Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stop fighting about who created the world.... (Original Post) eridani Aug 2014 OP
I have time for both. Silent3 Aug 2014 #1
That's a pretty simple, and skewed, view of it. rug Aug 2014 #2
Nevertheless it is an identifiable component of right wing 'Save the whales, collect the whole set' AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #5
There is also a strong and growing movement among evangelical groups that takes cbayer Aug 2014 #8
Weasel word alert. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #9
Weasel word? I'm thinking that I really don't want to talk to you this morning. cbayer Aug 2014 #10
Sigh. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #11
Ok, since you are well aware that most posts made on this board do cbayer Aug 2014 #16
The second link is the only one that apparently shows any numbers at all AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #19
I can't quantify it, but it is real. cbayer Aug 2014 #23
I'm ok with supporting it. I'm not ok with mischaracterizing it as anything but AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #25
Aha! You made an assertion that it is a minority! Is that a weasel word? cbayer Aug 2014 #26
I have plenty of data. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #28
While this is all fairly interesting and makes some good points, cbayer Aug 2014 #32
Ruh oh!!! cbayer Aug 2014 #27
PEW found a different story. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #29
My link supports my assertion. Full stop. cbayer Aug 2014 #30
No it doesn't. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #31
Your ass is strong? Must be all that running you do. cbayer Aug 2014 #33
Do you understand the difference between a movement and a datapoint on a poll, yes or no? AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #34
No, I don't understand that at all. cbayer Aug 2014 #35
*My definition* LAWL AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #36
What is LAWL? cbayer Aug 2014 #37
It's onomatopoeia for 'LOL'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #38
Oh, that's almost as sophisticated as your jungle yell about your spleen. cbayer Aug 2014 #39
Do you not see the inherent comedy at your deadpan transition from this thread to that one? AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #40
As I told another member earlier, I have no problem with you getting a chuckle from me, cbayer Aug 2014 #41
Serious question. Do you compartmentalize thread information? AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #42
I'm really not sure what it is you are talking about. cbayer Aug 2014 #43
I certainly view the tea party and the various demographics of which it is assembled as 'the enemy'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #44
I think you make an error when you conflate the tea party with evangelicals. cbayer Aug 2014 #45
Yes, but one can never pass up a chance to display umbrage... Silent3 Aug 2014 #17
Excuse me? cbayer Aug 2014 #18
I resent that implication! Silent3 Aug 2014 #20
Aww, you resent it? Then maybe you should stop doing it. cbayer Aug 2014 #21
Or I can just sit back and be amused as you take seriously that "I resent" comment... Silent3 Aug 2014 #22
You sure can. I don't mind you having a chuckle at my expense at all, cbayer Aug 2014 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author rock Aug 2014 #64
Well, somebody's god is doing a bang-up job bvf Aug 2014 #4
Well, I guess you are going to have to get yourself into that church and vote! cbayer Aug 2014 #7
It's true and I'm sorry someone felt the need to mock your position. trotsky Aug 2014 #12
I see the official mock squad had shown up. Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #14
It has now. rug Aug 2014 #46
Delusion Of The Highest Order - Where Is The Proof That God Exists cantbeserious Aug 2014 #51
Hello there and welcome to the Religion group. cbayer Aug 2014 #52
Per The Online Dictionary Cited Below cantbeserious Aug 2014 #53
I agree that it is irresponsible to pursue the cbayer Aug 2014 #54
I Do Not Conflate The Two - Protecting The Eco-Sphere Is More Important Than Belief In Deity cantbeserious Aug 2014 #55
I agree with you, but that wasn't my question cbayer Aug 2014 #56
I Have No Problem With Those That Want Justify Their Personal Mission With The Delusion Of Deity cantbeserious Aug 2014 #57
On that we certainly agree on principle. cbayer Aug 2014 #58
I Am Not Qualified For A Medical Diagnosis - I Can Only Evaluate Behavior Using Definitions cantbeserious Aug 2014 #59
Well, here we are going to disagree. cbayer Aug 2014 #60
We Will Have To Agree To Disagree - No Further Discussion Useful - You Have Your Path - I Mine cantbeserious Aug 2014 #61
that is even more tired an laughable than the santa argument Lordquinton Aug 2014 #69
There is zero evidence for intelligent life elsewhere cbayer Sep 2014 #77
Whose sockpuppet? Leontius Aug 2014 #65
Is That Ridicule Being Directed This Way cantbeserious Aug 2014 #66
The largest Christian church has a position quite the opposite... goldent Aug 2014 #67
we are aware the rcc did a big 180 about it recently Lordquinton Aug 2014 #71
You must be using the term "recently" in the sense of a 2000 year old church goldent Aug 2014 #76
Exactly how did the catholic church abuse the planet in god's name for centuries? cbayer Sep 2014 #78
Excellent question. okasha Sep 2014 #85
I wouldn't hang around just hoping that it might. cbayer Sep 2014 #86
Well, we just have to remember okasha Sep 2014 #87
Amen. Cleita Aug 2014 #3
I'm not sure who is fighting about who created the world, but cbayer Aug 2014 #6
Really, cbayer? trotsky Aug 2014 #13
Good message! It cannot be repeated too often. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #15
Perhaps it means little to some because it is patently dishonest. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2014 #47
Patently dishonest? Really? Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #48
Yes, really. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2014 #50
I wasn't talking about atheists, just some posters who happen to be atheists. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #63
This is an unfair assertion. Curmudgeoness Aug 2014 #68
I'm not sure what you think I'm asserting. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #73
To be clear on what I think you are asserting... Curmudgeoness Aug 2014 #74
All I'm doing is differentiating between mainstream atheists and extremists. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #79
which is why what you are doing has been characterized as patently dishonest. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #81
Not at all. There are no "bad atheists". in my opinion. Starboard Tack Sep 2014 #82
That I understood. And I still think you're wrong. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2014 #70
I have no issue, essentially, with what you are saying Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #72
I can't speak authoritatively to the motivations of others. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2014 #75
well there is a relationship as theistic beliefs that gods gave us this planet with Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #80
That is definitely the case. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #84
Patently dishonest? Really? Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #48
+ 1000 !!! orpupilofnature57 Aug 2014 #62
Stop fighting about who created the world.... AlbertCat Sep 2014 #83

