Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
The left tends to criticize the religious right for letting their views affect their political decisions. But the truth is, environmentalism has turned into a religion.
Think about it...

According to environmentalists we must respect mother nature, we must take care of the earth. If we don't, we will die.

According to them, it's because we haven't done those things that "global warming" is taking place.

There is no conclusive evidence that man caused global warming...kind of like there is no conclusive evidence that god exists. But this lack of evidence doesn't seem to make a difference in their devotion.

They expect everyone else to change their lifestyles because of what they believe in.

Anyone who doesn't believe in their cause is stupid and ignorant, or hasn't been "enlightened" yet.

They treat Al Gore like he's the effing pope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
There is no conclusive evidence that man caused global warming...kind of like there is no conclusive evidence that god exists. But this lack of evidence doesn't seem to make a difference in their devotion.
This isn't in support for God or environmentalism (or an attack on them for that matter), just a comment on the nature of evidence:

Simply because there is no conclusive evidence that something exists, does that automatically make it false when there is no conclusive evidence to say that it does NOT exist? To say so is a logical fallacy.

To say that something does not exist simply because there is no evidence proving it's existence is the same as saying something DOES exist simply because there is no evidence to prove that it doesn't. When there is no evidence either way, the argument goes to both sides and neither wins out.

That's why this attempt at logic is called an appeal to ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

In my opinion the belief in God and the belief in Global Warming both come down to matters of faith. You either believe in them or you don't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
This isn't in support for God or environmentalism (or an attack on them for that matter), just a comment on the nature of evidence:

Simply because there is no conclusive evidence that something exists, does that automatically make it false when there is no conclusive evidence to say that it does NOT exist? To say so is a logical fallacy.

To say that something does not exist simply because there is no evidence proving it's existence is the same as saying something DOES exist simply because there is no evidence to prove that it doesn't. When there is no evidence either way, the argument goes to both sides and neither wins out.

That's why this attempt at logic is called an appeal to ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

In my opinion the belief in God and the belief in Global Warming both come down to matters of faith. You either believe in them or you don't.
My point was that the atheist left attack the religious right by saying that there is no evidence of god.
 

·
Its never lupus
Joined
·
9,169 Posts
The left tends to criticize the religious right for letting their views affect their political decisions. But the truth is, environmentalism has turned into a religion.
Think about it...

According to environmentalists we must respect mother nature, we must take care of the earth. If we don't, we will die.

According to them, it's because we haven't done those things that "global warming" is taking place.

There is no conclusive evidence that man caused global warming...kind of like there is no conclusive evidence that god exists. But this lack of evidence doesn't seem to make a difference in their devotion.

They expect everyone else to change their lifestyles because of what they believe in.

Anyone who doesn't believe in their cause is stupid and ignorant, or hasn't been "enlightened" yet.

They treat Al Gore like he's the effing pope.
Its basic science, carbon dioxide and other pollutants are released into the air from our vehicles and power plants (some, not all). These build up in the atmosphere. More solar radiation gets through and less of it is reflected back into space.

Even if man didn't cause it, its still there, its still a problem, and we should still do something about it. But its pretty ignorant to believe that the billions of cars pouring out tons of hydrocarbon emissions (not just Co2) each day doesn't affect our climate one bit. Deforestation also adds to the problem because the Earth's natural methods for dealing with Co2 is photosynthesis, which also happens to provide all the energy for every land dwelling animal in existance (in addition to creating oxygen from Carbon dioxide).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,452 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,482 Posts
Its basic science, carbon dioxide and other pollutants are released into the air from our vehicles and power plants (some, not all). These build up in the atmosphere. More solar radiation gets through and less of it is reflected back into space.

Even if man didn't cause it, its still there, its still a problem, and we should still do something about it. But its pretty ignorant to believe that the billions of cars pouring out tons of hydrocarbon emissions (not just Co2) each day doesn't affect our climate one bit. Deforestation also adds to the problem because the Earth's natural methods for dealing with Co2 is photosynthesis, which also happens to provide all the energy for every land dwelling animal in existance (in addition to creating oxygen from Carbon dioxide).
while it's true there is an affect by it the environmentalist are over-stating its impact. Its a huge highly complex system and to say one thing to blame (which is the view they push) is stupid.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Did you guys know other planets in the Solar System are also increasing in temperature? Funny, you never hear about the cars/factories on those planets...

-Jin
It's our carbon emissions that are affecting the climate on Mars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,080 Posts
That article also mentions how quite a few scientists disagree with him. I don't think global warming should be dismissed so easily. I hope it's wrong, but if it's not... we're kinda ****ed. I'd rather be safe then sorry personally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
If you mean to say that belief in something through faith and faith alone is a religion then would the belief that science is the only answer be a religion as well? Is there not faith required in taking that step and saying that science is the only answer when there is no consequential proof that it is? There is no consequential proof that it isn't either, which leads to the need for faith.

I'm not saying that the belief in God isn't religion, I was merely commenting on the nature of evidence and lack there of. While the belief in God IS religion (or a form of it) the belief in Global Warming being labeled as a religion would be a bit of a stretch, since it requires (as stated in the definition that you posted) a base set of ethical code and beliefs ESPECIALLY with concern to a creator or supernatural being.

Unless the Greenies say Al Gore is God, Global Warming is not quite a religion in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
I only read the first few sentences. But I am sure you have heard of Scientology.


EDIT: I read the rest and well..

I'm not saying that the belief in God isn't religion, I was merely commenting on the nature of evidence and lack there of. While the belief in God IS religion (or a form of it) the belief in Global Warming being labeled as a religion would be a bit of a stretch, since it requires (as stated in the definition that you posted) a base set of ethical code and beliefs ESPECIALLY with concern to a creator or supernatural being.

Unless the Greenies say Al Gore is God, Global Warming is not quite a religion in my opinion.
It does have a state of ethical codes and beliefs, but I don't think "especially" makes it required. Besides, that link contained more than one definition. All of the other definitions do not require a creator or supernatural being.

And I do not think anyone will ever refer to Al Gore as god, but I bet if he claimed he was some sort of a Messiah, he could have many followers. He already won the Peace prize. I do believe that there are many more people more deserving of this award then Mr. Gore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
The first definition. While there are others listed, they are all variations of the initial.

I somehow doubt that the belief in Global Warming concerns the cause and purpose of the universe... Maybe I'm wrong. I'll go ask Archbishop Gore...

:dodgy:
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
jin, whether or not we are the cause of it, it's a big problem that needs to be dealt with. I think you'd be being ignorant to think that human impact is not accelerating the process.

And why are you pinning this on the left Dimitri? One of America's most prominent political advocate for 'going green' is Republican governor Schwarzenegger. Why do you always present your ideas in the dichotomy of left and right? There are plenty of right minded people who recognize the danger of climate change. And likewise, plenty of left that would rather see attention placed elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
The first definition. While there are others listed, they are all variations of the initial.

I somehow doubt that the belief in Global Warming concerns the cause and purpose of the universe... Maybe I'm wrong. I'll go ask Archbishop Gore...

:dodgy:
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
(such as using less energy)
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
Let us not forget these definitions as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
So me not cheating on a test is a religion? If we are going to be that vauge, I am the supreme bishop of the usage of cross walks!

Look at the contexts of the examples they give for the usage of those versions of the definitions. They are different variations and usage of the term. You have to take the definitions in context, which you don't seem to be doing.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top