carepov

I disagree, I'm talking major conservation: -About 1/3 of food is wasted -How much energy is wasted in transportation, industrial, commercial and residential uses? Probably 1/3 as well -Mass transit/high speed rail -Car pooling/cycling -More fuel efficiency -Displace truck transport with rail -Stop/lower air conditioning, lighting and heating loads of large buildings when not in use. Nuclear seems politically feasible in South Korea and France. Politics can be changed. The point is that there is lots we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing quality of life. (I also forgot to mention: plant more trees.) Why aren't these things getting done? and if it is happenning why isn't it happening in more places and on a larger scale?

There are many things we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing the quality of life! How about the countless ways to conserve energy? How about switching electrical generation from coal to gas and/or using more nuclear, and where feasible, hydro, geothermal and other sources?

Thanks for not labelling me a "denier". By the way, I am the last person that would present a dichotomy between any absolutes - especially on such a complex topic. Regarding other global impacting issues that eclipse GW, I cannot help being very sceptical (even dismissive) of economic reports that "predict" the cost of unmitigated GW to be 2.8% of global GDP in 2095!?!? Really, to put this prediction into perspective, what was the cost of the Financial Crisis? I'm sorry if you've already given your opinions in earlier posts, but I would be interested in knowing what sort of policy mix outline that you would like to see.

I'm not sure, but I would probably be labelled a "denier" because I do not see global warming as one of the biggest threats facing humanity. From an earlier link: "Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria. The climate is not the world’s only priority. Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an enormous investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of Bangladesh is less than 33 feet above sea level. Millions of poor farmers on its alluvial plains would welcome investments to prevent melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels. But many would also welcome investments that made them richer and better able to cope with climate change, including jobs outside of agriculture and homes somewhere dry. As Professor Nordhaus wrote in his 2008 book, “A Question of Balance”: “Investments in reducing future climate damages to corn and trees and other areas should compete with investments in better seed, improved rotation and many other high-yield investments.” If investments in CO2 abatement are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using the proceeds to cover warming’s damage." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/counting-the-cost-of-fixing-the-future.html?src=recg&_r=1& Is Professor Nordhaus a "denier"?

Good post and I agree. Humans are increasing CO2 concentrations and therefore less heat escaping our atmosphere and Earth is getting hotter. It is surprising that only 99.9% of scientists agree with this claim. So what do we do about it? a) nothing, let's ignore it b.) nothing yet, let's continue to study and increase our understanding c.) conserve energy d) use more nuclear energy instead of coal e) use more natural gas instead of oil f) use more renewables g) make more ethanol out of corn h) ban the practice of making ethanol from corn i) plant more trees than we cut j) promote more rural/country living k) promote more high-density living l) ban gas-powered lawn movers n) ban all lawnmowers o) ban lawns p) ban incandescent light bulbs q) stop all new construction < 50 meters above sea level r) ban modern agriculture s) ban "organic" agriculture t) increase/decrease aquaculture u) scare the bejesus out of people to get hem to "act" v) insist that this is the biggest issue facing mankind and we should direct almost all ressources at this problem w) return to a pre-industrial society x)... What's the concensus?

Thank you for the link, it was an interesting study, and there were interesting comments too. Are the finding significant? I'm not so sure... "Participants with a spiritual understanding of life had a greater risk of major depression at 6 or 12 months than participants with neither a spiritual nor a religious life view (Table 2). Participants holding a religious understanding of life were also more at risk than secular participants, but this finding lost statistical significance after adjustment. When stratified by country, however, our finding that a spiritual life view predisposed people to major depression was significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.59–4.68) (Table 2)." (Page 2112) I second reason that I am sceptical that "spiritual beliefs can be tough on one's mental health" is that I can see so reasonable causal explanation. Why would a belief be correlated to (let alone cause) major depression? And finally, there are other studies that suggest that religiosity is a factor in reducing the likelihood of depression. For example: -http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:139251 -http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=173476

