Scientists call for religious help to save our wildlife

Sep 02, 2013

Leaders of the world's great religions could play a vital role in helping to save the world's dwindling wildlife and wilderness, three eminent ecologists from Sweden and Australia have proposed.

Writing in the journal Oryx the scientists point to a strong overlap between regions with high needs and the world's great religions.

"A greater involvement of religious communities in the conservation discourse, and a greater inclusion of conservation issues in religious ethics, could be beneficial for ," they say.

"Our study examines the spatial distribution of different religions in the world and how they overlap with areas important for biodiversity at a global scale," says lead author Grzegorz Mikusinski from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

"Our analysis indicates that the majority of these focal areas are situated in countries dominated by Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism. Moreover, there is a large overlap of areas important for biodiversity with Buddhism (Southeast Asia), Hinduism (Indian subcontinent) and Islam (Asia Minor, parts of North and Central Africa)."

Co-author Professor Hugh Possingham from Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED) and The University of Queensland explains "Stewardship and conservation are closely related ideas, and this offers hope for mutual progress. Our hope is that members of religious communities, who have for centuries guided people with respect to right and wrong, may feel they have a to conserve the world's natural wealth for and could become powerful advocates for conservation."

The article argues that most governments have failed to stem the degradation of the world's natural resources, including biodiversity – and now it may be up to religion.

Their paper cites E. O. Wilson, one of the world's most influential ecologists, who once wrote: "Religion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world today… If [they] could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem [of biodiversity loss] would soon be solved".

"These results indicate that Roman Catholics, per capita, have the greatest potential to save global biodiversity where they live," says Prof. Possingham, "The Roman Catholic Church has recently elected a new Pope, Pope Francis – the name linked to the 'greenest' saint of the Catholic Church, Saint Francis of Assisi, an official Patron of Ecology.

"Let's hope that he and other religious leaders will seriously consider the opportunity to engage more actively in the conservation debate. Moreover, conservation researchers must actively encourage religious leaders to participate in such a debate."

Numerous solutions have been proposed to slow the accelerating loss of biodiversity but thinking about biodiversity conservation has still not been incorporated into the everyday activities of most people and nations.

"Conservation scientists need to refocus on strategies that reshape ethical attitudes to nature and encourage pro-environmental thinking and lifestyles," says co-author Malgorzata Blicharska from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. "Religions are central to basic beliefs and ethics that influence people's behaviour and should be considered more seriously in biodiversity discourse."

Their paper 'Biodiversity priority areas and religions—a global analysis of spatial overlap' by Mikusinski G, HP Possingham & M Blicharska (2013) is published in the journal Oryx. journals.cambridge.org/orx/biodiversity

Explore further: Relating animals to humans could help conservation projects

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000993

Journal reference: Oryx search and more info website

Provided by ARC CoE for Environmental Decisions

2.3 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study targets biodiversity conservation under-funders

Jul 03, 2013

If you take into consideration how much a country is expected to spend on conserving biodiversity, based on its size, wealth and share of biodiversity, a new study uncovers some surprising delinquents.

Mapping out how to save species

Jun 27, 2013

In stunning color, new biodiversity research from North Carolina State University maps out priority areas worldwide that hold the key to protecting vulnerable species and focusing conservation efforts.

Study confirms wealth of primates in Tanzania

Jul 17, 2013

A five-year study by the Wildlife Conservation Society gives new hope to some of the world's most endangered primates by establishing a roadmap to protect all 27 species in Tanzania – the most primate-diverse ...

Relating animals to humans could help conservation projects

Aug 22, 2013

New research by conservationists at the universities of Kent, Oxford, Columbia (USA) and Monash (Australia) suggests that people's tendency to relate more to animals that bear a resemblance to humans (anthropomorphism) ...

Conserving biodiversity could benefit the world's poor

Jan 12, 2012

Land areas that are a priority for wildlife conservation provide relatively high levels of ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification, food production, and climate regulation, so safeguarding them is expected ...

Recommended for you

Where have all the swallows gone?

6 hours ago

Extinction: the permanent loss of a species. It is deeply troubling—and scientists and birdwatchers are ringing the alarm about a bird species that only a few decades ago was widespread and very common.

Wildlife hospitals save 16,000 animals in four years

8 hours ago

Birds are the most commonly rescued wildlife in Queensland, with the laughing kookaburra among our hardiest species, according to new research from The University of Queensland's Gatton Campus.

User comments : 163

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
This is ridiculous.
1) Religions preach that this world has to be destroyed in the process of bringing heaven to earth. They view war, natural disaster, and ecological collapse as fulfillment of this prophesy. Maher makes a point of this in Religulous.
2) Religions are all seeking to outgrow and overrun each other. This is the major CAUSE of ecological ruin.
3) Religion says that god created the creatures of the earth to serve man. If they die off then it must be part of gods plan and not ours.

Religions strategy for creating a better world? Prayer, renewed devotion, accepting gods will, and gifting him with babies. 'Give no thought for the morrow' says god. He will feed as many babies as you care to drop.

We can expect no meaningful help from people who regard earthly life as gross and temporary.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Sep 02, 2013
Notice the term 'conservation' is used in this piece, but most enviros demand 'preservation'.
With conservation, elephants could be managed and their ivory harvested and sold to provide the value to continue to conserve the herds.
It is also amusing that so many biologists are evangelical atheists, but now want to exploit religion for their purposes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2013
Who are killing the animals because their body parts have magical powers? RELIGIONISTS.

Even Catholics think the cannibal Eucharist will give them immortality. They keep body parts of dead saints in jeweled reliquaries because these possess similar magic powers.

In Greece they dig up their dead relatives bones and display them on the mantlepiece. Their god approves.
djr
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2013
According to Joyce Poole (an elephant CONSERVATIONIST)- Elephants "would be extinct within a decade if poaching continued at the current rate."

So while boobies like Ryggy are busy parsing the definitions of words - hard working CONSERVATIONISTS like Joyce Poole are trying to bring our attention to the current state of our world - and what we need to do if we want to have elephants, and Tigers, and Apes around for our grand children to wonder at.

http://www.dailym...sks.html

So harvesting parts of animals for human consumption in the name of CONSERVATION - is something that a religionist like Ryggy would have not problem with. Take a hard look at this video - and understand Ryggy.

http://www.youtub...P80eg6Gk
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2013
"an analysis of the spatial overlap between major global religions and seven templates for prioritizing biodiversity action ... crisis ecoregions". Which would be predicted by Paul's theory of religiosity, it correlates with dysfunctional societies.

If those researchers had been interested in religion, they would know that religion is part of the problem, not likely becoming a part of the solution.

To top it off, they cite the blinkered catholic Wilson, who is merely making an unsubstantiated pat on his own back. According to the paper, the catholic is the worst religion for nature.

What were the reviewers thinking, the data analysis is fine but the social analysis and especially the idea of strengthening "religious ethics" [what ethics?] is contrary accepted science of religion!? I am ashamed that 2 of 3 authors were swedish researchers.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2013
@ryggesogn2: By definition atheists can't be 'evangelical' since they aren't inspired by enthusiasm about atheism but non-enthusiasm about theism. A generic atheist isn't a believer or evangelical any more than bald is a haircut, he is a skeptic about religion.

And if you had read the article you would see that these biologists are creationists. In every large group you can find any opinion expressed. (If they cared for facts, they wouldn't be creationists. Today we know that the universe and its contents is a result of a spontaneous process.)

And your new handle,,, if I had been banned, I wouldn't keep coming back for more punishment. That seems akin to how the latest DSM has removed the special exception for religion as among the diagnosis of delusion. =D
obama_socks
1 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2013
This makes great sense to me. Although not all members of religions own land, they can, indeed, help to preserve biodiversity by remembering that God gave stewardship of the Earth and its living creatures to His human creations. God gave humans the responsibility of helping the natural forces by lessening the ruination and destruction of our home planet.
We are all held accountable for any damage that we do, either willingly or unconsciously to our environment because the results of our ecological misdeeds will come back to haunt us and our descendants, just as any personal misdeeds that we commit go toward the condemnation of our immortal Souls.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2013
"Conservation scientists need to refocus on strategies that reshape ethical attitudes to nature and encourage pro-environmental thinking and lifestyles," says co-author Malgorzata Blicharska from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. "Religions are central to basic beliefs and ethics that influence people's behaviour and should be considered more seriously in biodiversity discourse."

In large part, humans have grown callous and uncaring for the welfare of our home planet. It is sometimes the result of thoughtless personal self-deception of an "I don't care" or "let someone else clean up" attitude.
In churches, temples, synagogues and every house of worship, it should be a part of the sermon that every human on Earth is responsible for the health of our home planet. And it should be advertised in all media in a conscientious manner to help people understand its importance. It is natural for Creationists to be good stewards of the Earth as long as they are reminded of it.
BAKOON
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, King Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
BAKOON
1.5 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
Well, that seems to be one of the main problems within the Black community. The culture is damaging to kids who just want to get a good education and make something of themselves when they graduate. Their lack of discipline shows up every time from both school and home. Discipline is key to success in America...and it is the Black community who will pay with the lives and futures of their children.
-Obama_socks, Insane Racist Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
BAKOON
1.5 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes.
-Obama_socks, Delusional Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2013
Remembering on a daily basis that God created the Earth for us to live on and that any defacement and destruction of the Earth by humans runs counter to God's ordinances. Atheists and others, including Creationists must learn (or relearn) to LOVE the Earth and not just to grow and admire the flowers while polluting rivers and lakes.
This is our planet, this is our home. We have no other.
We must TEACH the rest of the world good stewardship, including those in urban areas. The knowledge doesn't come about naturally for most. And those who have grown to adulthood not knowing about God and all that He created are most often too concerned about secular matters to realize the wonders under our feet.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2013
LOL @Bakoon...nobody in their right mind is paying attention to you. Give it up, Blotto. Everyone already knows you have a huge menagerie of sockpuppets and BAKOON the phony Black man is one of them. I am not leaving this website, so follow me all over. It does not bother me. Neither do all your downvoting. It means nothing to me. Keep on being stupid, please.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2013
We are all held accountable for any damage that we do
And how about the damage you do to this site with all your lying, flooding, inane comments? Do you think your god will punish you for this selfish behavior as well?

Please click my user name to visit my profile page for a long cut-and-paste collection of obamasocks ignorance and abomination.

You really do think that cells have neurons?? WTF are you doing here??
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2013
Oh and I am not bakoon. I am not John gee or antialias or frank Herbert or anyone else you have accused me of being just because they are similarly disgusted. You post utter crap in endless posts and people take issue with this. And then you destroy the thread by flaming them and downrating them with your sockuppets. Time and time again.

Is this really your idea of a good time? You enjoy tagging city buses as well? You like exposing your sickness to the world? Perhaps you are bitter because the people here are so much smarter than you. Well boo hoo. Go make some friends at the walmart cafe. You'll fit right in. Corndogs are on sale this week.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2013
We must teach the world good stewardship
Ahaaahaaa shitting here is like shitting on your neighbors front lawn. And just what is this supposed to teach your neighbors about stewardship pussytard?

You REALLY think that cells have neurons??? This is just as pathetic as your saying that bloodletting could cure leukemia. You said that while pretending to be an RN, you remember that you moron?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
We are all held accountable for any damage that we do
And how about the damage you do to this site with all your lying, flooding, inane comments? Do you think your god will punish you for this selfish behavior as well?

Please click my user name to visit my profile page for a long cut-and-paste collection of obamasocks ignorance and abomination.

You really do think that cells have neurons?? WTF are you doing here??
-Theghostofblotto1923 aka BAKOON

Exactly. We ALL are held accountable for any damage, especially people like YOU.

The only one that's doing the lying, flooding, and commenting inanely and stupidly is YOU and your sockpuppets.

Cells that God created would have had neurons, unlike the lack of functioning neurons in Blotto's brain.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO GET OUT OF PHYSORG, AND STAY OUT!! WHY ARE YOU STILL DROPPING YOUR LOAD OF SHIT IN THIS WEBSITE??

PLEASE CLICK MY PROFILE PAGE TO SEE ALL OF THEGHOSTOFOTTO1923's DEMONIC SUCKSUCKPUPPETS' NAMES.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
We must teach the world good stewardship
Ahaaahaaa shitting here is like shitting on your neighbors front lawn. And just what is this supposed to teach your neighbors about stewardship pussytard?

You REALLY think that cells have neurons??? This is just as pathetic as your saying that bloodletting could cure leukemia. You said that while pretending to be an RN, you remember that you moron?
-TheBloatedGhostofNaziOttoSkorzeny1923

You are the only one who shits in Physorg...oh, and your sucksuckpuppets too.

Provide the link to where I ever said anything about bloodletting, you fucking Nazi liar.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Certified Dumbass

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Cells that God created would have had neurons
LOL, this one is going in idiot.txt
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2013
" you fucking Nazi liar."

Dear Sox - please go straight to hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. I am very disappointed in your behavior. You may no longer play with the other children.

Sincerely.

God.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
@ryggesogn2: By definition atheists can't be 'evangelical' since they aren't inspired by enthusiasm about atheism


Then why are atheists enthusiastically attempting to promote atheism in the USA?
Filing lawsuits attempting to strike God from ANY govt requires enthusiasm since the FIRST amendment of the US Constitution explicitly states the US govt can NOT prohibit the FREE exercise of religion.
JohnGee
3 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
Why do you feel the need to attribute your motivations to those you disagree with? If those motivations are good enough for you, why not others?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
Tor, one common definition of 'evangelical' is "zealously enthusiastic".
There are many atheists who post here and who are in the public sphere who are zealously enthusiastic atheists, or to be more concise, evangelical atheists.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 04, 2013
I look forward to the day I can walk downtown and see an atheist zealot preaching in public from the Book of Sagan.

Sagan 3:16 - If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
So conservationist, want to tell Christians what to do. I thought Progressives want Christians to shut up and keep their religion to themselves.

Oh wait, If Christians parrot what Progressives want, then they are allowed and even encouraged to speak. --- Just as long as they don't speak of faith it's ok....
rug
2.4 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
@free - You missed the point completely once again. What this article is talking about is religion influences lots of people. Since it's everyone problem why shouldn't religion be involved with fixing it?

Oh that's right. You religious belief is that there is no problem. Just keep telling yourself there is no spoon. One day you might be able to bend it with your mind.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
Science can't determine value:

"Conservation scientists need to refocus on strategies that reshape ethical attitudes to nature and encourage pro-environmental thinking and lifestyles," says co-author Malgorzata Blicharska from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. "Religions are central to basic beliefs and ethics that influence people's behaviour and should be considered more seriously in biodiversity discourse."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Many atheist environmentalists zealously advocate for PRESERVATION. Which is ultimately means they either want to be God and control the environment or they want to humans to disappear to preserve nature.
Of course nature doesn't care about preservation as evidenced by the orders of magnitude difference in extinct species compared to existing species prior to humans existing in nature.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
It doesn't make much sense to say an atheist wants to be god when an atheist believes the idea of a god is impossible. I think your hording of wealth and gaming the system to facilitate such is your attempt at godhood.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 05, 2013
Rug you don't get the irony. Non and anti religion people telling religious people what to do, say, and think.....Very Progressive of you.

