assaulted" with a custard pie. If that's the best comparison to the depredations visited upon us by Christians and Muslims against "unbelievers" then science is batting a pretty good record.
Anyway, I could go on with the swiss cheese argument presented by this intellectual lightweight, but my wife awaits and frankly, this Sheffield character isn't worth it.
I'd answer this but it seems I did so before you posted this.
$1:
Obviously, he wasn't saying that all environmentalists are so disposed to act as if they were possessed of a religious fervor as he cites environmentalists who left their movements when the movements became extreme and moved away from their original purpose.
Omega @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:38 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Assumptions assumptions.
It's not an assumption that protecting the planet from pollution and destruction (environmentalism) results in healthier life. It's an absolute fact. Do you know how many people worldwide die each year of environmental contamination either directly or indirectly (like through cancer)? You don't, do you?
Tricks @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:56 pm
JetBoy JetBoy:
Tricks Tricks:
Assumptions assumptions.
It's not an assumption that protecting the planet from pollution and destruction (environmentalism) results in healthier life. It's an absolute fact. Do you know how many people worldwide die each year of environmental contamination either directly or indirectly (like through cancer)? You don't, do you?
Zipperfish @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:11 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'd answer this but it seems I did so before you posted this.
$1:
Obviously, he wasn't saying that all environmentalists are so disposed to act as if they were possessed of a religious fervor as he cites environmentalists who left their movements when the movements became extreme and moved away from their original purpose.
It's pretty clear to me that virtually any kind of environmental activism at all falls into Mr. Sheffield's "extreme" category. The fact is that environmentalism is a rational response to the stress we are putting on the earth and (more importantly) the earth's ability to sustain us. Sheffield and his yahoo buddies are trying to portray a rational response as some kind of fanaticism. Such fanaticism exists in the environmetnal movement, there is no doubt about that. There are those out there who spike trees, or who think cows should have the same rights as people, etc. But note how Sheffield and his cronies do not target them; they target the advocates of AGW.
Recall that most researchers in the field are proponentsof the AGW theory at the present. They may be wrong in the final analysis, who knows? But they are certainly not being irrational, and people who agree with the predictions of some of these researchers are not necessarily being irrational in seeking ways to ameliorate predicted damage.
ziggy @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:24 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'd answer this but it seems I did so before you posted this.
$1:
Obviously, he wasn't saying that all environmentalists are so disposed to act as if they were possessed of a religious fervor as he cites environmentalists who left their movements when the movements became extreme and moved away from their original purpose.
It's pretty clear to me that virtually any kind of environmental activism at all falls into Mr. Sheffield's "extreme" category. The fact is that environmentalism is a rational response to the stress we are putting on the earth and (more importantly) the earth's ability to sustain us. Sheffield and his yahoo buddies are trying to portray a rational response as some kind of fanaticism. Such fanaticism exists in the environmetnal movement, there is no doubt about that. There are those out there who spike trees, or who think cows should have the same rights as people, etc. But note how Sheffield and his cronies do not target them; they target the advocates of AGW.
Recall that most researchers in the field are proponentsof the AGW theory at the present. They may be wrong in the final analysis, who knows? But they are certainly not being irrational, and people who agree with the predictions of some of these researchers are not necessarily being irrational in seeking ways to ameliorate predicted damage.
Mother do you think they'll try and break my balls?
Brenda @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:25 pm
$1:
Do you know how many people worldwide die each year of environmental contamination either directly or indirectly (like through cancer)? You don't, do you?
Can you provide some proof that let's say, 3000 years ago, people didn't die of cancer? You say cancer to be an environmental thing... For as far as I know, some farao died of bonecancer 3500 years ago, and I don't think she was the only one.
Hatshepsut
Zipperfish @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:26 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Mother do you think they'll try and break my balls?
oooooh, aaahhh, mother should I build a wall?
ziggy @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:28 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
ziggy ziggy:
Mother do you think they'll try and break my balls?
oooooh, aaahhh, mother should I build a wall?
ziggy @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:30 pm
Or is it just a waste of time.
Omega @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:32 pm
Tricks Tricks:
No, you assumed I thought money was more important then health
That's what you do when you place economics before the environment.
Tricks @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:33 pm
JetBoy JetBoy:
Tricks Tricks:
No, you assumed I thought money was more important then health
That's what you do when you place economics before the environment.
Omega @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:38 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Can you provide some proof that let's say, 3000 years ago, people didn't die of cancer? You say cancer to be an environmental thing... For as far as I know, some farao died of bonecancer 3500 years ago, and I don't think she was the only one.
I'll try to explain this clearly for you...
A modern-day increase in cancer does not mean there was never cancer before. It just means that there's more cancer now than there used to be. So your example of someone 3,000 years ago having cancer does nothing to debunk what I'm saying. Get it?