Well, you are certainly entitled to disagree. I certainly disagree with the way that you stereotype religious believers. Beliefs about god, hell, etc... are personal. The official religious doctrines themselves are complex and often discussed - and people cherry-pick from the doctrines and personalize their beliefs. One example of how you misunderstand religious beliefs is how you give so much credit to religious preachers for forming personal beliefs. I would argue that preachers have very little influence on people’s religious beliefs. Most followers attend service less than once a week, let’s say the average church-goer listens to a preachers for 15 minutes or so per week – really how much influence can a preacher have? http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/c-g/10650/5201028-eng.htm

In today`s western organized religions we are completely free to agree and disagree as we see fit. The perfect counter-example to yours are the many people who ARE homosexual and religious. In general people are aware that the bible was written by man and therefore imperfect.

Various polls show various percentages of people beleiving in hell. None of them asked: ``do you believe in a hell where people are tortured``. IMO, many of those that beleive in hell beleive that it is reserved for the wrost sinners (child molestors, mass murderers, etc...) Here are examples of beliefs that you attribute to religious people that, IMO are held only by a small minority: *** I also find this a facinating subject - and not just for religion. When we are members of a political party, do we support all the policies or just cherry pick those that are important to us. As a proud patriotic Canadians, are we in favour of exporting asbestos to developing counries. Are we proud of the living conditions on Northern reserves. IMO, most followers are OK with cherry-picking and hold onto the positive aspects of their traditionnal religion while ignoring (or even openly disagreeing with) those aspects where they disagree. I see nothing wrong with that.

I was very discouraged last week when polls indicated that approx. 60% of Quebeckers favored the charter. Polls are now showing an even split (43-44% for and against). Reasonable Quebeckers are stepping up: http://quebecinclusif.org/manifeste-2/english/ I hope that as people get more informed the trend continues!

Your link did not work. Here are some interesting articles about hell: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-08-01-hell-damnation_N.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm Yes, many religious people beleive in hell - but not the hell that you or Mighty AC describe (not to mention all the other beleifs that he falsely pinned on religious people).

Yes, really.

IMO, a very small percentage of religious people have beleifs anywhere close to what you describe.

1. Some religious fundamentalist beleifs are holding back progress in society. 2. Some humanist religious or interfaith communities are a major driving force for progress in society. Mocking, ridiculing, and stereotyping all believers hiders the work of 2. while adding to the influence of 1.

Yes, most beleiver`s take a leap of faith and beleive in God. But remember, your original assertion about suspending critical thinking was not specifically about the existance of God: It is not exactly the same, but for me marriage is still a leap of faith. Yes, I agree. IMO religious people do this as much as non-religious people. (I of course will change this opinion if presented with contrary evidence).

What are you talking about. Here`s the context: I suggest that you read ``a history of God`` by Karen Armstrong.

Fair enough. I notice that you chose not to respond to the two other hypotheticals that I presented. Most people, whether religious or not, are content with ``we don`t know yet``. IMO, most religious people beleive that there is a God but that humanity cannot fathom this God. Not much different really from the non-religious ``we don`t know yet``. Judging by theological debates, ongoing for millenia, I would conclude that relious people are certainly concerned with the quality of the answers.

Mostly no, but sometimes yes, it depends. I value honesty but I also other values such as happiness, security and health - usually there is no conflict but I would sometimes rather tell a lie, wouldn't you? If your partner asks, "do these jeans make me look fat?" - how do you answer? If your young child asks, "is grandma gone forever?" - how do you answer? How about if a teenaged neice just lost a close relative and she is from a religious family. She asks you, "do you think that I am stupid for praying to God and believing that my sister is in heaven?" - How do you answer? How can you think that religious people do not care about the quality of the answer? Here is another example of you believing something without evidence.

