The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

In dealing with Christians on climate.

The vast majority of those who deny climate change are Americans... religious Americans.
Notably so in the Evangelical sects of the US.

The issue is how to deal with them, their careless treatment of the planet, it's resources, etc.

I've found the following logic to work on occasion.
I've summarised it into a "passage" for easier reading. It also makes more sense to the religious in this form... for some reason.

(I don't believe in god... but the only thing that makes sense to these people is god and what their imaginary friend may or may not want... so I had to use that angle.)

"Did god not make trees flammable?
The waters taintable?
Why then do you believe his largest and greatest creation of all was not created equally as fragile?
Your life is a test. And this planet, gods house and greatest creation, is a part of that test.

Hell itself cannot enforce the level of fury god will show you when he sees what YOU have willingly done to his house... while arrogantly claiming you've done nothing."

Of course, feel free to throw up a little upon reading the "god" parts... I threw up a little writing them... unfortunately, I can't effectively deliver the message to them with "Who doesn't exist" tacked on to every sentence.
... they tend to catch on to you being Atheist that way.

Tags: atheism, atheist, christian, climate, gift, global, gods, greatest, science

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Johnsky on April 28, 2010 at 10:00pm

While I do agree humans will find a way to survive, I'd rather see we survive with the earth still in some form of non-toxic, non-desert condition.

Global warming is a misleading term, I tend to call it Climate Shift and leave it at that. The idiots of our species seem to think global warming means everywhere heats up all at the same time... that the appearance of snow somewhere somehow negates the existence of global warming.

... I'm rather sad to call these people members of the same species. Such shallow sighted minds are not becoming of our species.

What can we do? At the moment, nothing. We simply aren't advanced enough to rectify this issue.

Is it nature's fault? No.
Is it man's fault? No.
Both played their parts. Nature runs in cycles, and we took what was going to be a slow and mild cycle and accelerated it into one hell of a spike.

Should we do something? Yes. Once we figure out what it is we CAN do.

I find it irritating when people assume that because this wasn't a 100% man made issue, that we shouldn't do anything about it. This is a bullshit excuse for laziness.

As an analogy, I might not be the one holding the gun aimed at my head... but I'll be damned if I'm just going to watch as I get shot, arguing it's not my fault.

Again, we return to the hard question, as John said... what should be done? What CAN be done?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James H on May 7, 2010 at 4:07am

There is plenty that can be done, and some US states are already implementing greenhouse gas emission reduction plans, including:

1. Increased use of carbon neutral or low carbon technologies. Biomass, landfill gas, solar energy, hydrogen, and possibly nuclear fuels would all fit in this category.

2. Increase fuel efficiencies for fossil fuel burning equipment (Power Plants, Glass Plants, Boilers, Engines, etc...)

3. Increase electrical efficiencies and curb electricity usage (LED lights, energy star appliances, etc..)

And many, many other things.

Unfortunately, no matter how much we do, developing nations that are currently undergoing industrial revolutions don't appear to be willing to participate without some compensation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnsky on May 7, 2010 at 10:08am

The unfortunate bit of this is, all of that would have been an excellent solution, had everyone followed it a while back.

Now however, we've already pushed the scales over.
We've done the damage.
Refraining from doing more damage doesn't hurt.
But we need to repair the damage we have done.
... and possibly work on preventing the earth from going through any cycles which could be fatal to life on it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James H on May 8, 2010 at 7:14pm

At this point, minimizing man-made GHG emissions is the only ammunition against climate change that we have, to my knowledge. Even if it turns out to be a losing battle, I'm chucking my grenades out there and hoping for the best, or some dumb luck! =o)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on June 6, 2010 at 7:55pm

Def think humans contributed a big part in it. Just look at the oil spill (among others).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sigmund on June 21, 2010 at 3:28pm

'Global warming', 'climate shift' - I've never understood why people focus on this part, particularly as it is potentially controversial. Why don't we just stick to 'pollution' - surely we can all agree that we're polluting the crap out of our planet, and that it's causing serious problems... industrial waste, greenhouse gasses, plastic waste, etc. etc.
Anyone who denies that it's a problem either doesn't have a clue or is completely insane. Whether it's the cause of climate change or not, pollution is what we need to tackle, and directly. Arguing about 'global warming' just deflects from the issue...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sigmund on June 22, 2010 at 9:42am

John - that's a fair point, though it doesn't necessarily alter my fundamental objection. Rephrasing to 'lowering pollution and CO2 production' is still a more general aim than 'combatting global warming' - my point is that 'global warming' is the effect, not the cause, and focussing on it just provides opportunities for people with agendas to encourage people's laziness and unwillingness to encourage and adopt responsible behaviour, or even to engage in a debate on what causes or appropriate actions might be...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on June 6, 2010 at 7:54pm

To me its not about how cute or not panda bears are but that they are a part of the ecosystem and should be maintained (of course I'm not suggesting that you are pro-extinction:)). The fact that extinction would have happened due to the horrors humans have unleashed on the world is horrific.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on June 7, 2010 at 1:26am

John, are you suggesting that humans don't rely for their well-being on a complex, interdependent web of species?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cynical Soldier on May 7, 2010 at 10:56am

Pfft, Global Warming. It's all just a ploy by the Liberal Media to let more Mexicans in our country and to give Barrack Hussein Osama more power. They'll never get me to abandon my Hummer! NEVER!!! You can try and take my guns but my car... That's just too far!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on May 7, 2010 at 2:20pm

This is why the tank is the perfect consumer product, combining a gas-guzzling monster with a big-ass gun. It's only downside is that it has no driver-side window for use at the drive-thru. A minor modification that I'm sure Detroit could include in the civilian version.