Why God?

[Kitch]

Look Sir, you are telling me that maybe I interpret it a certain way but that I may be wrong about the majority of others and this is only something people within my small peer group believe. Once again, you are making assumptions. I know very little of Dawkins, but I thought that it was an idea from his book you were expounding. A mistake.

Believing that humans are special in some way does not necessitate bad behaviour. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. My analogy to the house was a good one. Many religious people actually do not believe in evolution and so therefore the situation is the same for them. They are on God's land. This is not our Earth. We were put in charge over it. That does not mean a position of being able to rape the land.

Now you say that you have a thing against big religions for doing this. Religions are not doing this, Sir. Religions are not people. Imperialism and land grabbing and trying to maintain progress, these things have been around for ages, Sir. It is a human thing. The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. So do you think this is a command to pollute rivers destroy forests and dump radioactive waste near my well? These things have been done in the name of "Progress", whether or not it really is progress.

I never said we had the right to destroy things. I am pointing out that its not a religious thing, but it is plain human selfishness or dissatisfaction which makes us this way. In order to develop to the point that we have there had to be a great deal of land raping. I am not defending that or railing against that. This is the truth. In order to have the network of highways which brings people to hospitals, to have the paper which educates doctors, schools, power lines which light your house and give you your internet, there had to be a great deal of forest chopped down, land raped, oil sucked, etc. I am not saying it is right or wrong. But I will tell you that if you live in an area where you are let's say an hour from a hospital, there will be people there (religious or not) who would like to have one closer, or they would like to have a bipass highway built to bring them directly there. And this is not for religious reasons either. There is nothing so convenient that people will not want more of it, or nothing so fast and efficient that can't become faster. The standard of what we must have in order to survive has gone up a lot. I would say it is a secular thing. This is not a religious thing. I am not saying its good, I am not saying it is bad. I am saying it is. But you have to stop blaming this on religion. Do you think its because of the Bible that people want these things? I can tell you that atheists want them as much as anyone else. I did not groan about not having hospitals or losing these things, Sir. I was pointing out that people will groan. Cell phone towers, highways, etc, are not just associated with luxury but security. I do not have a cell phone myself, but many people see them as a wise thing to have. Parents buy their kids cell phones so they can keep track of them when they are not home or that if they need anything they can always call. You can phone the ambulance, police, etc etc, in situations where you previously could not. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with how much humans demand in order to feel safe. I am not saying that standard is good, or bad, or groaning about it. I am saying that this is a good part of the reason for human raping of land. Because where service progresses and problems are solved, they are never one hundred percent solved. The bar raises. And wherever these progresses have not been made, people feel it must be spread there to give the needy in third world countries more hospitals, schools, roads and highways. I am not saying this is good or bad. I think the intention is good behind it, Sir. But at the same time I know that the Earth can only handle so much. I agree with you on this. But unless you sell your car, put up a solar panel, grow your own organic food...etc...you better stop pointing the finger at other people.

Other than that, if a ruthless person destroys land and takes more than his share from it, in order to have what he wants, it is probably because of his own selfishness or because he can get better mass production from taking more.

The Amish are Christians who fit the example of a people who don't rape the land and they live harmoniously with it.

If you want people to live without intrusion, I commend you. Now start doing it and stop complaining.

Easy there, don't get your rosary all tangled. It's not a big deal that you aren't familiar with the Dawkins book that I spoke of... I wasn't accusing you of anything because of it. Just clarifying... possibly for your, or anyone else's, interest. It had little to do with anything else we were talking about.

No, believing that humans are special does not NECESSITATE bad behaviour. I didn't say that it did. What I did say was that the belief that we are special... which means that we are somehow different from other living things on Earth... leaves us with a feeling as though we have more right to live than other living things do. Take, for example, fur coats, snake skin shoes, etc. No, not everyone has or even wants these things... but what about fly swatters? We kill flies simply because they're annoying? What about all the roads you speak of, and the raccoons that get killed crossing them? Is our desire to travel more important than the lives of road kill? Sure, I sound like a crazy tree hugger... but it's all true. The belief that we're special implies that non-human life is subordinate to human life. I never spoke of anyone believing they have the 'right' to "act badly", I never even said that humans were acting badly. We're just inconsiderate and ignorant. There are many issues related to the loss of non-human lives. Mainly, the loss of biodiversity, which, to people not trained in biology might sound trivial, but it is in fact a serious problem for ALL life on Earth. My main point, again, is that the belief that we are 'special', an idea at the forefront of, at least the Christian mind (because I'm not too familiar with the others), is dangerous to the world.