Silent3

(15,219 posts)
1. I have time for both.
Thu Aug 28, 2014, 11:10 PM
Aug 2014

The two efforts aren't mutually exclusive.

In fact, the belief that a God created this world is very often tied, in the same religious doctrine, to the idea that a God gave us this world to do with whatever the hell we want, that a God is the only one powerful enough to hurt the world or save the world.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
8. There is also a strong and growing movement among evangelical groups that takes
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:30 AM
Aug 2014

exactly the opposite approach. They believe that they have a serious responsibility to care for this earth that was given to them.

Here is an opportunity to work with a group that we may have not had that much in common with previously.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
11. Sigh.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 03:36 AM
Aug 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

It is not different from scare quotes, and I would remind you; this is a political discussion board. The term 'weasel word' is common and un-controversial in a political context.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
16. Ok, since you are well aware that most posts made on this board do
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:25 AM
Aug 2014

not contain actual statistical or demographic information, including your own, it seems better to request that when you don't believe what someone is saying. It certainly seems to be more productive than calling their post "weasel words".

Here are some links for you, if you are interested. I have posted a number of articles about this in the past. Though I don't have exact numbers, I am very supportive of what I am seeing.

http://www.creationcare.org
http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/feb/evangelical/calltoaction.pdf

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
19. The second link is the only one that apparently shows any numbers at all
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:32 AM
Aug 2014

and has about 200 signatories.

Of those signatories that are pastors/leaders of churches, how many actual humans are involved here?

You called it 'strong', and 'growing'. Please quantify that.
When I make claims like that, I either support it when questioned, or I withdraw the characterization.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
25. I'm ok with supporting it. I'm not ok with mischaracterizing it as anything but
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:48 AM
Aug 2014

what it is; a minority. The overlap between the political right-wing in this country, and, for instance, Protestantism, on this issue and others, shows that nothing has been done to displace them as yet.

It would be nice, but it's a long way off, if it'll happen at all.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
26. Aha! You made an assertion that it is a minority! Is that a weasel word?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:50 AM
Aug 2014

As you stated above, you back up such statements when asked to. So, back it up.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
28. I have plenty of data.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:47 AM
Aug 2014

Item the first: Protestants are a large chunk of the Republican Party, identifying 42% republican in 1990, up from 35% in 1987. In fact, protestant, white mainline protestant, and catholic are all 'up'. In a party that is apparently willing to burn down the entire planet for some coal.


87-94 data:
http://www.people-press.org/1996/06/25/the-diminishing-divide-american-churches-american-politics/
As you can see in that pre-2000 data, giving a shit about the environment on religious grounds clocked in at 3%.

Recent data:

"◾The religious landscape is far more favorable to Republicans than was the case as recently as 2008. Half of white non-Hispanic Catholics (50%) currently identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up nine points since 2008. Among religiously unaffiliated voters, who have been stalwart supporters of Democrats in recent elections, 29% currently identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 25% in 2008 (the proportion identifying as Democrats has fallen seven points since then). And 33% of Jewish voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 20% in 2008."

The trend has continued. Look at this shit:
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/08/18/growing-number-of-americans-say-obama-is-a-muslim/
The long-term party affiliation trend graphs at the bottom reflect the behavior I described above.

32% of republicans care about the environment from a political standpoint
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/many-more-democrats-than-republicans-say-protecting-environment-a-top-priority/

Another poll finds the Tea Party wing of the Republican party is the biggest climate change denier camp.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/

What is the religious demographic makeup of the tea party, you didn't ask?
"The Tea Party movement clearly played a role in rejuvenating the Republican Party in 2010, helping the GOP take control of the House and make gains in the Senate. Tea Party supporters made up 41% of the electorate on Nov. 2, and 86% of them voted for Republican House candidates, according to exit polls.

A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.2 And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants."


White evangelical protestants. Driving the Tea Party wing of the RNC to victory in the house. And how do they feel about religion?

Scroll down to the "Strong Support from Evangelicals" section.

How does the tea party feel about the environment? It's so bad, the rest of the republicans are alienated by their position.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog+world/tea-party-movement



http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea-party-and-religion/
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-7-global-warming-environment-and-energy/


The giant squatting toad in the middle of the American Politics, that is fucking up everything, is the Christian conservative movement, and it is numerically large enough to shit up just about everything, including the house races aforementioned.

When they are displaced by this supposed evangelical environmental movement, that is 'strong', in your opinion, then I will express gratitude. Till then, color me a skeptic.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
32. While this is all fairly interesting and makes some good points,
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:03 AM
Aug 2014

it does not support your assertion that only a minority of evangelicals support environmental issues as part of their religious platform.

This is not about how bad christian conservatives. This is not about how bad the tea party is. This is not about the environmental record of the republican party. We agree on all of that. This is about a simple issue on which we share some common ground with a group that we have little else in common with.

I see that as an opportunity. I'm going to encourage them to make that priority number one whenever I can. If nothing else, that will put some of their other priorities further down on the list.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
27. Ruh oh!!!
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:57 AM
Aug 2014

“three out of four evangelicals tend to support environmental causes such as reducing global warming or protecting wilderness areas from development, including one out of four who tend to support these issues strongly” (ECI 2006). Their polling also showed that 54% of evangelicals “believe that a person's Christian faith should generally encourage them to support environmental issues” (ECI 2006).

http://www.uvm.edu/~shali/Evangelicals.pdf

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
29. PEW found a different story.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:51 AM
Aug 2014

"Their polling also showed that 54% of evangelicals “believe that a person's Christian faith should generally encourage them to support environmental issues”

Also, neat-tastic, scroll on to the next paragraph to see the already-in-progress backlash to that above datapoint.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
31. No it doesn't.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 10:55 AM
Aug 2014

You said movement. Not 'people who answer sorta positive on a single survey'.

You know what a movement is right? Where is the activism that comes with it?



Strong my ass.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
34. Do you understand the difference between a movement and a datapoint on a poll, yes or no?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:06 AM
Aug 2014

A MOVEMENT would be the overwhelmingly evangelical Tea Party driving hordes of planet-destroying-for-a-few-bucks republicans into the house.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
35. No, I don't understand that at all.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:08 AM
Aug 2014

I'm not very smart, just ask around.

Anyway, I made a rather innocuous statement that you had some issue with. I gave you some information to support it. That information didn't completely fit your definition of the words I used.

Tough shit.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
39. Oh, that's almost as sophisticated as your jungle yell about your spleen.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:24 AM
Aug 2014

Perhaps you are fever-minded or sun-addled.

You might want to have someone take a look at that.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
41. As I told another member earlier, I have no problem with you getting a chuckle from me,
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:26 AM
Aug 2014

as long as you let me in on it.

It's the behind the back stuff that I object to.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
42. Serious question. Do you compartmentalize thread information?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:28 AM
Aug 2014

I know this is something I tended to do in the past, and I've worked to correct it, because valid data is valid regardless of venue, but the means in which you transitioned to that thread without a pause suggests a behavior I used to engage in quite commonly.

