Atheism, Evolution and Environmental conservation

[Simon Anders]

I study nutrition because the relationship between food and metabolism is fascinating to me.

So an atheist cannot find nature fascinating and care about it and even while knowing he or she cannot know 100% whether it will be there in the future, opt to have it treated with care? Do you really think they are acting on faith rather than doing things given what they consider likely to happen or be in the future? Do you really think a cost benefit analysis - without faith in God - leaves them with no justification for thinking it probable there will be nature here in 100 years or that they think they are contributing to greater liklihood of that?

We can discuss wbout theists elsewhere if you like. But most religions have rules about living.

Everyone has rules about living.

 

[iceaura]

Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?

Why?

Fox News specializes in that kind of "question".

The answers are:

1) "Yes, in fact they are responsible for much of the political movement for it."
and
2) Depends on the person.

No I cannot understand how an atheist can care about the unknown. That requires faith.

You don't understand how an atheist can have faith? You have been crippled in your ability to understand other human beings by a theistic upbringing and a trivialization of human nature. No one can help you in that lack of understanding, until you sincerely wish to learn.

 

[S.A.M.]

So an atheist cannot find nature fascinating and care about it and even while knowing he or she cannot know 100% whether it will be there in the future, opt to have it treated with care? Do you really think they are acting on faith rather than doing things given what they consider likely to happen or be in the future? Do you really think a cost benefit analysis - without faith in God - leaves them with no justification for thinking it probable there will be nature here in 100 years or that they think they are contributing to greater liklihood of that?

Sure atheists can find nature fascinating, but clearly no one is leaving home to go live in the woods, so its not that fascinating, is it? Besides, it won't be fascinating after you're dead and unless you think the neanderthals had it good, conserving it for the future seems like a nonsequitor.

Everyone has rules about living.

No, not really

You don't understand how an atheist can have faith? You have been crippled in your ability to understand other human beings by a theistic upbringing and a trivialization of human nature. No one can help you in that lack of understanding, until you sincerely wish to learn.

I don't believe an atheist should have faith, thats against everything they believe in.

Right as in moral? Or do you mean 'that's what I would expect from an atheist and not more'?

Right as in consistent.

 

[Enmos]

Do atheists who believe in evolution also believe in environmental conservation?

Why?

Conservation as in leaving nature the fuck alone ? Yes. Well I do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Conservation as in leaving nature the fuck alone ? Yes. Well I do.

Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked?

 

[Simon Anders]

Sure atheists can find nature fascinating, but clearly no one is leaving home to go live in the woods, so its not that fascinating, is it? Besides, it won't be fascinating after you're dead and unless you think the neanderthals had it good, conserving it for the future seems like a nonsequitor.

You can't imagine they want something to live after they are dead that they care about? How strange.

No, not really

You need to give me an example. Every person I have ever met could get upset when I broke this or that rule they had, including sociopaths.

Further I noticed that above you said religions have rules for living. So the reason you are for conservation of nature is because of the rules?

 

[Enmos]

Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked?

How is that leaving nature alone ? Nothing would be left of the forest within months.

 

[Simon Anders]

Do you live in the woods and eat nuts and berries? Are you naked?

You have a very limited idea about how one must relate to nature. Not that there's anything wrong with being naked and eating nuts in the woods. I've done that. I'm not an atheist, but I know at least one atheist who does that occasionally. She's a great kayaker. She has great concerns about nature in the arctic regions, does not believe in God and is unsure about the future. Nevertheless she tries to see to it that the region is and will continue to be as healthy as possible.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can't imagine they want something to live after they are dead that they care about? How strange.

No its irrational.

You need to give me an example. Every person I have ever met could get upset when I broke this or that rule they had, including sociopaths.

Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.

Further I noticed that above you said religions have rules for living. So the reason you are for conservation of nature is because of the rules?

Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.

How is that leaving nature alone ? Nothing would be left of the forest within months.

You have a very limited idea about how one must relate to nature.

No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.

 

[Enmos]

No its irrational.

Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.

Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.

No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.

Oh come on ! :bugeye:

 

[Enmos]

No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.

No that's not what I want, it's what I need.

 

[Enmos]

The main reasons why atheists might want to protect the environment would probably be because they realize that damage to the environment can negatively impact humans today and future human generations, and/or because they like the natural world/wild animals/etc and dont want to see it damaged by human activity.