Yup, Christians should preach about saving the whales and hugging trees and quit talking about saving souls and talking about sin.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
Lenin demanded all communist party members be atheist.
Lenin and his communists sought the powers of God to decide life and death for all.

Socialism doesn't make much sense as it seeks the power of life and death, play God, over humanity.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
Yup, Christians should preach about saving the whales and hugging trees and quit talking about saving souls and talking about sin.

We just think you should leave the garbage off science websites. If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, stick to stormfront and freep.
rug
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
Rug you don't get the irony. Non and anti religion people telling religious people what to do, say, and think.....Very Progressive of you.


Not telling you what to think, do, or say. Getting the point across that if we don't stop destroying the environment is going to affect all of us.

It's not a complicated idea but there are always going to be people like you that assume (because your a dumbass) that people want to control you. News flash, thats what religions do. Dumbass.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
Yeah, lol, kind of like how he's worried we're going to take away his "free thinking". He done lost that ages ago.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 05, 2013
JG, Yup we think you Progressives and Atheists should leave the garbage off science websites. If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, stick to CNN, ABC, MSN, CBS. There you can have group think and not be challenged.
rug
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
Socialism doesn't make much sense as it seeks the power of life and death, play God, over humanity.

This article is not about socialism. It's about saving the human race. If you haven't noticed we are destroying the ecosystem on a worldwide scale. This article is just taking about trying to get religions to understand this and come together for a common goal.

I think it's a goal everyone can agree on....you know....saving our asses.

wow it's truly amazing the kind of crap that comes out of peoples mouths that don't think for themselves.

I do have one question for all you religious trolls. What would you do if you're religious leaders started saying. "You know, they are kinda right. We need to help."?
JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
It's funny you always seem to mirror the argument and tone of those you disagree with. Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on?
rug
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
JG, Yup we think you Progressives and Atheists should leave the garbage off science websites. If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, stick to CNN, ABC, MSN, CBS. There you can have group think and not be challenged.


Wow, are you trying to list every news station that have no value at all? If so you missed Fox

BTW, the on garbage on real science websites are the trolls like you and many ot the others here that refuse logical arguments and are completely brainwashed.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
Sorry to break your bubble.... the environment in the USA is getting better....

rug
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
Sorry to break your bubble.... the environment in the USA is getting better....

Well, that shows right there you have no idea what you are talking about. Aquifers running out of water. Rivers that no longer reach the ocean. http://ga.water.u...ion.html When the water dries up so will the life in these areas. Yup, guess your just a dumbass.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2013
we are destroying the ecosystem on a worldwide scale.

Who is 'we'?
What is being destroyed?
The most devastation to environments are caused by people suffering under tyranical socialsim. Zimbabwe and DPRK are examples.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
rug, if you would start to do some free thinking of your own and quit being a dogmatic progressive that parrots the party line and start questioning everything being fed to you by radical progressive environmentalists.
http://news.heart...er-safer
http://www.econom...e/718860

Dogmatic anyone? Will any proof contrary to what you believe ever be accepted?
rug
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
Who is 'we'?
Human beings duh dumbass
The most devastation to environments are caused by people suffering under tyranical socialsim. Zimbabwe and DPRK are examples.
The water issues I stated in my post are happening right here in the US so don't give me that crap dumbass.
rug
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
rug, if you would start to do some free thinking of your own and quit being a dogmatic progressive that parrots the party line and start questioning everything being fed to you by radical progressive environmentalists.


Lets see, besides the water issues I had already stated there is forest being cut down, chemical spill, oil spills, sewage ruptures, companies not properly disposing of their waste, and my favorite GLOBAL WARMING!

Have you went outside? Must have been a while or you simply don't pay much attention. Judging by your post I'm going to go with you're not paying attention. Animals migrations are changing that have been the same for hundreds of years. More and more wild animals are coming into the cities to find food because the are not finding as much elsewhere.

I could go on, but I'm not going to bother because your just going to deny it's happening anyway. Thats what dumbasses do.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
As usual, anytime there is a thread that even remotely mentions religion, the atheists and anti-religionists (anti-Christian) always show up in force to vent their hatred...not even bothering to notice that the crux of the topic IS religion as a way of getting a message out. LOL...the usual suspects come in and continue to harangue people of faith who also wish to talk about the fact that they can be, and are, environmentalists as much as the atheists and anti-religionists claim to be. Many people of faith are even more in tune with the environment and ecology, since their faith in God proscribes the poisoning and the ruination of the Earth and its plants and animals.
As the topic of this thread is, "Scientists call for RELIGIOUS HELP to save our wildlife", the idiots all rush in to compete on who has the most vitriolic idiocy against people of religious faith, as though their opinions count even though they make absolutely no sense.

Like JewhatingJackbooted thugs on Crystalnacht
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2013
I actually think what the article proposes is a good idea.

It doesn't really matter why you protect the environment, just as long as you do. And if there are people who can't understand the necessity intellectually then you just have to get them another way. In this case blindly following what their religious leaders tell them - at the very least we know that believers are good at that.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
then you just have to get them another way.

This is an atheist talking?
The ends justify the means if the ends are important to the atheist?
But religion had nothing to do with the liberty and prosperity created by Western civilization.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
@rug
it will nto help to argue with fanatics. i spent a few years working for a state conservation agency in section 319 Non-Point Source... although i dealt mostly with riparian issues, and some watershed issues, there was a huge amount of money poured into our conservation of water, etc. but even when you dump the science on the "unbeliever" or the "fanatic"... they jump into their "party line" argument, and say that you cant see the picture. human manipulation bleeds into the environment... chickens and pigs change the Phosphorus concentrations of the soil, and when it rains this bleeds into the water supply, which has a domino effect... something we have been combatting for years. just a small thing to some, but then add the changing water supplies and availability, like you stated, and it REALLY starts to become an issue. EPA and states dump a lot of dough in water conservation... but even with $ places like Tx still reel with overuse... the aquifer is getting lower...
rug
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 07, 2013
I think it's rather funny that no one could answer my simple question. Just goes to prove very few people here are thinking for themselves. That is why scientist need to talk to religious leaders and not their flock.

Once most christian religions get onboard the save our own asses train it just might prove to be one of the fastest in the world. Until then looks like we are stuck at a snails pace. Oh well, guess we will see what happens.
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
...and HOPE that the religious leaders are intelligent enough to see the TRUTH of the matter, and are wise enough to look down the road and think about the continuation of the species... some people are so wrapped up in their dogma that they cant see the writing on the wall.

i think getting religions involved might actually help, as long as you didnt get that crazed group of ANTI-science fanatics that decide that anything that is scientifically researched must be a satanic attack on the good people of the church... met quite a few of those!
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
....as long as you didnt get that crazed group of ANTI-science fanatics that decide that anything that is scientifically researched must be a satanic attack on the good people of the church... met quite a few of those!

Ah, but the question remains, would they still think like that if their religious leaders told them not to?

