Coggins7 wrote:What do you think? That, man can do as he freaking pleases and the eco-system is immune because your (imaginary) God designed it for our specific use and it is indestructable? Or maybe you think Jesus will show up soon and clean it all up anyway (in every generation christians always say he will show up in about 50 years).
Watching you self destruct intellectually can be amusing on certain occasions Tarski, it really can. Like so many environmental cultists, you quite clearly cannot differentiate between science and your own quasi-religious beliefs about nature.
Thank you for proving my point. You have demonstrated that you pay no attention to what is really going on. For example, you claim out of thin air that I have quasi-religious beliefs about nature.
Oh really? What are those? How did you read my mind? You just assumed a bunch of sh*t as usual, didn't you?
I hate to break it to you, but I do not hold that nature is the standard of good. There are numerous things that are natural that I think of as distastful. All sorts of bloody and diseased things go on in nature.
The list of beliefs that I have about nature include
1. that there actually is an ecosystem and it isn't indestructible;
2. people need things produced by plants and animals such as oxygen, food calories, and these in turn need sunlight, good soil and myriad other conditions;
3. most people feel more aesthetically comfortable in an unpolluted environment that includes natural things like trees and blue sky;
4. it is manifestly unwise to pollute the environment and unwise to willy nilly use up resources that are not renewable.
5. turning a profit is good, but not the greatest good.
OK, are any of these quasi-religious so far?
If not, they why did you say it? Never mind, I already know why you said it. The reason: You pay as little real attention to the realities of your interlocutor's arguments and ideas as you do to political, scientific and environmental realities.
On the other hand, I am wondering whether
you might not be the one to hold quasi-religious ideas about nature.
How about the following:
1. God made nature for man's use.
2. Man cannot destoy the planet even if he tried because Jesus would show up and intervene.
3. Elohim and Jehovah made everything (poof!), plant and animal, in its own sphere and commanded each to to multiply in their respective elements, each after their kind. They divided the light from the darkness, and called the light "day" and the darkness "night". They caused the lights in the firmament to appear; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to "rule" the night. They also caused the stars to appear and light earth for man's benefit.
Well, I guess those are
explicitly religious (and not evidence based).
Ironically, it seems to me that you hold more firmly to your politics, defined soley by its opposition to the bugbear of liberalism, than you do to the words of your own God.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo