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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    That may be the way you read it, but the argument was that "if you cared" you would not dismiss the professional opinion of the majority of climate scientists as coming from “the pulpit of the Church of Climatology” and “Global Warming hype”, as per CP.
    A distinction, maybe, but I don't see a relevant difference. What is the alternative to dismissing the majority opinion if not believing the majority opinion?

    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    it behoves us to do something about it, is the argument.
    We should probably do something, yes, but for any problem this complex, reasonable people can disagree as to just what we can do that won't make the overall situation even worse than it is now.
    Last edited by Doug Shaver; 05-24-2018, 11:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      A distinction, maybe, but I don't see a relevant difference. What is the alternative to dismissing the majority opinion if not believing the majority opinion?
      It is reasonable to expect an explanation as to why the majority professional opinion of the relevant experts is dismissed, given that all of us are put at risk by this disbelief in the majority opinion.

      We should probably do something, yes, but for any problem this complex, reasonable people can disagree as to just what we can do that won't make the overall situation even worse than it is now.
      Certainly! But If one’s attitude towards climate science “does NOT require me to even KNOW about climate science, let alone subscribe to that theory and become a preacher of its religion!”...to quote CP, then one is not in a position to address the complexities of the climate change problem. This is the context of my comments to CP.
      “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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Please explain the "goofiness and nuttery" of accepting the professional opinion of 97% of climate scientists that climate-change is due to human activities, and being sufficiently concerned to do something about it.
        Ya know, it's frequently difficult to tell if you're actually dumber than a coal hod, or have incredibly bad reading comprehension, or are just downright trolling.

        The point is that somebody does not have to be a subscriber to any of the climate science stuff to be a good steward of the earth - THAT was your nutty goofy claim.

        There's another possibility, I suppose -- that you're simple such a base fellow that you can't admit you misspoke.

        Until we accept what climate science is telling us about the damage we are doing to our planet then we cannot take the necessary steps to try and rectify the problem. Clearly, with your sarcastic refusal to “subscribe to that theory and become a preacher of its religion” (to quote you) you do not recognise the problem and it is the children you profess to love who will pay the price.
        I can only hope you didn't procreate.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          all of us are put at risk by this disbelief in the majority opinion.
          That assumes your conclusion. We're at risk only if the majority is right.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Certainly! But If one’s attitude towards climate science [I]“does NOT require me to even KNOW about climate science,
            I'm not about to defend anyone who thinks they have no obligation to study the arguments of people they disagree with.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              That assumes your conclusion. We're at risk only if the majority is right.
              Even if they're right (and I'm a skeptic, not a denier) they don't have a solution except for more money and more government. And no actual cost/benefit analysis whatsoever. And there's a history of grossly exaggerating the risk.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                That may be the way you read it, but the argument was that "if you cared" you would not dismiss the professional opinion of the majority of climate scientists as coming from “the pulpit of the Church of Climatology” and “Global Warming hype”, as per CP.



                Given the evidence it is reasonable to accept the threat of climate change as real as you acknowledge and it behoves us to do something about it, is the argument.
                If they are wrong, and we spend billions on fixing something that isn't a problem, making everything from fuel to the cost of living very much more expensive, all for nothing, then we are harming our children, not helping them.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Even if they're right (and I'm a skeptic, not a denier) they don't have a solution except for more money and more government.
                  That's the liberal solution. Conservatives could have an alternative solution if they hadn't committed themselves to denying that there is a problem.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                    That's the liberal solution. Conservatives could have an alternative solution if they hadn't committed themselves to denying that there is a problem.
                    I think the solution is already doing itself. As we naturally switch over to electric cars, improve battery and solar power technology, most of the causes of pollution will diminish which should stop any further global warming due to fossil fuels right? And such technological advances will happen whether global warming is true or not.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                      That's the liberal solution.
                      You're good with that? More money and bigger government? That's a SOLUTION? With absolutely no indication that more money and bigger government will do anything at all?

                      Conservatives could have an alternative solution if they hadn't committed themselves to denying that there is a problem.
                      You'd have to have that discussion with a denier - I'm a farmer and rancher - I'm doing WAY more for the planet than some of its more prominent alarmists.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        You're good with that? More money and bigger government? That's a SOLUTION? With absolutely no indication that more money and bigger government will do anything at all?



                        You'd have to have that discussion with a denier - I'm a farmer and rancher - I'm doing WAY more for the planet than some of its more prominent alarmists.
                        But... Cow Farts!!!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          But... Cow Farts!!!
                          Currently, I'm out of the cow business. (temporarily)
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Currently, I'm out of the cow business. (temporarily)
                            See? You ARE doing your part to prevent global warming!

                            I have stopped eating beans for the same reason.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                              That assumes your conclusion. We're at risk only if the majority is right.
                              Given that "the majority" comprises the vast majority of climate scientists warning us of the dire consequences of human induced climate change, it's more than a mere academic exercise.
                              “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


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Given that "the majority" comprises the vast majority of climate scientists warning us of the dire consequences of human induced climate change, it's more than a mere academic exercise.
                                We've been warned of dire consequences before, and they failed to materialize. But keep crying wolf, little boy, keep crying wolf.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X