It's my opinion, and I stress opinion here, most top religious leaders don't really believe in the dogma they preach. They are really just in it to feel important and get all kinds of things for free. I think it's just a matter of showing them evidence they can't refute. You know, they are out of clean water, oil, and/or food. I'm sure you will see them come around at that point. To bad at that point it's already too late.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
Religion is useless BS that hasn't helped anyone or anything.
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
IMHO religion is like an emotion... useful to control others... useful to separate others... so it is in the eye of the beholder.
you can gather / manipulate / control large crowds of people with religion, so it has a use to those who need / desire power over others. ...or for those who don't mind letting others think FOR them. some people seek the peace of letting others control their "hardships". some people are just weak.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2013
The ends justify the means if the ends are important to the atheist?

The ends justify the means if the end is "human survival" - because any other means will not lead to an end at all.

"End justify the means" is not ideal if there are various ends that YOU CAN LIVE WITH (that#s why it's not an acceptable power-political strategy).
However, if all but one path lead to destruction then using the 'noble means' means nothing.

This is an atheist talking?

No. This is a human with more than one brain cell talking. I have the ability to see where the applicability of proverbs is dependent on context.
Why don't you develop that ability? (But I guess not being an atheist that is almost impossible. If god says so then it is so - no matter whether it makes sense or not, right?)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
I have the ability to see where the applicability of proverbs is dependent on context.

But people who are not atheists do not?
I just find it amusing that an evangelical atheist like anti, and others, will accept the support of those they attack for causes they support.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2013
But people who are not atheists do not?

If you had read the sentence right before the one you quoted you might have noticed that it has nothing to do with being a god-slave or an atheist. It has everything to do with having a brain (more precisely: with actually USING it)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
"Let's hope that he and other religious leaders will seriously consider the opportunity to engage more actively in the conservation debate. Moreover, conservation researchers must actively encourage religious leaders to participate in such a debate."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

While atheists attack those religious leaders who make any attempt to engage in that debate.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
"A U.S. District Judge ruled Friday that the city of Dearborn violated Florida pastor Terry Jones' First Amendment rights by forcing him and representatives from Stand Up America Now to sign an indemnification agreement before Jones and co-founder Wayne Sapp planned to speak in the city last year."
http://dearborn.p...dearborn

As long as religious leaders know their place, they should be used by scientists to promote their causes.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2013
As long as religious leaders know their place, they should be used by scientists to promote their causes.

Survival of the human race is not (also) the cause of religious leaders?

Well, I guess that wraps it up, then. If humanity is to survive religion must go.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
As long as religious leaders know their place, they should be used by scientists to promote their causes.

Survival of the human race is not (also) the cause of religious leaders?

Well, I guess that wraps it up, then. If humanity is to survive religion must go.


Catholics and others religious people are pro-life, opposed to the murder of babies and opposed to contraception that promotes irresponsible sex.
The atheistic, science state supports abortion, supports contraception, supports euthanasia, supports limiting the number humans to 'save the planet'.
The atheistic, science state must go, if you want humanity to survive.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
A religious leader pleading for no war:
"This pope with the common touch has been uncommonly active, lobbying against an attack on Syria. He's used his last two major public appearances in St. Peter's Square to appeal to world leaders – and that primarily means President Obama – not to do it.

Read more: http://newsbuster...eEbrSxdv
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
"A large proportion of intellectuals and politicians, including President Obama, decry these problems with suburbs as reason to hate them and advocate for their elimination, in favor of dense, big cities."
"There's just one big problem with suburb hating. The alternative to suburbs in metropolitan areas, cities, are much worse for children. "
http://www.newgeo...ti-child

Another example of how 'liberals' do not want to promote more humans.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
As long as religious leaders know their place, they should be used by scientists to promote their causes.

Survival of the human race is not (also) the cause of religious leaders?

Well, I guess that wraps it up, then. If humanity is to survive religion must go.

"Taking the Genesis story seriously, if not literally, though that can work too when it comes to the "big truths" this story teach, means appreciating that all humans, regardless of the issues and experiences which divide us, are fundamentally connected, and that whatever we do to each other, we are also doing to ourselves. It means that there is, in the words of the ancient rabbinic sages, a basic equality, fundamental dignity and infinite value to all human beings."
http://www.washin...n-story/
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2013
You know, I'm a Christian, and I don't go around destroying the environment, and definitely not intentionally.

I want animals conserved as much as possible.

Give you some examples.

The Bible says that it is an evil man (and in another place a lazy person) who kills an animal and doesn't use it's carcass. It also says (regarding animal cruelty,) that an evil person doesn't care for the life of his animal. (paraphrasing).

So atheists claim that Christians aren't concerned with the environment is a lie.

Now maybe you know some bad Christians who don't realize what they're doing is wrong, or maybe we can debate about the degree of conservation that should be employed, but I think it's dishonest to label all believers as not caring about the environment.

Everyone here knows as well as I do that environmental fanaticism is actually preventing the conservation of the environment because they even reject things like hydro and solar farms (even in the middle of the desert).
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
Also, you can blame countries in the west all you want, but we know it is actually African and Asian nations who are to blame for the deforestation of the Amazon, due to their over-population making them unable to feed themselves. We also know that China catches and consumes about ten times more fish than they publicly admit to.

Everyone wants to blame the U.S. and Europe, but how are we to blame for people in some of these nations (excluding China in this case,) averaging 8 children per woman to this day? If you average 8 children per woman for 3 reproductive generations, you'd increase your population by a factor of 64 within about 60 years or so.

One thing we are doing wrong in the U.S. is taking immigrants from those countries. By doing this we encourage them to keep up with the irresponsible behavior.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
due to their over-population making them unable to feed themselves.

That is not their problem. The problem is socialism in these countries that prevent them from being as productive as farmers are in the US.
Zimbabwe is a classic example of what NOT to do.
taking immigrants from those countries

There is nothing wrong per se IF they want to enjoy the liberty to be more productive.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2013
Catholics and others religious people are pro-life,

As I said: Following precepts without thinking is idiocy. If you always act 'pro-life' you're just going to cause overpopulation that will result in mass die-back (or total collapse of the ecosystem because we put too much of a burden on it. First signs of which are already all around us).
The 'pro life' stance (for the individual) is a 'pro death' stance for the species. And NEWS FLASH: if the species dies the indivdiual also dies. In that case #pro life' was meaningless.

"Taking the Genesis story seriously, if not literally,

Which is a major problem. Since everyone has been reinterpreting the Bible to serve as an authority for what THEY want to do in any case (from total altruism to full-on capitalism to genocide): it has lost all meaning.
In informtaion-theory speak: A message that can mean anything carries zero information.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2013
You know, I'm a Christian, and I don't go around destroying the environment, and definitely not intentionally.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And "because we had a cold day yesterday global warming must be a lie."
That's the quality of your (non)argument.

So atheists claim that Christians aren't concerned with the environment is a lie.

The article makes it quite plain that the major religions are mostly present in areas where people do NOT behave the way you (say you) do. So while you may continue to believe that you are representative of all believers everywhere, the facts speak otherwise (which is just another indication that you're totally delusional)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
The 'pro life' stance (for the individual) is a 'pro death' stance for the species. And NEWS FLASH: if the species dies the indivdiual also dies. In that case #pro life' was meaningless.


So what individual human gets to decide what other humans should be killed to save humanity?

Isn't that's what WWII concentration camps were for?
After all, eugenics was based upon science. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenics supporter.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
So what individual human gets to decide what other humans should be killed to save humanity?

Since we're not in a position where we have to make that decision asking that is besides the point.

But if we have the choice between:
Group A saying "all life must perish" because we will not allow a balance where life can exist
and
Group B saying " we will try to keep ourselves in check so that life may continue"

which side would you chose?

