Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Strongpoint]

Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.

[hector13]

Part of that is that accidents in nuclear plants tend to cause quite significant harm, plus the waste that lasts thousands of years has to go somewhere, plus the whole commercial side of it in that making money requires cutting costs, which could result in cutting corners, making accidents more likely.

[MaxTheFox]

Part of that is that accidents in nuclear plants tend to cause quite significant harm, plus the waste that lasts thousands of years has to go somewhere, plus the whole commercial side of it in that making money requires cutting costs, which could result in cutting corners, making accidents more likely.

Coal kills FAR more people per megawatt of electricity than nuclear. I'd rather have waste in a vault somewhere than CO2 in the atmosphere. Nuclear isn't the panacea but some countries aren't very suitable to "fully green" energy, e.g Russia. If I was prez here I'd spam nuclear plants.

[delphonso]

Part of that is that accidents in nuclear plants tend to cause quite significant harm, plus the waste that lasts thousands of years has to go somewhere, plus the whole commercial side of it in that making money requires cutting costs, which could result in cutting corners, making accidents more likely.

This is something along the lines of the nirvana fallacy. The fact is, any energy not coming from nuclear is coming from fossil fuels. Coal also produces radioactive waste and all fossil fuels produce much more immediate heat and CO2. Natural gas is about as clean as you can get when it comes to fossil fuels, so I'm all for it, just because presumably anything in that direction is away from coal.

Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.

I've become very interested in this in the past few years. I used to be very pro-Organics until I learned more about the actual math and impacts on the environment. Organic farming is both terrible for the planet and worse at producing food.

[Strongpoint]

I've become very interested in this in the past few years. I used to be very pro-Organics until I learned more about the actual math and impacts on the environment. Organic farming is both terrible for the planet and worse at producing food.

And that means that you are a rational person. You had some information, you had a certain opinion about it. Then you got more information and changed your opinion.

The problem with followers of religions and certain religion-like views is that they ignore any information that contradicts their established beliefs. Antivaxxers are a good example of that, they will reject any knowledge about vaccines you'll try to shove into them through any kind of propaganda. And many of the "protectors of the Mother Earth" are also in this category.

[jipehog]

Also, this is a religion thread.

I was on topic.. Tldr faith/blind-trust is part of everyone life and religion is more than just faith in god. You on the other hand may want to read rule #7. Also wtf #8 ?!

Btw have you heard of Naïve realism? I think that some people takes this to religious-like levels, especially on the extremes of political polarization. Interestingly even though we always like to attribute reason to our decision, some recent brain scans suggest that our decision are emotional rationalized after the fact.

p.s. i see people going off rail about nuclear. In the context of climate change wicked problem, I think its important to realize the impact on other people, many people even entire economies depend on fossil fuels. For example, Saudi Arabia entire future is at stake! and understand that the aren't going to enjoy the potential benefits of green tech, for them it is net loss that could lead to destabilization and even civil war, they are not transitioning any time soon and will put sticks in all our best laid plans that don't have their interest at heart. Luckily they are also very rich, many other countries and sectors are not as lucky and will struggle along

[delphonso]

That wasn't a jab at you, jipehog. I meant it as a polite dismount from the topic by myself, which I didn't stick to. Also yes, #8, wtf.

The economic question is interesting. Most studies suggest the long term impacts of climate change (even an idealist 2 degree shift) are worse than any short term impacts of extreme infrastructure and economic overhaul. That is, of course, still a hard pill to swallow and even harder to sell.

[Magmacube_tr]

Unfortunately, "classical studies" is the new way to teach that LGBTQ doesn't exist.

What do you mean I don't- A-

[Schmaven]

Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.

Some might even define such a blind adherence to their views, despite reason, logic, and facts pointing the opposite way, as a secular form of faith.  Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.

[Strongpoint]

Well, there is something religion-like in how people who supposedly care about ecology fight against nuclear power ignoring reason and facts.

Some might even define such a blind adherence to their views, despite reason, logic, and facts pointing the opposite way, as a secular form of faith.  Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.

Or they could develop qualities like hatred of specific minorities or just anyone not following their faith.

I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.