That being said, you bring up an excellent example in the Amish. I must concede that it refutes my idea... well, the idea that I've been speaking of. I still think that the belief that human life is 'special' is dangerous is true... but I guess it's not a ubiquitous observation. And I guess it's not truly a religious problem. Trust me, I'm with you on the imperialism and all that too.

[jefferiah]

Easy there, don't get your rosary all tangled. It's not a big deal that you aren't familiar with the Dawkins book that I spoke of... I wasn't accusing you of anything because of it. Just clarifying... possibly for your, or anyone else's, interest. It had little to do with anything else we were talking about.

No, believing that humans are special does not NECESSITATE bad behaviour. I didn't say that it did. What I did say was that the belief that we are special... which means that we are somehow different from other living things on Earth... leaves us with a feeling as though we have more right to live than other living things do. Take, for example, fur coats, snake skin shoes, etc. No, not everyone has or even wants these things... but what about fly swatters? We kill flies simply because they're annoying? What about all the roads you speak of, and the raccoons that get killed crossing them? Is our desire to travel more important than the lives of road kill? Sure, I sound like a crazy tree hugger... but it's all true. The belief that we're special implies that non-human life is subordinate to human life. I never spoke of anyone believing they have the 'right' to "act badly", I never even said that humans were acting badly. We're just inconsiderate and ignorant. There are many issues related to the loss of non-human lives. Mainly, the loss of biodiversity, which, to people not trained in biology might sound trivial, but it is in fact a serious problem for ALL life on Earth. My main point, again, is that the belief that we are 'special', an idea at the forefront of, at least the Christian mind (because I'm not too familiar with the others), is dangerous to the world.

That being said, you bring up an excellent example in the Amish. I must concede that it refutes my idea... well, the idea that I've been speaking of. I still think that the belief that human life is 'special' is dangerous is true... but I guess it's not a ubiquitous observation. And I guess it's not truly a religious problem. Trust me, I'm with you on the imperialism and all that too.

Well, I live in the sticks Kitch, and I am not perfect but I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy nature as well. I am not the perfect environmentalist sort, but I do believe nature is special. I think there is some acceptable level of taking from nature that can be safe, and yes there are situations which go overboard. I live in NB and there is talk of opening uranium mines in Albert County. Don't know if you've ever been there, but it is hillbilly country, and I think it would a sad thing to see. And the Petitcodiac River runs through there. In Moncton the Petitcodiac is not much of a sight to see, but when you get out into Albert County it is a very beautiful river. Many people are opposed to the idea of mines and I am one of them.

If you were an Inuit living the natural lifestyle they lived for years you would not be a vegetarian. In fact if there were no such things as roads and highways and concrete jungle stretched over miles of natural habitat, the vegetarian lifestyle would be impossible in much of Canada. Great A&P can't get oranges from Florida without some system of freight. And in much of Canada the growing season consists of a few months, and then you have winter. So in a simpler time when there were less skyscrapers and more small farms, meat would have been a necessity. When my mother was young she had chickens and cows. They grew vegetables in the summer, but only certain vegetables can be preserved long term. Potatoes, turnips, carrots, etc. You can make jams and jellies with things which don't keep in whole form, but still they don't provide a great deal of the required nutrition. So along with veggie preserves, they also killed chickens and such. My grandfather was a fisherman as well, so they had lots of salted fish in the winter. (FYI Before my mother was around, during the depression, my grandfather and a lot of people around here did alright compared to some other places, because they did not have droughts and they didn't need to buy food. They had food in the garden and in the ocean. You can't eat a dollar bill, but fish will fill ya. And they traded things as well.)

Killing flies is not a major cause of the loss of biodiversity. Perhaps massive amounts of spray is. I can understand if you don't like doing it. I sometimes take bugs outside on my finger and let em go, rather than swat em. Dogs, cats they all bite at fleas and mosquitoes. If I find one of those black widow spiders in a cluster of imported grapes I am not going to let it go free in the house. This can all get to a very relative level when you argue what is ok and what is not. But I will point out to you that I think it is more advisable to think of human life as being more important than animal life, and I will explain it with a question.