By "protect" the environment one generally means not dumping poisons or disruptive materials into it, destroying ecosystems, killing off so many animals or plants that ecosystems are badly altered, etc. What else would it mean?

I would happily kill myself if I knew it would safe the natural world from the ongoing destruction it endures today and in the future.

 

[Simon Anders]

No its irrational.

Funny, I thought if you didn't believe in God you still had feelings. I've always found the irrational/rational split very odd, both in the minds of many religious people and many non-religious people. I do believe that, for example, atheist parents love their children.

Most people just follow rules that other people have set down for them. But atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.

It has always seemed to me they decide on rules and how to come up with them just like everyone else does. But perhaps atheists in India are different. (I can play dumb for rhetoric's sake also)

Of course, we are brainwashed from birth into accepting laws and morals.

which was meant as ironic. But it seemed implicit in your saying above that religions have rules for living which atheists do not. Is there another difference between the two groups? What is that difference that makes religious people care about nature other than the rules - and by the way I am not saying that is why religious people do care, those that do. Just pointing out that it seemed implicit in your response to me. If it is not simply following rules what is it and why could this also not be a motivation for atheists?

No I was just testing his conviction. Clearly he means leave nature alone, except for what he needs from it.

Something many people seem to believe, but a lot comes down on that word 'need'.

 

[S.A.M.]

Funny, I thought if you didn't believe in God you still had feelings. I've always found the irrational/rational split very odd, both in the minds of many religious people and many non-religious people. I do believe that, for example, atheist parents love their children.

Thats rational, they carry their genes, which are important to atheists. But only till they're dead of course. After that its all in the realm of fantasy.

It has always seemed to me they decide on rules and how to come up with them just like everyone else does. But perhaps atheists in India are different. (I can play dumb for rhetoric's sake also)

Atheists in India just follow the rules of theism. Like many people do stuff they don't really believe in.

which was meant as ironic. But it seemed implicit in your saying above that religions have rules for living which atheists do not. Is there another difference between the two groups? What is that difference that makes religious people care about nature other than the rules - and by the way I am not saying that is why religious people do care, those that do. Just pointing out that it seemed implicit in your response to me. If it is not simply following rules what is it and why could this also not be a motivation for atheists?

Its irrational. Theists are irrational, atheists are not.

Something many people seem to believe, but a lot comes down on that word 'need'.

Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

 

[Enmos]

Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

Really ? Is it ?

If you NEED it you can still think it's wrong. Or do you not think so ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Really ? Is it ?

If you NEED it you can still think it's wrong. Or do you not think so ?

Like eating cake when you're diabetic? But then you don't go around making a big deal about cakes do you?

 

[Enmos]

Like eating cake when you're diabetic? But then you don't go around making a big deal about cakes do you?

NEED.

I NEED food to live, don't you ?
But at the same time I see that the sheer number of people NEEDING food does to the environment.

 

[S.A.M.]

NEED.

I NEED food to live, don't you ?
But at the same time I see that the sheer number of people NEEDING food does to the environment.

Well then its irrational to boycott food if you need it. Just because you have diabetes, why should everyone else not eat cake?

And hey if a lot of people needing food is damaging to the environment, you have it in your power to reduce that number by one.

 

[Enmos]

Well then its irrational to boycott food if you need it. Just because you have diabetes, why should everyone else not eat cake?

Who said anything about boycotting food ?

 

[Simon Anders]

Its irrational. Theists are irrational, atheists are not.

Oh, is this your point. Atheists have claimed that everything they do is rational and they have no axioms they assume and build from. You've been talking to the wrong atheists, but I get where you are coming from.

Yeah, but if I say I am against pedophilia but I abuse a child because I "need" it, its pretty ridiculous, don't you think?

Yeah, I notice how much both atheists and religious people make kids sacred and then treat them like shit either daily or when push comes to shove.

I notice that the Koran indicates that reducing animals suffering is a good thing. Further reduction of animals suffering could take place by not eating so much meat. Ah, well. (not that this hypocrisy is limited to Muslims, or the religious. It is very widespread.)

Everybody has values that contexts allow them to break. There are very very few people who are consistant and those who are are usually intolerable and spread a dark clouds of unpleasance in every interaction.