What raises a datapoint to a level of validity for you, that you would carry it from thread to thread? You acknowledged the info in the post upthread was interesting, but it didn't seem to alter your view at all. I could provide more, but I genuinely don't want to cross the threshold to a gish gallop...

Just trying to grok how to more productively converse.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
43. I'm really not sure what it is you are talking about.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:33 AM
Aug 2014

The comment that you responded to in the thread about the whining was made quite a while ago. I was responding to the article without any link to any other conversation. It seems that you are the one who made the link from one thread to the next.

What raises a datapoint to the level of validity for me? Well that depends. If it is true science, then I rely on statistical analyses that give concrete information on the probability that something is not just a random finding.

When it is more conjecture and based on some evidence but no hard data, the level of validity is higher to reach.

This seems to be personal for you and I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that you are asking in order to increase the productivity of the conversation. You have indicated on many occasions that it's really about winning the debate for you, not about increasing understanding.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
44. I certainly view the tea party and the various demographics of which it is assembled as 'the enemy'.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 11:44 AM
Aug 2014

Religion plays a significant part of that issue/demographic, and it displaces any possible claim of a 'strong movement' as I can possibly understand that phrase, when the religious components of the tea party are credited with the addition of MORE anti-environment, climate change denying republicans to institutions like the United States House of Representatives.

If they are numerically sufficient to accomplish that, what is left?

To me, a strong movement could demonstrate something like, neutering the Tea Party, by blocking their candidates/defeating them at polls. That isn't happening.

That is why I objected.


So you could say it is somewhat personal.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
45. I think you make an error when you conflate the tea party with evangelicals.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 12:00 PM
Aug 2014

While there is some overlap, they are by no means synonymous and, in fact, there has been some divisions noted between the two group. About ⅔'s of evangelicals identify as republicans, but only 44% of evangelicals say they agree with the tea party.

I think there is danger in making assumptions about one group based on another group just because there is some overlap in their membership.

You don't like the word strong. Fine, you win. Score your point and move on.

Silent3

(15,219 posts)
17. Yes, but one can never pass up a chance to display umbrage...
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:25 AM
Aug 2014

...when umbrage gets you out of answering a tough question.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
18. Excuse me?
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:28 AM
Aug 2014

Did you have something you wanted to say to me directly, or are you more comfortable talking about me indirectly?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
21. Aww, you resent it? Then maybe you should stop doing it.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:34 AM
Aug 2014

I'm happy to discuss things with you. You can either talk to me directly or about me. That's up to you.

Silent3

(15,219 posts)
22. Or I can just sit back and be amused as you take seriously that "I resent" comment...
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:40 AM
Aug 2014

...with the sarcasm flying right over your head.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
24. You sure can. I don't mind you having a chuckle at my expense at all,
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:45 AM
Aug 2014

as long as you share it with me.

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #11)

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
4. Well, somebody's god is doing a bang-up job
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:41 AM
Aug 2014

in screwing things up lately, if your view is correct.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
12. It's true and I'm sorry someone felt the need to mock your position.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 08:10 AM
Aug 2014

It's not some tiny fringe minority who thinks Earth was given to us by their god to dominate and exploit. Religious belief is tied directly to environmental stewardship, both positive and negative.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
14. I see the official mock squad had shown up.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:11 AM
Aug 2014

Luckily your posts have not been reviewed, so you are not yet on the official shit list.

More to the point, yes of course you are exactly right. It does matter. The issues are related.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
52. Hello there and welcome to the Religion group.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:31 AM
Aug 2014

We have had many interesting discussions about delusion as it pertains to religious belief.

How would you define delusion?

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
53. Per The Online Dictionary Cited Below
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:38 AM
Aug 2014

1:
the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

Given that there is no proof that a God exists, it is irresponsible to pursue the destruction of the planet's eco-sphere based on an unsubstantiated delusion.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
54. I agree that it is irresponsible to pursue the
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:49 AM
Aug 2014

destruction of the planet based on a religious belief.

But there are those that use their religious beliefs to pursue exactly the opposite approach. They feel they are stewards of the planet and environmentalism is high on their priority list.

Are they also delusional? Do you believe all religious people are psychotic?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
56. I agree with you, but that wasn't my question
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:57 AM
Aug 2014

You have said that those with a belief in a deity are delusional. I was asking whether you were using that as psychotic, which is one of the definitions that you provided.