You come home from the store to find your house is on fire. Your daughter is inside and so is your cat, Fluffy. Who do you save first?

Edited August 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Kitch]

Well, I live in the sticks Kitch, and I am not perfect but I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy nature as well. I am not the perfect environmentalist sort, but I do believe nature is special. I think there is some acceptable level of taking from nature that can be safe, and yes there are situations which go overboard. I live in NB and there is talk of opening uranium mines in Albert County. Don't know if you've ever been there, but it is hillbilly country, and I think it would a sad thing to see. And the Petitcodiac River runs through there. In Moncton the Petitcodiac is not much of a sight to see, but when you get out into Albert County it is a very beautiful river. Many people are opposed to the idea of mines and I am one of them.

If you were an Inuit living the natural lifestyle they lived for years you would not be a vegetarian. In fact if there were no such things as roads and highways and concrete jungle stretched over miles of natural habitat, the vegetarian lifestyle would be impossible in much of Canada. Great A&P can't get oranges from Florida without some system of freight. And in much of Canada the growing season consists of a few months, and then you have winter. So in a simpler time when there were less skyscrapers and more small farms, meat would have been a necessity. When my mother was young she had chickens and cows. They grew vegetables in the summer, but only certain vegetables can be preserved long term. Potatoes, turnips, carrots, etc. You can make jams and jellies with things which don't keep in whole form, but still they don't provide a great deal of the required nutrition. So along with veggie preserves, they also killed chickens and such. My grandfather was a fisherman as well, so they had lots of salted fish in the winter. (FYI Before my mother was around, during the depression, my grandfather and a lot of people around here did alright compared to some other places, because they did not have droughts and they didn't need to buy food. They had food in the garden and in the ocean. You can't eat a dollar bill, but fish will fill ya. And they traded things as well.)

Killing flies is not a major cause of the loss of biodiversity. Perhaps massive amounts of spray is. I can understand if you don't like doing it. I sometimes take bugs outside on my finger and let em go, rather than swat em. Dogs, cats they all bite at fleas and mosquitoes. If I find one of those black widow spiders in a cluster of imported grapes I am not going to let it go free in the house. This can all get to a very relative level when you argue what is ok and what is not. But I will point out to you that I think it is more advisable to think of human life as being more important than animal life, and I will explain it with a question.

You come home from the store to find your house is on fire. Your daughter is inside and so is your cat, Fluffy. Who do you save first?

Obviously my daughter, in that situation. But there are many examples in which it is not a matter of human life or death... such as fly swatting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bleeding heart environmentalist or animal lover as I understand that it is absolutely necessary to take the lives of other living things... vegetables are just as alive as cows. That's the definition of animal, which we are; a being that derives energy from the consumption of other living things. There's no way around that (that I'm aware of).

The problem comes in our (human) careless exploitation of living things. Mainly, it is the size of our population. The more people there are the less avoidable the problems we've discussed are. While a small tribe of natives 50 000 years ago may have been able to take from the Earth what they needed, this did relatively little damage because there were relatively few of them. Perhaps they weren't all that ecologically irresponsible, I don't know either way for sure. But with our desire to 'develop' we take more than we need from the Earth (I use that word "we" very loosely, since there are many humans that do not and do not contribute to/condone this practice). So, combined with our exponentially growing population, our ecological irresponsibility is harming all life on this planet.

It's hard to generalize us as "stewards" though. Some of us do a great job while others only hurt the efforts. The point is that the Earth does very well on its own without need for us to protect it from anything... except for us.

[M.Dancer]

Overlooking that there were no natives in North America 50,000 yeras ago......It is believed that the cause of the extinctions of most of the mega fauna in North America Australasia and Europe had a human hand.

The idea that Natives were and are a steward is just romaticism that has no place in fact.

The case is mounting for a human role in the mass extinction of giant animals that once ranged across Australia according to new research which challenges results from a site long claimed to clear people as the main cause of the beasts’ demise

http://www.physorg.com/news65367549.html

In the early 1960s ecologist Paul Martin of the University of Arizona advanced the idea that the first Americans, who as every schoolchild knows are thought to have crossed from Siberia to America across the Bering Land Bridge, hunted the megafauna to extinction. For many years, "overkill" became the leading contender. The timing seemed more than coincidental: humans were thought to have arrived no earlier than about 14,000 years ago, and by roughly 13,000 years ago, most of the megafaunal species abruptly vanish from the fossil record. (See a list of all 35 vanished genera of North American Ice Age mammals.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/megafauna.html

[NovaScotian]

Overlooking that there were no natives in North America 50,000 yeras ago......It is believed that the cause of the extinctions of most of the mega fauna in North America Australasia and Europe had a human hand.

