Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheistic morality: Is harm to animals on a continuum with harm to humans?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Come now.
    I noticed you failed to address the admissions of your cult leaders that it's all about the money.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Your message got lost in your words.
      So many possible responses to this...
      I'll keep it to "I'll work on brevity"

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      OK, I still think that analogy sucked, cause it could EASILY be resolved, whereas the question of climate change cannot. But, I'll accept... um... your effort.
      You're entitled to your opinion... - But then you might want to consider permitting the opinion that the Trinity analogy sucked as well...

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Carpe, I'm an old fart, I could DIE reading through your stuff to find the point! Life is SHORT! I am VERY thankful that there are more patient people on the planet like Ox.
      I'm an old fart too, CP. I have already plead guilty to verbosity. 'Nuff said (from me).

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      OK, cool. So, to your question about (paraphrasing) who's asking for big bucks..... This is the kind of stuff - actually said by the climate alarmists themselves - that reveals their motives.

      Source: Investors Business Daily

      We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

      If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

      Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

      "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

      So what is the goal of environmental policy?

      "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

      For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

      Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

      "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

      "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

      The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

      Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."

      source

      © Copyright Original Source



      Now, if you can demonstrate that this is hype, or that they were misquoted or misrepresented....
      This is the first time I've heard of this, so I tried to find sources for the quotes attributed to Ottmar Edenhoffer. I immediately hit a lot of right-wing sites that made claims like the ones above. It took a while to dig to his original comments in context. It appears that many of his comments were lifted out of context, and then rearranged to create the narrative above. As best I can tell, Edenhoffer never said it was a GOAL of climate activism to redistribute wealth. He was saying that acting on today's climate science, which implies shutting down the fossil fuels industry and replacing it with renewables, will have the effect of "redistributing wealth." His point was that this would effectively change the value of natural resources. Coal and oil, currently very valuable, would become valueless. That means countries rich in coal and oil and dependent on that wealth would suddenly have a worthless asset. Meanwhile, countries with the natural resources needed to build wind turbines, solar panels, etc., would suddenly have resources whose value is increasing. He was pointing out that this inevitable wealth "redistribution" would be a cause for resistance by oil/coal-rich countries and acceptance/enthusiasm by countries with the desired resources.

      His basic point was that, unlike efforts to close the Ozone hole or handle Amazon deforestation, we are now talking about policy changes that will have direct economic impact on countries by re-valuing their natural resources. Since he is of German background, I suspect he had no clue that the words "wealth redistribution" would strike a pain point in the U.S. right. One place to find his comments is here. You can also find his own words and positions here.

      Then I looked up Investor's Business Daily, and find they have a ranking of between right and right-center on several evaluation platforms, and an accuracy reputation of "mixed," which puts them approximately on par with CNN, though not quite as far right as CNN is left.

      -FWIW
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        I got used to it a long time ago. When it's pertinent to the discussion, I'll correct people about my political beliefs. When it isn't, what they assume I am doesn't matter.
        Yeah - pretty much the same here. Only I've pretty much given up on correcting people about my political beliefs. They don't believe me anyway.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          This is the first time I've heard of this, so I tried to find sources for the quotes attributed to Ottmar Edenhoffer. I immediately hit a lot of right-wing sites that made claims like the ones above. It took a while to dig to his original comments in context. It appears that many of his comments were lifted out of context, and then rearranged to create the narrative above. As best I can tell, Edenhoffer never said it was a GOAL of climate activism to redistribute wealth. He was saying that acting on today's climate science, which implies shutting down the fossil fuels industry and replacing it with renewables, will have the effect of "redistributing wealth." His point was that this would effectively change the value of natural resources. Coal and oil, currently very valuable, would become valueless. That means countries rich in coal and oil and dependent on that wealth would suddenly have a worthless asset. Meanwhile, countries with the natural resources needed to build wind turbines, solar panels, etc., would suddenly have resources whose value is increasing. He was pointing out that this inevitable wealth "redistribution" would be a cause for resistance by oil/coal-rich countries and acceptance/enthusiasm by countries with the desired resources.

          His basic point was that, unlike efforts to close the Ozone hole or handle Amazon deforestation, we are now talking about policy changes that will have direct economic impact on countries by re-valuing their natural resources. Since he is of German background, I suspect he had no clue that the words "wealth redistribution" would strike a pain point in the U.S. right. One place to find his comments is here. You can also find his own words and positions here.

          Then I looked up Investor's Business Daily, and find they have a ranking of between right and right-center on several evaluation platforms, and an accuracy reputation of "mixed," which puts them approximately on par with CNN, though not quite as far right as CNN is left.

          -FWIW
          First of all, thank you for doing Tassman's leg work for him.