I think, otherwise, we are probably on the same page. Protecting the eco-sphere is priority number one. Those that use religion to hamper that should be challenged. Those that use religion to pursue it should be supported.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
57. I Have No Problem With Those That Want Justify Their Personal Mission With The Delusion Of Deity
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:06 AM
Aug 2014

As long as their mission does not endanger the planet, eco-sphere and life thereto.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
58. On that we certainly agree on principle.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:18 AM
Aug 2014

I am going to assume, since you haven't clarified, that you mean delusion in a colloquial sense. Certainly you wouldn't think that most of the world's population and a great number of people who frequent this site, have a serious psychiatric disorder.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
59. I Am Not Qualified For A Medical Diagnosis - I Can Only Evaluate Behavior Using Definitions
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:28 AM
Aug 2014

As a guidepost, the definition would suggest that a belief in God is not rational.

That may or may not lead some to the conclusion that a psychiatric disorder is in play.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
60. Well, here we are going to disagree.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:34 AM
Aug 2014

A belief in god can be completely rational and most people who hold that belief are completely rational.

When there is something for which there is no evidence for or against, what is irrational is saying definitively that it does not exist.

There is no evidence for intelligent life in other places in the universe. If I believe that there is, am I irrational? delusional?

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
69. that is even more tired an laughable than the santa argument
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:22 PM
Aug 2014

Science actually has reason to believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. There is zero evidence for a divine being, and every bit of evidence that has been brought forth over the millenia has been refuted.

And to also callout your dilebrate mischaracterization of atheists as being hard line god does not exist, almost every atheist in the world (even the much hated here Dawkins) are agnostic, just waiting for something to show that god exists.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
77. There is zero evidence for intelligent life elsewhere
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 02:21 AM
Sep 2014

Zero. We believe that it is likely because of the infinite possibilities. Every bit of "evidence" that has been brought for the over the millennia has been refuted.

There is zero evidence for a god or gods. Some believe it is likely because of the infinite possibilities.

I already said that i know that most atheists are agonistic and have not made a statement contrary to that. I only call out those that take a ridiculous definitive stance about there being no god. The burden of proof is on them.

Tired and laughable? Now that's projection.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
67. The largest Christian church has a position quite the opposite...
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:34 AM
Aug 2014

Care for the environment represents a challenge for all of humanity. It is a matter of a common and universal duty, that of respecting a common good,[979] destined for all, by preventing anyone from using “with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate — animals, plants, the natural elements — simply as one wishes, according to one's own economic needs”.[980] It is a responsibility that must mature on the basis of the global dimension of the present ecological crisis and the consequent necessity to meet it on a worldwide level, since all beings are interdependent in the universal order established by the Creator. “One must take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the ‘cosmos' ”.[981]

467. Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”.[984] This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future,[985] a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.

468. Responsibility for the environment should also find adequate expression on a juridical level. It is important that the international community draw up uniform rules that will allow States to exercise more effective control over the various activities that have negative effects on the environment and to protect ecosystems by preventing the risk of accidents. “The State should also actively endeavour within its own territory to prevent destruction of the atmosphere and biosphere, by carefully monitoring, among other things, the impact of new technological or scientific advances ... [and] ensuring that its citizens are not exposed to dangerous pollutants or toxic wastes”.[986]


Lots more in the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, Chapter 10

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#CHAPTER TEN

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
71. we are aware the rcc did a big 180 about it recently
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:27 PM
Aug 2014

Totally makes up for the centuries or abusing the planet in God's name.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
76. You must be using the term "recently" in the sense of a 2000 year old church
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:28 PM
Aug 2014

Here is what Pope Paul VI had to say in 1972 - nearly yesterday

ON THE OCCASION of the opening of the United Nations Conference on Environment, which you have prepared zealously and competently, we would like to tell you and all the participants of the interest with which we follow this great enterprise. The care of preserving and improving the natural environment, like the noble ambition of stimulating a first gesture of world cooperation in favor of this good necessary for everyone, meets needs that are deeply felt among the men of our times.

Today, indeed, there is a growing awareness that man and his environment are more inseparable than ever. The environment essentially conditions man's life and development, while man, in his turn, perfects and ennobles his environment through his presence, work, and contemplation. But human creativeness will yield true and lasting fruit only to the extent to which man respects the laws that govern the vital impulse and nature's capacity for regeneration. Both are united, therefore, and share a common temporal future. So man is warned of the necessity of replacing the advance, often blind and turbulent, of material progress left to its dynamism alone, with respect for the biosphere in an overall vision of his domain, which has become "one Earth", to quote the fine motto of the Conference.