The idea that Natives were and are a steward is just romaticism that has no place in fact.

The first inhabitants of North America probably did have a role in the extinction of the mega fauna, it is a huge stretch to say they are the same cultures that inhabited the Americas at the time of European contact. At this time we do see a balance between the needs of the natives and nature.

[Kitch]

Overlooking that there were no natives in North America 50,000 yeras ago......It is believed that the cause of the extinctions of most of the mega fauna in North America Australasia and Europe had a human hand.

The idea that Natives were and are a steward is just romaticism that has no place in fact.

http://www.physorg.com/news65367549.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/megafauna.html

On the natives... as I said... "Perhaps they weren't all that ecologically irresponsible, I don't know either way for sure." I've heard examples of exploitation of resources by them as well. The point is that not all humans have been involved in such practices. This is important because it prevents us (or should) from claiming that it is innately human to act as we do with regard to the environment.

[betsy]

According to Christian/Jewish/Muslim doctrine, if you walk away from God, you will spend eternity in hell. Not much of a 'free choice'.

It is still a choice. Of course I speak of the Christian religion.

One who decides to walk away from God had already come to a decision that there is no God, or he doesn't believe in God's existence....so whatever the believers say about spending eternity in hell should not be of any concern to him.

Why would it bother him if he doesn't believe.

As long as the believers do not decide to take it upon themselves to force him to believe or worse, put him in that hell in an untimely manner (like some religion we know).

The believers are free to believe as they wish...just like he's free to believe what he wish.

Now in any authoritarian state(sorry but liberal =/=socialist) you can walk away from the state and risk prison/execution/torture, again not much of a 'free choice'.

Not sure I follow....

From the explanation given above, now do you follow?

Where does God 'lend a hand' and how does he give us 'strength'?. Do you have an examples?

It is hard to explain to a non-believer. It's all about having faith. The comparison that comes to mind:

Do you believe in positive thinking?

Do you believe your doctor? Your shrink?

Edited August 13, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Organized religion was created by the government

How? Can you explain?

[betsy]

I used to be of the opinion that belief in a 'god' was an individual's personal choice which I had no right to question. However, after reading Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion" and Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" I have changed my mind.

One of the core beliefs held by those that worship a god (I'm generalizing god to focus on the three 'Big' religions) is that humans are the rulers of the Earth (since we are made in 'his' image). We have come to believe, rather, take for granted that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. This has led to the extinction of so many more living things than is natural, and possibly global warming (who knows if it's the result of our actions... it could be though!).

Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are environmentalist radicals!

It has also led to many wars

Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are very much anti-war!

as well as the indoctrination of innocent children too young to have belief systems, limiting the scope of ideas that they are allowed to encounter and analyze at a young age, perhaps hindering their development.

Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are anti-religion.

Usually these ones see religion as an obstacle in their own quest to see innocent children indoctrinated into their own ideology.

What kind of government usually have programs that take children away from parents to be raised by the state?

Communists and Socialists!

"God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society.

Yup. I've heard all about that kind of blame-game before. Usually though, it is allegedly the fault of society.

Accountability for one's own action is hardly existent - blame anyone but me!

While it may benefit an individual, at least to the extent that they are incapable of logical thought and too weak to be responsible for their own life, it hurts every other living being on the planet.

No kidding. That's the result of moral bankruptcy. "It's never my fault. They made me do it! They made me this way!"

Edited August 13, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

The harm to the planet isn't the result of religion itself. Think about it... the knowledge that you were made in the image of god, or you are among the chosen people, or anything along those lines... how would you feel about your role as a human on Earth? It's not that anything forces, influences or even compels us to plunder the Earth's 'resources'.

Perhaps if we did not advance we would not have become so materialistic in our way of life...that there wouldn't be any need to plunder the Earth's resources.

Perhaps if we follow the teachings of one particular religion I know, live like spartans and embrace poverty and live quite simply....then plunder of earth's resources need not happen.

It is not God's fault. It is us. Not because we were created in the image of God either.