[jipehog]

The economic question is interesting. Most studies suggest the long term impacts of climate change (even an idealist 2 degree shift) are worse than any short term impacts of extreme infrastructure and economic overhaul. That is, of course, still a hard pill to swallow and even harder to sell.

The devil is always in the details e.g. worse for who? There are arguments that climate change fanatics are at best arguing in bad faith trying to promote alarmism/action and at worst are simply virtue singling promoting fear-mongering and immediate action that have limited impact and primarily benefit the wealthy and thus diverting attention and resources from more substantive solutions that would help solve climate change problems and elevate poverty for hundreds of millions.

I went with wicked problem because it was relevant to the topic and easy to prove. I wouldn't know where to start unpacking climate change arguments, but if anyone want to dive in here is a very nice (though four hours long!) conversation on the topic that covers a verity of views grounded in science that are different from the usual clickbait you'd see on the topic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gk9gIpGvSE

Only, I might argue that in this specific case, no good comes from such stubbornness; whereas I can imagine people perhaps developing some good qualities - such as patience and compassion, if a religious faith was held instead.

I think that the strength of religion is in the combination of tradition, cultural heritage and institutions (e.g. there is a reason why there are less suicides in religious active communities) but otherwise there are far better and more influential sources of wisdom. I might argue that even Disney cartoons had more effect in modern times..

I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.

Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.

[Schmaven]

I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.

Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.

I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion.  They are insane.

[lemon10]

I very much prefer, let's say, an irrational and arrogant Vegan who preaches at me about corpse eating, how unnatural and unhealthy consuming meat is, and how animal husbandry is the main source of all economic and environmental problems, to a religious fanatic who wants to kill me because his God orders him to do so.

Worth noting that through out history many held beliefs with a level of fervor or conviction similar to that of religious belief and their actions directly or indirectly led to much death and or suffering. One doesn't need god to find rationalization to do harm for the sake of their idea of greater good.

I may be in the minority here, but in my view, any "religious person" who wants to kill someone because God told them to, is neither religious, nor following an actual religion.  They are insane.

I disagree. Presuming you follow (and truly believe in) say, Christianity, where someone not being converted means they will suffer eternally in the fires of hell any action taken that results in even a single less person going to hell is logically and morally justified.

Same (to a lesser degree) for stuff like the human sacrifice in the Aztec religion, where they believed that if there were no sacrifices the sun would go out and everyone would die.
Honestly a few deaths seems like a pretty fair bargain to avoid the end of the human race.
---
Obviously though if they actually believe that God himself is talking to them and seeing visions or whatever they are nutso.

[McTraveller]

I disagree. Presuming you follow (and truly believe in) say, Christianity, where someone not being converted means they will suffer eternally in the fires of hell any action taken that results in even a single less person going to hell is logically and morally justified.

That's not Christianity at all though. At least not any kind of mainstream Christianity.  It's not even a coherent argument which incidentally supports the original "insanity" claim: if someone is "on track" for hell, how is killing them going to change that track?

At least the Aztec-style sacrifice was consistent - sacrifice a few for the sake of the many. Although I can't say if they thought the sacrifice was condemned or was somehow glorified because they were the sacrifice.

[lemon10]

That's not Christianity at all though. At least not any kind of mainstream Christianity.

Obviously not, cause it turns out that people with *squints* literally any religion or denomination don't like when you kill them, so actually promoting stuff like that as any kind of religious authority just gets you thrown in jail.
There are plenty of denominations out there though that believe the only way to heaven is through believing in Jesus Christ though. So it doesn't mean the logic isn't sound.

if someone is "on track" for hell, how is killing them going to change that track?

It wouldn't obviously. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other stuff you can do, such as killing them then re-educating their kids, or killing them so they *won't* have kids that wouldn't do the same thing.

which incidentally supports the original "insanity" claim

Ehhh... I suppose people actually believing in god/hell and following things through to their logical conclusions can be pretty insane.
E: Depends on the definition of sanity I suppose.
E2: Although in a more general case of "anyone that is willing to kill over religion is crazy" he's def wrong. People are often willing to kill over very small thing, and being willing to kill over a core pillar of your personality (eg. religion, nationality, family, morality in general) is completely normal human behavior.