More at http://conservation.catholic.org/pope_paul_vi.htm

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
78. Exactly how did the catholic church abuse the planet in god's name for centuries?
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 02:28 AM
Sep 2014

Were they any more responsible or negligent than, say, you?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
86. I wouldn't hang around just hoping that it might.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 03:02 PM
Sep 2014

I would love to have an honest conversation with this person, but I don't think that will ever happen.

It's easier to talk about people behind their backs than to their face, but the results are so much less gratifying in the long term.

Hope you are well, okasha.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
87. Well, we just have to remember
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 07:58 PM
Sep 2014

that anything unfortunate that has happened in the last 2000 years, including bubonic plague and the Wars of the Roses, was caused by the Catholic Church.

Doing well, thanks. Back in the studio, this afternoon got clay in my hair to prove it.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
15. Good message! It cannot be repeated too often.
Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:16 AM
Aug 2014

Whether it was created or evolved is irrelevant in comparison to what we are doing with it.
Some claim we are "stewards". I find that claim rather absurd, as we seem to be doing our best to destroy it, at least in terms of a survivable habitat for humans.

Those who believe in a God creator tend to subscribe to the "stewardship" role. Few of them live up to it, especially in the industrialized world. The Amish and other Mennonite communities are probably doing the least harm amongst Christians.

And observant Jews don't drive on the Sabbath. How many Christians car pool or walk to church?

Otherwise, most of us don't give damn, as long as we can have climate control in our cars and offices and homes, and a cold beer to watch the game with.

As you can tell from some of the replies, your message means little to some, who will choke to death from the fumes before giving up their petty disdain for those who dare to believe in creation.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
47. Perhaps it means little to some because it is patently dishonest.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 02:02 AM
Aug 2014

Or do you really think the total lack of progress made in combating global climate change is due, in any part, to cosmological debate?

As you can tell from some of the replies, your message means little to some, who will choke to death from the fumes before giving up their petty disdain for those who dare to believe in creation.


Apparently, you do.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
48. Patently dishonest? Really?
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 03:08 AM
Aug 2014

Do I think the lack of progress is due in any part to the "cosmological debate"? Of course not.

It is due to apathy, greed, arrogance, complacency, hypocrisy, dishonesty, consumerism and a lack of debate about these things.
Debate, or lack of debate about cosmology has no direct effect on climate change, just as masturbation, or lack of masturbation has any effect on population growth.


Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
50. Yes, really.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 04:58 AM
Aug 2014

Because if cosmological debate is in no way related to progress, or lack thereof, on the issue of global climate change, then there is no need to stop discussing one in order to accomplish the other. Yet, that is precisely how this particular meme is framed. It is a misrepresentation of the relationship between these issues (there is none), and a mischaracterization of their advocates.

Which brings me back to this gem:


As you can tell from some of the replies, your message means little to some, who will choke to death from the fumes before giving up their petty disdain for those who dare to believe in creation.


I'm willing to accept the possibility that you've simply confused the predictive "will" for the hypothetical "would", and thereby inadvertently established such a dubious relationship between these issues yourself. But that doesn't make what you said any more honest.

I haven't seen too many atheists on the ballots lately. If the "some" of the posters to whom you refer are the voting type, then obviously they are putting aside their disdain for creation in order to tackle issues they see as more pertinent.


Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
63. I wasn't talking about atheists, just some posters who happen to be atheists.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 07:55 AM
Aug 2014

I don't confuse atheists with those obsessed with fighting religion to the point where little, if nothing else, matters.
I think the average atheist thinks more about environmental issues than the average believer. That's why I am a little miffed when I see some spend so much time and energy fighting beliefs and alienating believers, rather than setting a good example and showing others how we can be responsible inhabitants of this planet and be civil at the same time. We don't have a "Rapture" to bail us out. We only have ourselves and we need to lead by example.
I realize that not all atheists are good people or good environmentalists. Doesn't stop me from encouraging them to be. Nastiness toward believers gets us nowhere.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
68. This is an unfair assertion.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 05:58 PM
Aug 2014

I, for one, have no idea what other things any posters here are doing besides discussing religion on DU. I don't believe that you do either. But if I were to make the same assumptions that you are making here, I would say that there are many believers who are also obsessed with this fight at the exclusion of other issues.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
73. I'm not sure what you think I'm asserting.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 07:27 PM
Aug 2014

I'm referring to what some are doing here. This is where I see them. I have no idea what they are doing in the real world. Most of my friends are environmentalists, be they atheist or religious. I've worked with progressive Christians who have organized and created some of the most innovative and successful, self sustainable, carbon free housing projects. Nobody cared about who believes what religiously. The goals are common.