          Second, I don't think it's any secret that IBD is more conservative - but that doesn't change what was actually said.

          As far as context, I'll go back and look st this again, but you don't seem to be denying there's a real "redistributing wealth" component to this.

          This is worth further study for me.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            First of all, thank you for doing Tassman's leg work for him.
            What on earth does Tassman have to do with this? My response was to a post in which you were responding to me...

            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Second, I don't think it's any secret that IBD is more conservative - but that doesn't change what was actually said.
            It doesn't, but the more a site skews left or right, the more I am on the watch for "selective" quotes and inserting them into a pre-existing narrative. That appears to be what was done here.

            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            As far as context, I'll go back and look st this again, but you don't seem to be denying there's a real "redistributing wealth" component to this.

            This is worth further study for me.
            No - there is no denying there was a "redistributing wealth" component. The difference is this:

            Statement A: We are advocating for climate change legislation for the purpose of redistributing wealth between nations.
            Statement B: As we address climate change, it will fundamentally impact wealth distribution by changing the value of natural resources.

            The IBD article, and your post, suggested that Statement A was being made. When you go back to the source, it turns out Statement B is what was being said. Statement B seems pretty obvious to me. If coal/oil cease being used as fuel sources, countries with an abundance of them will suddenly find themselves with a lot less wealth.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Yeah - pretty much the same here. Only I've pretty much given up on correcting people about my political beliefs. They don't believe me anyway.
              Evidence always tends to trump claims.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Evidence always tends to trump claims.
                I rest my case...
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I rest my case...
                  I appreciate your acknowledgement of the evidence.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I noticed you failed to address the admissions of your cult leaders that it's all about the money.
                    No, it's about the certain risk of damaging climate change as far as the vast majority of climate scientists are concerned. Any money being made out of this is via the likes of Exxon Mobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change. This and similar has been public knowledge for a long time, now.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      One "believes", in this instance, because of the considerable evidence which is available from the "authority" to which I'm appealing.
                      If you actually know what the evidence is and how the scientific community argues from that evidence to its conclusion, then you should be appealing to the evidence, not the consensus within that community. When a climate change denier asks "What evidence?" you should be able to tell them everything they need to know. Until you can do that, your argument from authority counts for no more than an apologist's appeal to a consensus among conservative New Testament scholars that the gospels are reliable historical documents.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        If you actually know what the evidence is and how the scientific community argues from that evidence to its conclusion, then you should be appealing to the evidence, not the consensus within that community. When a climate change denier asks "What evidence?" you should be able to tell them everything they need to know. Until you can do that, your argument from authority counts for no more than an apologist's appeal to a consensus among conservative New Testament scholars that the gospels are reliable historical documents.
                        I appealed to the consensus evidence and how the scientific community argues from that evidence to its conclusion, in the links I several times provided:

                        https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                        “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia...”

                        AND:

                        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...heclimate.html

                        “The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable...”
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Amazingly enough - yes - cow farts are a fairly major source of greenhouse gases. And as our hunger for meat increases, we make the problem worse.

                          One would think, however, that our decimation of the buffalo herds would have countered that, at least to some degree. I wonder how modern cow herds compare with the buffalo herds pre 20th century?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            Some current trends will contribute to a solution to the problem, if there is a problem. That does not justify ignoring people who say the current trends are insufficient to prevent a catastrophe.
                            There will always be doomsayers. I think as long as it continues to be profitable to switch to renewables, electric cars, etc, that will be incentive enough to keep moving in the right direction. When you want to implement solutions that lose money, you will find people resisting. The correct solution is motivate people to solve the problem in ways that also better the economy and their lives.

                            We actually probably wouldn't be in as bad a mess if the liberals hadn't went on a campaign to give nuclear power a bad reputation.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Oh for pity's sake, CP. You're not dense. The analogy was about asking someone who does not have access to the necessary information to answer a question. "How much more money" is not a question anyone can answer because they lack the necessary information. That was the point. Going around and around on whether it was a useful analogy is pointless.
                              Seems like you don't like it when people attack your analogy instead of "getting" the point you were trying to make with it. Hmm?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Seems like you don't like it when people attack your analogy instead of "getting" the point you were trying to make with it. Hmm?
                                Actually...I neither like it nor dislike it. Just amazed that CP was missing the entire point of the offered analogy. The point was a person being asked a question they lacked the information to answer. Both CP's question and the Home Depot person shared that characteristic.

                                The trinity analogy simply failed because it was comparing apples to oranges. On the one hand is a claim that three distinct things can be simultaneously one thing. On the other hand was three (or more) translations of an original document being claimed to be one thing. They weren't. They are three (or more) translations with equal authority because they have been authenticated to accurately reflect the original.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                29 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X