In my limited experience and understanding (note: I have no experience and understanding of extremist religions), most do nothing like what you describe, in fact they do the opposite. Often, they tell a story and then ask you to reflect on the meanings and moral dilemmas faced by the characters in the story. This builds empathy and critical thinking. 1. I can surmise from your posts that you have plenty of beliefs without evidence. 2. Some people look at the beauty in nature and for them that is evidence of a creator. I do not share this belief but I respect it, and it can never be disproven. I have faith in my marriage. I believe that the love will last our whole lives and I have no evidence to support this beleif. (in fact I have a few data points that seem to refute this belief!). There are so many questions in life that an individual needs to anwser - there is not enough time to obtain evidence for all the answers. Sometimes a leap of faith is the most logical way to "answer" the question, if only to move on to other questions. What evidence led you to beileive that I "accept that a god created life, the universe and everything"? Don't seach too long: I do not.

You may be correct about typical patterns towards religion. Still, even if it is a minority, a significant number of people greatly benefit from religion and IMO they (and therefore all of society) would be worse off without it. -Some people can get stuck on unanswerable questions like: What happened before the big bang? Why are we here? What happens when we die? -Some people would get no peace, tranquility if they did not pray or attend service -Some people would less connected to the past through traditions without their religion -Some people may not see their grandparents or other family members as often without religion -Some people feel that they do not belong in any other social group but feel welcome in their religion -Some people would not get over a major loss or trauma without their religion -Some people would give nothing to charity without religion -Religion makes some people happier -Some people would act less morally without religious guidance These are the gaps that I am talking about - and yes, there will be no gaps for some people perhaps no significant gaps for most people.

I feel exactly the same way - except that: nobody said that one individual secular life is less happy than a religious life. On average, people that beleive are happier than non-beleivers, but there are still many non-beleivers that are happier than beleivers. 1. Intellectual curiosity and a lust for knowledge are as much a part of a religious life as happiness is a part of secular life. 2. What is actually replacing religion is football and shopping.

Thank you. Several posters on MLW, people I know (including my brother), and some prominent intellectuals, openly mock and ridicule all religious beliefs. I must admit that in the past I too had a prejudice that "religious people are gullible simpletons". The main action that I am proposing is that people stop this way of thinking and their rude mockery of believers. This mockery is counter productive - it adds fuel to the extremists that then claim: "look at secular society - they are attacking our religion". If secular and religious humanists work more closely together this can only have good results. This is great for you and other non-believers that do the same. But is seems like, on average, religious people interact more/better than non-religious people. Why?

Good points but I will balance them out with counterpoints: Yes, the influence of religion has been gradually reduced for 500 years as the standards of living has gradually increased, it is not easy to prove which is cause and what is effect. IMO, our standard of living improved first and then the influence of religion fell off a cliff. I am specifically thinking of the period from 1945-1970 and a perfect example is the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. Yes our progress in living standards is due to science and technology. And yes, there are cases where religion has been an obstacle to scientific progress - but: a.) religion has also been a driving force in scientific progress, think of Michelangelo, Newton and Europe's first universities b.) religion has not been a significant obstacle to scientific progress for a long time Please remember that I am not arguing that the level of religion in the days of Galileo was acceptable or beneficial. I am very thankful that the influence of religion has diminished to where is today and thankful for the separation of the church and state. I am saying that today's society is better off with the level of religion we have compared to the hypothetical society where there is no religion. a.) There are countless examples of religious people and groups that alleviate misery throughout the world. b.) There are barbaric acts taking place in the name of religion Lets get rid of b.) but keep a.) So if people can be just as happy without religion, why aren't they joining these social clubs?

No, it's actually: more misery = more religion The least religious countries are the happiest because they have the highest standard of living (least misery/poverty, highest GDP per capita). If you doubt that religion is the effect of misery not the cause then consider: -Within each country, religious people are, on average happier. -What came first in the West - a higher standard of living or less religion? -It is the same as asking: why do the poorest countries have the greatest fertility rates? It is poverty that leads to larger family sizes not the other way around. Like red wine, religion has many benefits for society - in moderation.

His model was for and extra 100,000 immigrants per year with the current selection system. An improved system would surely result in a positive GDP per capita growth. There is no way we can avoid the issues you mention without limiting population growth. With increased wealth (GDP) we can better address the issues. My gut tells me that 250,000 - 350,000 immigrants per year with continued improvements to the system is optimal. Like you, I would like to see an objective government study on the issue.