Atheism, Evolution and Environmental conservation

[S.A.M.]

Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants). Besides, they are apparently atheist, according to Enmos, so it makes sense that theists would eat them. Thats evolution. Survival of teh fattest.

 

[iceaura]

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

But they do, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So there's something going on you don't understand.

You have a basic problem: the world does not match your theoretical expectations. In the US, for example, the more religious and theistic the person the less likely they are to support environmental conservation, and vice versa - perhaps the most famous example was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, but there is and has been no shortage of examples in positions of authority, now and in the past.

There is a faction of theists that is trying to promote a "stewardship" outlook, but they are having an uphill struggle.

The large influx of theists that has altered the demographics of so much of the most vulnerable ecological zones has set things back a bit - it takes a generation or two at least to get people from a theistic tradition up to speed, so to speak.

And so the environmental movement in the US has been largely atheistic and (to a lesser degree) areligious - unless you count that "nature mysticism" you find so far inferior to the great wisdom of the institutionalized monotheisms.

 

[Simon Anders]

Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants). Besides, they are apparently atheist, according to Enmos, so it makes sense that theists would eat them. Thats evolution. Survival of teh fattest.

sigh. I guess we all deserve your style regardless...
maybe another day...I am sure somebody deserves your approach, but I don't....

 

[S.A.M.]

But they do, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So there's something going on you don't understand.

You have a basic problem: the world does not match your theoretical expectations. In the US, for example, the more religious and theistic the person the less likely they are to support environmental conservation, and vice versa - perhaps the most famous example was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, but there is and has been no shortage of examples in positions of authority, now and in the past.

There is a faction of theists that is trying to promote a "stewardship" outlook, but they are having an uphill struggle.

The large influx of theists that has altered the demographics of so much of the most vulnerable ecological zones has set things back a bit - it takes a generation or two at least to get people from a theistic tradition up to speed, so to speak.

And so the environmental movement in the US has been largely atheistic and (to a lesser degree) areligious - unless you count that "nature mysticism" you find so far inferior to the great wisdom of the institutionalized monotheisms.

So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations? Interesting.

And the main point I was making?

More irrationalities, obviously.

 

[Simon Anders]

More irrationalities, obviously.

Good argument. I now believe that atheists either actually believe in God or don't care about nature. I gotta tell my dad. I love when he looks confused by things I say.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good argument. I now believe that atheists either actually believe in God or don't care about nature. I gotta tell my dad. I love when he looks confused by things I say.

I'll think of some more.

 

[Simon Anders]

I'll think of some more.

Some more things I say? Wow.

 

[iceaura]

So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations?

No.

Keep trying, though. You have to labor like a mosquito biting at an iron bar, the pros say.

 

[S.A.M.]

No.

Keep trying, though. You have to labor like a mosquito biting at an iron bar, the pros say.

So atheists who support the environment are not thinking about an unknown future while the religious make hay?

 

[iceaura]

So atheists who support the environment are not thinking about an unknown future while the religious make hay?

Nope. Closer, though.

 

[Simon Anders]

Nope. Closer, though.

I like this response. I doubt it will produce a fuller reply on SAM's part, but the lack of clarification is the perfect response to conclusions that are implied to be obvious.

I am learning from everyone on this thread. I am not sure it is anything valuable, but who knows, verbal fencing might be good training for other, more productive thought.

 

[tim840]

What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals?

 

[iceaura]

What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals?

But they aren't. So - - -

 

[Simon Anders]

What about protection of endangered species? If a species dies out, it's evolution. So shouldn't atheists be opposed to the protection of near-extinct animals?

It's evolution either way. So they get to choose what they want.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

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.

*************
M*W: No, that is not true. Just because we're atheist doesn't mean we're not law abiding . Rules are needed for an orderly society. I don't think any atheist would deny this. It's the logical truth. It's deities and their mythologies that we don't believe, not the the normal and customary rules of our respective societies.

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

*************
M*W: Again, this is conducive to an orderly society. I don't think of it as being "brainwashed" so much as a progressive learning process. We tell a three-year-old to look both ways when crossing the street. We tell that same 16 year-old-kid not to speed when he's driving a car. I really don't see a problem with teaching children about the laws of their society. I do have a problem teaching them about gods that really don't exist. It's called "lying."

 

[scorpius]

So IOW, theists in the US are following the evolutionary process while atheists are fantasising about future generations?

not exactly,
xians are trying to destroy the world little bit faster as they want to bring about their unfulfilled prophecy of the End Days.

plus their belief in going to haven no matter what,as long as they pray have fate does NOT give them any incentive to make the world a better place,
or be a better person.. come to think of it...SAD aint it?

atheists on the other hand CARE for future generations,as we know this world is all we have
so as you can see; atheists morality beats your religious nuts again!

now give me one good reason why shouldnt we eliminate all the religious loonies who are danger to us, from this world?

 

[scorpius]

..atheists are different. They decide for themselves, hence they have no rules.
.

seriously... what are you; a TROLL or a mental midget?

 

[James R]

SAM:

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

Why do you persist in this delusion that all atheists share views on every other subject as well as the existence of gods?

Some atheists are conservationists; some aren't. Belief in gods is irrelevant to the issue, as far as I can see.

Yeah, but as atheists who believe in evolution, isn't environmental conservation redundant?

What a strange thing to say. Evolution will occur with or without environmental conservation. These are another two subjects that are unconnected.

I'm wondering how atheists define "conservation" in the light of evolution.

Conservation (n.): The act of preserving, guarding, or protecting; the keeping (of a thing) in a safe or entire state; preservation.

The definition does not mention evolution.

But its illogical. All change is evolution. All people are motivated to multiply and support themselves on resources. Why should anyone prevent them from doing so, because of what may or may not happen in the future? And if they care so much, why do they use any resources themselves?

Nobody can live without using resources.

If you're asking why an exploding human population is a bad idea, the simple answer is that too many humans will mean, at the very least, great suffering for many - both humans and other lifeforms.

Animals don't suffer when we eat them. They're already dead (unlike plants, which are consumed live or after boiling in oil, even infants).

Have you made the connection that before we eat an animal, we kill it?

 

[Simon Anders]

SAM:
Why do you persist in this delusion that all atheists share views on every other subject as well as the existence of gods?

She doesn't. She is trying to say that the way atheists criticize theists - that they have irrational faith based beliefs - can be applied to their actions in relation to an unknowable future as seen in their concern about the environment. Those that have this latter. So the issue isn't can an atheist be a conservationist. She knows this is possible.

 

[Balerion]

She's trolling, is what she's doing. Seriously, there is no validity to anything she says.