Those who spend most of their time being divisive, be they atheists or Christians, are assholes IMO. I make no assumptions, btw. I'm speaking from experience here. Most of us atheists who participate in this group do so with civility and respect for other members. I include you in that. A handful feel the need to attack and disrupt any conversation that smacks of "religious apology", in their opinion. Saying anything positive about Pope Francis, for example, is pounced on as being an apologist for every sin ever committed by the Catholic Church, including pedophile priests and it's official stance on homosexuality.
It's good to see you participating here. We need more atheists and agnostics to engage in civilized and respectful debate. This is a good group. Don't be turned off by the haters and baiters on either side of the aisle.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
74. To be clear on what I think you are asserting...
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 08:02 PM
Aug 2014
I don't confuse atheists with those obsessed with fighting religion to the point where little, if nothing else, matters.


I am saying that the posters who are fighting religion here may well have other things that matter to them as well. You make it sound as if some individuals care about nothing else with that statement.

I know that it gets rather contentious here in this group, which is why I don't come here often. And that goes both ways, some believers and some non-believers. That seems to be the nature of this group, and that is why there are other safe haven groups where we don't have to fight battles over religion. The haters and baiters on either side seem to rule here. When one baits the other or gets snarky (often just because of who they are more than what they said in that particular post), it just fuel the fire further. And it is a turn-off to me so I usually just stay away. Thanks for the support though.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
79. All I'm doing is differentiating between mainstream atheists and extremists.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 08:50 AM
Sep 2014

I don't consider you to be an extremist, nor do I consider the majority of those who post here, or in A&A. They are very few in number, as are the extreme religionists.

Of course, those who are fighting religion here have other things that matter to them, but in the context of this group, it would not seem so. I'm not calling out any individuals here. The two or three who hang out here are known to all because they never have anything constructive or positive to say. There are people in this world who like to suck the air right out of a room when they enter. I'm sure you've met them IRL, we all have.
Fortunately, this is only a virtual room, where we can ignore posters who only disrupt, and conversations we don't wish to engage in.

I know how much it can be a turn-off, and I have been drawn into the fray more than once, I admit. But, of late, things have calmed down a lot and there are some great conversations, along with quite a few interesting new members.

This is a good thread, IMO, with a lively back and forth. Very little snark. Lots of challenges, which is healthy. It definitely isn't choir practice. More like a workout. Those who stay away from the personal insults and attacks have a good time. People respect civility and good conversation, no matter how oppositional it may be.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
81. which is why what you are doing has been characterized as patently dishonest.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:01 AM
Sep 2014

You are attempting to derail the discussion into "Bad Atheists". As you are horrified and angered by other such derailments, you should be very angry with yourself.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
82. Not at all. There are no "bad atheists". in my opinion.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:50 AM
Sep 2014

Just as there are no "bad Christians".
I don't do the purity thing Warren.

There are good citizens and bad citizens, as there are good contributors to DU and our common cause and there are jerks who just like to sling shit and create divisiveness. Fortunately, those jerks are a tiny minority.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
70. That I understood. And I still think you're wrong.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 06:26 PM
Aug 2014

Like I said, if those posters are the voting type -- and I think it a reasonable assumption, by virtue of their presence on a political forum, that they are -- then obviously their opposition to a creationist cosmological model does not preclude collaboration with believers on secular issues of import. Many of them, like myself, are in the position where voting for an atheist is simply not an option. Instead, we vote for believers who, apart from their religious beliefs, best represent us on other issues. I can't think of a single person here who abstains because they refuse to throw their support behind someone whose religious beliefs do not entirely comport with their own.

Frankly, I don't understand what manner of world you think posters here inhabit. We are a minority in this country. Merely getting by day-to-day necessitates collaboration and cooperation with people with whom we may disagree. The kind of person you describe, who would rather die than extend the slightest courtesy to a believer, would simply not survive in such an environment.

That's why I am a little miffed when I see some spend so much time and energy fighting beliefs and alienating believers, rather than setting a good example and showing others how we can be responsible inhabitants of this planet and be civil at the same time. We don't have a "Rapture" to bail us out. We only have ourselves and we need to lead by example.
I realize that not all atheists are good people or good environmentalists. Doesn't stop me from encouraging them to be. Nastiness toward believers gets us nowhere.


You're drawing non-existent parallels again. Who are these people atheists are alienating from environmentalism with their persistent, and apparently uncivil, questioning of creationism? Is there anyone here, or elsewhere, who has or possibly will become so disillusioned with environmentalism, or liberalism in general, as a consequence that they'll go out and buy an H2 or start voting for the GOP?

Frankly, I don't think these people exist.

I understand, and actually appreciate, that you'd prefer a more civil dialogue between believers and non-believers. But what you are suggesting, in effect, is that to achieve this ideal atheists have to stop questioning beliefs commonly held on our side of the political aisle. I don't agree: mostly, because many of these beliefs are not without consequence, but also because keeping our traps shut does nothing to address the issue of religious privilege within our party.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
72. I have no issue, essentially, with what you are saying
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 07:00 PM
Aug 2014

I'm not drawing parallels, however, between atheists and environmentalists. First of all, I do not think that atheists, in general, are alienating anyone. A vocal minority of anti-theists spend much of their time alienating all and everyone who comes within their sights, be they people of faith or tolerant, "live and let live atheists". Their purpose is to alienate, period. Their goal is to divide us all into believers and non-believers and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Of course, they don't openly offend people IRL. They have to survive. They only do that here, hopefully. But, I doubt they work with progressive religious groups IRL, on environmental projects which are in all our interests.

I do not think anyone should stop questioning beliefs or stating their own beliefs. I think we can have civilized and respectful dialog, without the insults and accusations of delusion and insanity. I do not support religious privilege or privilege of any sort, unless it is earned.
Respect.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
75. I can't speak authoritatively to the motivations of others.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 08:19 PM
Aug 2014

But from my interactions with the atheists on this board, I cannot agree that any of them come here with the sole motivation of breaking up the party. Rather, I think the disconnect is largely due to a fundamental disagreement over the importance of certain issues, the effects of which are exacerbated by personalities who are seen as trying to dominate, direct, and/or dictate the course of discussion to comport with their personal feelings on the matter.

The issue of alienation is really a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem. Are the posters you describe alienating progressive believers and faith-friendly atheists, or have they themselves been alienated by progressive believers and faith-friendly atheists? The answer seems to me to be cyclical; a feedback loop of mutual disrespect and alienation. Addressing only one side of that equation will only result in its continued imbalance. If civil discourse is really something people desire, then they're going to have to take a good look at themselves and the people standing next to them, not just those standing across the aisle.

That is, in any event, my admittedly anecdotal opinion on the matter.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
80. well there is a relationship as theistic beliefs that gods gave us this planet with
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 10:58 AM
Sep 2014

its bountiful cornucopia as ours to consume are easily bent by propaganda hacks for the oil companies into opposition to acceptance of climate change science on religious grounds.

Disbelief by itself doesn't have such an angle, although of course Randian Objectivists can get bent into similar idiocy, but their atheism is subservient to their Objectivist idiocy. And really there are like 40 actual Objectivists, the rest of the randroids are just uninformed liberloons. These goofballs are as likely to be religious as non-religious and oppose climate science on political grounds, "because government".

Certainly the whack-a-doodle theocratic right in this country, which appears to be something like 30% or so of the voting population, has established climate denial as one of the pillars of their theocratic world view.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
84. That is definitely the case.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 01:27 PM
Sep 2014

And, apart from the whole "God made this world for us" arrogance, there's also issue of Revelation. Man can't destroy the world with climate change, because destroying the world is God's job, and the process is clearly delineated in the Bible. Or, for those who take Revelation less literally but nevertheless accept its apocalyptic prophesy, the end of the world is a good thing, and shouldn't be avoided.

Because climate change denial, for some, is inextricably wrapped up in religious belief, questioning those beliefs can be considered in and of itself environmentalist action. Like others have said, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

If we can learn anything from this, it is that if your position on a particular issue is simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker or a jpeg, you probably haven't put enough thought into it.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
48. Patently dishonest? Really?
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 03:08 AM
Aug 2014

Do I think the lack of progress is due in any part to the "cosmological debate"? Of course not.

It is due to apathy, greed, arrogance, complacency, hypocrisy, dishonesty, consumerism and a lack of debate about these things.
Debate, or lack of debate about cosmology has no direct effect on climate change, just as masturbation, or lack of masturbation has any effect on population growth.


 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
83. Stop fighting about who created the world....
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 01:11 PM
Sep 2014

Because there is no "who" involved in the creating, but definitely some "who's" in the destroying category.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Stop fighting about who c...