Life is not an end in itself. It does have needs. And the supply for those needs isn't infinite. So you can't just say "life before anything else" because that ignores reality.

OK..so the point is probably: Why am I asking someone who believes (i.e. ignores reality) to acknowledge reality. Excercise in futility? Most definitely.

So keep on believing without knowing - and let the rest of us get on with saving your sorry ass from killing itself (and us along with it)

A simple 'thank you' will suffice.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
Since we're not in a position where we have to make that decision asking that is besides the point.

No its not. The fact you are willing advocate murder to save humanity suggests you have not learned much from history.
But if we have the choice between:
Group A saying "all life must perish" because we will not allow a balance where life can exist
and
Group B saying " we will try to keep ourselves in check so that life may continue"

This is a false, socialist choice.
When individuals have the liberty act in their self-interest, no such choice will ever occur.

Reality shows that as liberty and prosperity increase, individuals are able to act in their self-interest, to the point where in some places fertility rates will not sustain the population. Japan is one example.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
""Fertility rate is highest for those countries that have little economic freedom and little respect for the rule of law," wrote Norton. "The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in countries with low levels of economic freedom and the rule of law compared to countries with high levels of those measures.""
"Just as high fertility rates and rising population encouraged would-be global saviors to demand drastic interventions into the fertility decisions of individuals, I fear that falling ferility rates and population will do the same. Choosing to have or not have children is an intensely private issue and should be left entirely up to individuals without interference from governments."
http://reason.com...ause-for
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
"Take the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The nation's predominant law to conserve species takes private property from law-abiding landowners with no compensation. ESA's stringent land-use restrictions turn the nesting of red-cockaded woodpeckers in a landowner's pine trees into a liability instead of an asset.

The landowner faces restrictions disallowing ordinary land-use activities such as farming or site development, which represents a taking of some of the value and use of private property. This encourages preemptive habitat destruction on private land and other adverse strategies to avoid the ESA's punishment. "Shoot, shovel, and shut-up" is well-known as another coping strategy in the face of regulatory takings for ineffective species protection."
"the greatest opportunities for environmental progress lie in protecting and extending private property rights and enabling market innovations. "
http://www.thebla...-through
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2013
which side would you chose?

I don't think these people get it.
OK..so the point is probably: Why am I asking someone who believes (i.e. ignores reality) to acknowledge reality. Excercise in futility? Most definitely.
Does seem to be the case.
So keep on believing without knowing - and let the rest of us get on with saving your sorry ass from killing itself (and us along with it)
A simple 'thank you' will suffice.

I really don't think we should save them along with the rest of us. The planet is getting hotter and may are refusing to acknowledge it. I think we would be better off just to let them go on about their business until they kill each other off. Kinda like Atlas Shrugged. Let all the dumbasses destroy everything and themselves. Then we rebuild and leave them out of it.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2013
When individuals have the liberty act in their self-interest, no such choice will ever occur.


Wow! You can utter this and in the same thread deny that women, men, couples should have the right to choose abortion, or even access to contraception because these things don't square with your religious beliefs?!

What a completely delusional hypocrite moron you are Marj. Beyond all hopes for a cure; beyond all help. You are truly damned, and I mean in this life already!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
deny that women, men, couples should have the right to choose abortion,

You think some people should have the right to kill other people because they want to, for any reason?
When individuals have the liberty to act in their self-interest the need for some tyrants to kill some to save the rest will never occur.
Access to contraception? Who does NOT have access to contraception today? Condoms are tossed out like candy to elementary school kids. Yet a law student at Georgetown is too stupid to know how and where to buy contraceptives?
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Who does NOT have access to contraception today? Condoms are tossed out like candy to elementary school kids.
I'm just wondering what thought processes someone must go through to convince himself of something that is obviously untrue, like this.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2013
You think some people should have the right to kill other people because they want to, for any reason? Access to contraception? Who does NOT have access to contraception today?


No, its just that unlike the self-righteous hypocrite pig you are, I don't think it's up to me to make that call, or the call on contraceptive availability, for someone ELSE based on my personal beliefs. And you damn well know that neither you nor I were referring to the actual availability contraceptives but to the simple fact that YOU think they are immoral to use and would deny their use, if you could, in spite of your plea for individual liberty. I.e. it's liberty only as far as it suites YOUR beliefs.

You can try to dodge it any way you like but you can't get away from being a pathetic hypocrite. Completely, utterly pathetic.

Get down from the cross, tyrant, we need the fucking wood.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
I don't think it's up to me to make that call,

It's not your place to determine if anyone should have the right to kill anyone they chose to?

What is the thought process here?

"The policy -- passed this month -- has no minimum age on supplying condoms to students. It allows nurses to give condoms to students they think are sexually active after counseling and education without informing their parents.

Provincetown school district superintendent, Beth Singer, who wrote the policy, said she wanted to ensure students of all ages requesting condoms get information on their use."
http://www.cnn.co...dex.html

http://www.allvoi...his-fall
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
I don't think it's up to me to make that call

It's not your place to oppose murder?

Mass schools hand out condoms to elementary schools:
" Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick urged a school district to revise its policy allowing students as young as in elementary schools to get condoms if they are believed to be sexually active."
http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
Oh stop the insanity!

Am I the only what that remember these commercials?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2013
Marjon: "It's not your place to determine if anyone should have the right to kill anyone they chose to?"

Me: no it's not, not when it comes to abortion, which is what is in question, and which you're desperately squirming to change to "anybody" thinking no one is looking. That's o.k., I love watching you squirm, Marj. I hadn't had the pleasure of making you squirm in far too long. I have to admit, there's a strange kind of pleasure in making a psychopath squirm....

Oh, what the hell. Here: have a shovel. Let's see how far you can dig.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2013
Marjon, while squirming to equivocate abortion with murder and wishing contraceptives become illegal AND claiming to be a champion of individual liberty: "It's not your place to oppose murder?"

Me: Euh, Marj, everyone still on here has already seen your hand (and, the fetid stew that passes for your mind...such as it is)... But please: keep digging.
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
i remember those, rug! I used to LOVE to get tapes of commercials from the states when I lived overseas!.... you can tell a LOT about a culture by their commercials LOL! I still like watching commercials... too bad I cant get TV where I live... but it is no loss, I read more than watch TV anyway, and I do watch DVD's of some shows. (I happen to like NCIS)

and before anyone gets ticked, this is about as relevant a topic as abortion in this thread!

you don't like it, change the law, don't argue it here. argue it on a LAW forum or thread.

Gawad has every right to his own opinion just as you Rygg or even Zeph does... arguing from your own personal morality is semantics and religion, not science.

I am actually more interested in what Otto has to say at this point...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2013
I am actually more interested in what Otto has to say at this point...


Indeed, because he has it right on this point. These guys don't understand Christianity if they think it can help preserve the natural world. It's quite the contrary, especially for Catholicisme: the entire Church revolves around the premise that the only thing that has any real importance in this life is getting souls ready for the next one. So what happens to this world is of secondary importance because it's not the world you're going to spend eternity in. That latter one is what really matters. And believe you me it's the same damn thing with Islam, maybe worse.

So maybe they'll eventually manage to get help from Christians and others, but if they do it will be IN SPITE OF their religions, not because of them.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
which is what is in question,

No, it was not.
The overarching question is population control and how many would be willing to murder, such as was done in the book Logan's Run, to control population.
Abortion is murdering a living human being. Calling it something else is an attempt to assuage guilt.
I have no problem preventing conception.
Data is showing the best way to lower fertility rates is to have a prospering economy. And the best way to have a prospering economy is to minimize socialism.
preserve the natural world

Back to my much earlier point. God gave the earth to man for his use. Conserving its resources is wise. Preserving is beyond the capability and the understanding of man.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
wishing contraceptives become illegal

When did I say this?
What I did say was a female law student from Georgetown was too stupid to know how to buy contraceptives and demanded the govt should do it for her.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
this is about as relevant a topic as abortion in this thread!


I'll have to disagree with you on that, Captain. I think it's actually very relevant. If you look at any religion's stance on abortion and (especially) contraception you're actually looking directly at its "family planning" policy and indirectly at how it sees humans in relation with the natural world. That directly informs what you can expect from it as far as environmental policy. I.e., are humans equal partners with respect to the natural world? Are they seen as its custodians? Is the natural world simply there to be exploited by humans, etc? So if a religion has as its premise "go forth and be fruitful/multiply" and if it sees the very use of contraceptives as "against God's plan" you're looking at a policy based on a set of beliefs that leads to this world being chewed up in favor of the next one. Not much cooperation on to be expected with such outlooks.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
The overarching question is population control and how many would be willing to murder

Another bit you invented and put into AA's mouth. Population control is already largely effective in the West thanks to the legalization of abortion and the ready availability of contraception. The real damage is being done in places where that's not the case or where, for example, the Church has sway and actively condemns even the use of contraception such as in sub-Saharan Africa. Promoting the use of contraception as a responsible part of family planning would go a LONG way to alleviating the problem, but like you the Church considers contraceptive use immoral and helps contribute to the misery of untold millions for the sake of their (your) belief in a fictitious other world.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
wishing contraceptives become illegal

When did I say this?
What I did say was [blah, blah blah].


Yeah, yeah, you say many self-contradictory things all the time with the only underlying criteria being that they suit you at the time utter them. You also said "Catholics and others religious people are pro-life, opposed to the murder of babies and opposed to contraception that promotes irresponsible sex"

Again: "opposed to contraception that promotes irresponsible sex"

So now you're going to decide what "responsible" contraceptive use is for us Champion of Liberty? Your meaning is plain. You'd make anything revolving around family planning that doesn't square with your beliefs in an imaginary sky fairy's dictates just as soon disapear. So it all comes back to this: Marjon/Ryggy's sickness: champion of individual liberties as long as what other's do with themselves squares with your personal beliefs. You are a sick and twisted man Marj.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Data is showing the best way to lower fertility rates is to have a prospering economy.
Of course, but only because "family planning" follows directly from having a a prospering economy. And "family planning", ironically, is something you and your ilk cannot abide.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2013
Back to my much earlier point. God gave the earth to man for his use.


This is how doomed we are, folks.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
Sick and twisted are the 'progressives' who advocate and support abortion on demand and are afraid to hold abortionists like Gosnell accountable because of politics.
The city of Philidelphia and the state of PA feared shutting him down because of politics.
"A Philadelphia doctor was found guilty Monday of murdering three babies born alive in an abortion clinic,'"
"Pennsylvania authorities had failed to conduct routine inspections of all of its abortion clinics for 15 years by the time Gosnell's facility was raided and closed down.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...ebTL4Qp1

To a 'liberal' death is much more important than life.
rug
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
Once again I ask, what would religous people say when their own leaders say "it's god's will for us to save the echo system"? I would really like to know. I think that would all fall into line like good little followers. Since I have never gotten a response in this question I am left to think none of these people have a mind of there own so following is all they can do.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
For all who assert the earth must be 'preserved'. What should be preserved? How do you plan to stop evolution and keep the earth just as it is?
Or do you think the earth should somehow be restored to some period say 100, 1000, 10,000 100,000 years ago? If so, how do you know what the earth was exactly like then so you can restore and preserve?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
what would religous people say when their own leaders say "it's god's will for us to save the echo system"


They would refer to the Bible. Religious people follow God, not fallible men.

Genesis:
"8 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so."
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
To a 'liberal' death is much more important than life.


Another quote from your imaginary God, Marj?
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2013
For all who assert the earth must be 'preserved'. What should be preserved? How do you plan to stop evolution and keep the earth just as it is?
Or do you think the earth should somehow be restored to some period say 100, 1000, 10,000 100,000 years ago? If so, how do you know what the earth was exactly like then so you can restore and preserve?


Wow...

I think we have a winner for the biggest dumbass of the year folks! Lets give a big round of applause. This year's winner receives an x-ray to show where their brain should have been, a free link to wiktionary although they will never use it, and the most coveted award in all of dumbassery....The saving of their dumbassness on the internet for all the world to see.

There we have it folks The winner of this year's contest! isn't it grand? See you next time folks, and until then have a year chock full of dumbassery.

http://en.wiktion.../dumbass
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2013
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2013
Religious people follow God, not fallible men.


My appologies folks, I used the word "doomed" earlier. That was clearly far too mild a term. So does this make it clear to the folks who try to engage Marjon/Ryygy thinking he may be rational that he is beyond redemption? Marjon follows the Word of God*. And one cannot stand against the Word of God*.

Get it?

*A.k.a the Imaginary Sky Fairy

Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Genesis: "8 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


A direct quote of what I was referring to earlier. This is what brings us back full circle and ties together religious natural environment outlook and reproductive policy. To all those that wrote the authors above didn't really "get it" this is why. And why I wrote that any help from the religious will have to be in spite of rather than because of their religion.

Pretty much seems like case closed.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
'Liberals' like g-wad like to follow the arbitrary rule of the latest tyrant of the day, or whatever makes them 'feel good' so I am not surprised he asserted religious folks would blindly follow religious leaders as 'progressives' blindly follow their Marxist leaders.
The Bible or the US Constitution provide the basis of the law I, and others, prefer to have as standards to follow.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
rug, what is the difference between 'preserve' and 'conserve'?
The article and many here use 'preserve', which means to keep something exactly as it is.
'Conserve' means something different. Regarding the environment, it allows people to harvest trees from a forest, fish in the sea, cultivate the soil for crops, ... in a manner that allows such utility to continue indefinitely.
'Preserve' bans such activity and would demand resources be expended to keep the environment just as it is, at some arbitrary time.
JohnGee
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2013
The Bible or the US Constitution provide the basis of the law I, and others, prefer to have as standards to follow.
A fan of slavery I see.
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
rug, what is the difference between 'preserve' and 'conserve'?
The article and many here use 'preserve', which means to keep something exactly as it is.
'Conserve' means something different. Regarding the environment, it allows people to harvest trees from a forest, fish in the sea, cultivate the soil for crops, ... in a manner that allows such utility to continue indefinitely.
'Preserve' bans such activity and would demand resources be expended to keep the environment just as it is, at some arbitrary time.

You come on a science website proclaiming you "know" the "truth".

Well, here is some news for you...
You are not well informed.
You are not all knowing.
You have not studied the problems.
You have not studied the proposed solutions.
Passages out of the bible prove nothing but your ignorance.

All of that put together can only equal one thing. Something I have already said.

You are a dumbass.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
rug, I was not one of the scientists wanting to ask the religious to help save wildlife.
Which means these scientists must understand the Bible is a reference for the religious and is a valid reference for this discussion.
And it is quite typical that instead of a discussion, 'liberals' prefer to insult.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
The Bible or the US Constitution provide the basis of the law I, and others, prefer to have as standards to follow.
A fan of slavery I see.


Standards are slavery?
Where would the world be today if there were no physical standards maintained by NIST, NPL and other laboratories?
ISO standards are essential for commerce.
Social and legal standards are required for a civil society.
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
rug, I was not one of the scientists wanting to ask the religious to help save wildlife.
Which means these scientists must understand the Bible is a reference for the religious and is a valid reference for this discussion.

Wrong, scientist are trying to get dumbasses to help save themselves. I say screw it and let you all kill each other off.

And it is quite typical that instead of a discussion, 'liberals' prefer to insult.

I am not a liberal. You have no idea what, who, or how I am. Although, I have seen you insult people. You just did me. I have seen you call some people murders and basically everything under the sun. You are just pissed off cause I called you out on your dumbassery.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
'Liberals' like g-wad like to follow the arbitrary rule of the latest tyrant of the day


That's right, "liberals" like me who believe that self-righteous busy-bodies like yourself who are driven by pre-medieval superstitions have no business deciding what constitutes "right" as far as someone else's private life. Yeah, that's really a soup-du-jour.

And especially "liberals" like me who are revolted by fake libertarian hypocrites like you, who claim to be champions of individual liberties while in the same breath trying to justify meddling in people's private lives. That dumbass award must look really good on your 8-track player, Marj.
Gawad
3 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2013
The Bible or the US Constitution provide the basis of the law I, and others, prefer to have as standards to follow. [blah, blah] Standards are slavery?


Just when you'd think Captain Liberty's hit bedrock and can't keep digging any further...he pulls out a damn drill bit and keeps going...
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
Oh it's worse than that. The constitution was based on deist principles. Not the bible. You know, some people just think they know it all and are wrong so often. It's almost funny in a sad kind of way.
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
ryggesogn2
Sick and twisted are the 'progressives' who advocate and support abortion on demand and are afraid to hold abortionists like Gosnell accountable because of politics.

what is sick and twisted is applying your particular brand of thought and telling someone else that they must abide by it. what of women that were raped? do you think they really wish to raise the child of their violator? there are other circumstances, as well... such as saving one life for another... who choses whose life to save? mother of child? which would be more productive to the future? there is no guarantee that EITHER will in any way have an impact on said future, so what then?
the constitution guarantee's us the right to our beliefs as long as they do NOT interfere with the rights of OTHERS... why should YOUR belief system be more important than, say, an Amish, or even a Moonie?
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
@rygg
To a 'liberal' death is much more important than life.


this looks more like a power play to me.... your beliefs are more important than mine, or any others.

it should be NO belief system should take precedence over any other, and if truth be told, the data from empirical studies, which are neutral, should take precedent over ALL, given the fact that data is not interpreted with or under a flawed premise, but rather statistically analyzed for practical application or/for fundamental laws of nature, etc.

it is ONE REASON that we SEPARATE CHURCH and STATE!
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013

rygg
'Liberals' ...blah blah blah ...The Bible or the US Constitution provide the basis of the law I, and others, prefer to have as standards to follow.


actually, the bible directly contradicts the constitution in more than one area, especially if you take the bible as a whole, as Christians are taught to. even if you only concern yourself with the new testament...

if you could say I had a belief in anything, it would be the Constitution, and what you are telling me in your arguments above, is that you prefer your brand of biblical adjudication over the Constitution, and no other point of view should be considered, because you assume you are correct in the eyes of your god.

why should your way be considered any better than any other? and dont quote the bible at me (or I will get Otto), be rational. i know you will not, because you are arguing from passion and not rationality. that is what religion does. that is why they have FAITH. but try.... by all means, please.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (16) Sep 11, 2013
CS you state that :NO belief system should take precedence over any other ---then you say--- what is sick and twisted is applying your particular brand of thought and telling someone else that they must abide by it. what of women that were rape.

If you really believed in what you said, then your belief system should not take precedence over reggs belief system that it is important to save the life of the child fathered by a rapist.

When talking to a Progressive we must nail down terms as their terms are twisted.
Harm - what do you mean harm and to whom? Killing a child of a rapist harms the child.

What exactly does NO belief system should take precedence over any other mean? --to Progressives it means that Liberal Progressive belief systems take precedence over any other belief systems.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 11, 2013
Progressives what to separate church from state. They want to silence the morality of churches influencing the state (except for progressive causes).

In actuality the founders of the US wanted to separate the state from the church, in other words the state could not tell the church or it's members what to do, what to believe, interfere with what they could say.

Today, the state forces Christian bakers to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, force christian printers to print pro-homosexual materials, force florists to create floral arrangements for homosexual weddings, forces catholic hospitals to perform abortions and provide contraceptives, forces Christians who work for the government to support homosexual agendas.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
Progressives what to separate church from state. They want to silence the morality of churches influencing the state (except for progressive causes).


Progs have their own brand of morality and they believe that their morality is better than any other morality.

In actuality the founders of the US wanted to separate the state from the church, in other words the state could not tell the church or it's members what to do, what to believe, interfere with what they could say.


Preservation of the First Amendment is key.

Today, the state forces Christian bakers to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, force christian printers to print pro-homosexual materials, force florists to create floral arrangements for homosexual weddings, forces catholic hospitals to perform abortions and provide contraceptives, forces Christians who work for the government to support homosexual agendas.
-free

Someday, they will legislate against heterosexual sex between a man and a woman.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
Someday, they will legislate against heterosexual sex between a man and a woman.

Wow, will the dumbassery never end? Anyone that tries to do that is completely brain dead. The human race could not survive something like that.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2013
Look at all the MENTAL ILLNESS in Obama_socks post!

Progs have their own brand of morality and they believe that their morality is better than any other morality.
Projection.
Preservation of the First Amendment is key.
Projection.
Someday, they will legislate against heterosexual sex between a man and a woman.
Projection.

Idiot King Obama_socks and his boyfriend freithinking are fascist christian idiots.

My psychologist friend from Kenya says Obama_socks and freithinking are both definitely gay and most likely know each other in real life and are engaged in a relationship.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2013
why should your way be considered any better than any other?

Do you think standards are important?
Science needs standards to proceed. Common units of measure, MKS, for example and labortories to maintain and promulgate those standards.
Laws are created to establish standards of behavior. Trouble is today, the law has been perverted by socialists to legally plunder and violate rights. Also known as the arbitrary rule of kings and tyrants.
Christians have standard laws, love God and your neighbor as yourself. The Ten Commandments delineate more of these laws which most societies have codified at least half of these commandments because they have value.
'My way' acknowledges that individuals human beings have unalienable and inherent rights not derived from the state or any man. The only valid purpose of a state is to protect those individual rights.
What's wrong with that?
rug
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2013
The only valid purpose of a state is to protect those individual rights.

Then you would deny someone a right to have the same individual rights?
Who are you to say a woman has to carry a baby to term?
Who are you to say condoms and other contraceptives should be outlawed?
Who are you to say you have any moral ground over anyone else?
Who are you to think you are better than anyone else?
Sticking within your own beliefs (just for sake of argument) wouldn't trying to tell people how to live, act, think, do, and do not's be God's place?
Wouldn't this mean you are breaking the first commandment yourself by trying to get people to live up to your code?
Doesn't that mean you are going to burn in hell for all eternity because you can't follow the 10 basic laws?

Now, I ask you, doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical?
What's wrong with that?

Nothing would be wrong with with it, if you lived by it. Which you obviously don't.

Proof you are not only a dumbass but a hypocrite.
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
Someday, they will legislate against heterosexual sex between a man and a woman


actually, there are still laws on the books regulating this.... check out FLorida, for instance.... which should come as a shocker to anyone... and they were ALL church driven. (in the 80's and 90's... I don't know about today, perhaps they have been repealed... they are not enforceable and used mostly I cases of rape, etc to increase the charges in order to facilitate longer sentences for criminals and especially for repeat offenders... )

@freethinking
I don't think MY PERSONAL preferences should be applied, but rather the Constitution's. which gives the RIGHT of choice. that is different. I used the term "sick and twisted" because I think it is wrong that one person should think that their belief is more important than another. mine are exactly that: MINE. I might not like things, but I fought for the right so that others may make THEIR OWN choices.
I hope that explains that more clearly.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
Trouble is today, the law has been perverted by socialists to legally plunder and violate rights. Also known as the arbitrary rule of kings and tyrants.
The only valid purpose of a state is to protect those individual rights.
What's wrong with that?


with the exception of "socialist", I can agree with these two statements. except I think people in fear that may be well meaning are what is legally plundering and violating rights. no political party is better than another, because the party is self-serving, not altruistic.
I can also agree that the rights you speak of are inherent, and not derived by/from the state or government.
I also don't see a problem with standards... just in where the standards originate. Religions may have provided a good starting point, with the ten commandments, but in all honesty, since religions cant live by their own rules, why should everyone be subjected to their perspectives?
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
Today, the state forces Christian bakers to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, force christian printers to print pro-homosexual materials, force florists to create floral arrangements for homosexual weddings, forces catholic hospitals to perform abortions and provide contraceptives, forces Christians who work for the government to support homosexual agendas.


perhaps the state does this because Christians cant abide by their own laws and rule? the xtian bible states to love one another as your would love yourself... it states that is the asis (and one other) of ALL the rest of the laws. and yet you do not follow your own "savior"'s advice. he also said not to judge one another... but you do. and you are NOT meek about your judgements, because some OTHER man who was NOT your savior gave you different advice... if you cant follow your own god, you shouldn't force others to believe your way....
tell your "bakers" to quit, if it so offends them, cause they are NOT xtians then
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Today, the state forces Christian bakers to bake cakes for homosexual weddings,

I think you're missing something fundamental here. You live in a state. The state is the highest form of authority. Just chosing another, personal, one doesn't change that.
If your personal set of additional laws/codes is in conflict with those of the state your set loses. It's that simple. Otherwise anone could make up laws (Hey, in MY religion murder might be the order of the day, right? That doesn't make it applicable - or free of legal reprecussions - in real life.)

You're whining about arbitraryness of laws -but is actually it's YOU who adds an additional arbitrary law ("Oh, I'm a baker, but my arbitrary, personal law says I don't want to sell to homosexuals. Oh how unfair the STATE treats me!")...see how insane such a line of argument is?
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 12, 2013
AP its not that the bakers didn't want to bake for homosexuals, it is they didn't want to support the homosexual agendas.

The first amendment of the constitution is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (This is separation of the STATE from the Church.... not the Church from STATE, the church has every right to be involved in the STATE, just not the STATE in the Church)

Forcing Christians (or whatever religion) to do something against their religious belief is breaking the supreme law of the land.

Same thing as forcing an Atheist child to say the pledge of allegiance phrase under God at school or being expelled. If they don't want to say it, they shouldn't say it.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
AP your religion of murder stops when it physically harms or threatens to harm me.

Not baking a cake to promote homosexual agendas, Not printing pro-homosexual materials, Not making a floral arrangement again to promote a homosexual agenda does not harm anyone.

Forcing someone to do something against their will is SLAVERY. Sorry I forgot Progressives like slavery.
JohnGee
2 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2013
So people who work menial jobs they don't like are slaves? Cool, glad we agree.
rug
1.7 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
@free - you took two post to say something that could have been explained in one sentence. Here it is, are you ready? Gotta pay attention here.

You are a paranoid schizophrenic dumbass. (see one line, and rather short)

The sooner you realize they are not after you it's all in your head. The sooner you can get help.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
Here we go again, lets define words. The definition I'm using for a A slave is someone who must work for another against their will. A baker forced (by the power of the state) to bake a cake against his will is a slave.

With Progressives you must define each and every word, and rug and GJ show they don't mind enslaving people.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
rug and GJ show they don't mind enslaving people.

Just where did you come up with that dumbass idea? Are you really so brain dead? I have not mentioned a damn thing about slavery so how about you take you stupid, no brain, republican, religious, can't think for yourself, Fox news junky ass off of this website? You have no business here. You obviously have no intent in learning a damn thing. You know what that makes you? A FUCKING DUMBASS.

You and everyone like you that pushes you beliefs onto other people, say stupid shit with no basis of reality is exactly the kind of people I hate. You fucking nimrod.

I really, really wish you lived in my neck of the woods. I would be kicking your dumbass from state line to state line and just when you thought it was over. I'ld let my dog piss all over your face. Then maybe, just maybe I might think about not tying you up and letting the racoons nibble on your ears.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Stupid people piss me off to no end when they do shit like that. Makes me believe he is the one that likes to enslave people.

I think this dumbass should be banned for this site to even think of saying something like that.

Slavery is not something you just throw about all willi nilli you piece of shit.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2013
Euh, rug, come on there's no need to hold back. Tell us how you really feel :)
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
I apologize to everyone else my last two comments were directed at freethinking only.
Unless someone else wants to talk slavery to me....
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2013
Hey just my opinion but I think at that point you should probably take it to Phyorg's BDSM forum...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2013
Someday, they will legislate against heterosexual sex between a man and a woman
Those days are long gone pussytard when any form of sex besides the missionary position, between married people, and in the dark, was a felony.

I think your sex up against the miicrowave with your boyfriend would have been considered a felony back then. If not against the state then against nature thats for sure. And certainly against your god who was probably standing there watching the whole thing, and weeping. And also laughing his ass off.

Nothing funnier than fat people having sex in the kitchen. Or tragic you know?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2013
ets define words. The definition I'm using
Well you should open your book for the proper def:

"If you buy a Hebrew slave... If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." Exo21:2-6

"...When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." Exo21:7-11

As jebus hisself says
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." Luk12:47-48

-Etc. Your god was very specific on what slaves are and how they should be treated.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
Rug, Hate much? Bully much? Threaten much? When the truth comes out, the hate and swearing follow. You and your type are typical of bigoted slave owners and tyrants.

Progressives, once you remove their veil their ugly hate is exposed. You accuse others of the very thing you want to do and be.

I have always said All people are of equal worth, even those I disagree with, even those who threaten me. Talk about going overboard.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 12, 2013
I don't post private PM's but but this is what I received from RUG and I want everyone to see how progressives think: BTW, I added the ***'s because I don't use vulgar language.

rug 3 h 4 min ago

You wanted to p*** me off? You wanted me to hate your f****ing guts? Well you manged it you stupid mother f****er.

What's the f*** is the matter with you? did your mom make you stop sucking on her tits?

Who the f*** would accuse someone of endorsing slavery when you have no idea who they are and do not mention the topic once? Oh thats right, You!

YOU ARE A F***ING RETARD AND NEED TO DIE OFF THIS F***ING PLANET! YOU RACIST PIECE OF S**T.

GO JOIN THE REST OF YOUR KKK MEMBERS. THAT WAY I CAN HOSE YOU ALL DOWN WITH BULLETS AT THE SAME TIME!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHAT MAKES THIS WORLD A SH***Y PLACE. GO DIE MOTHER F***ER.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
Otto, you keep getting schooled in the Bible

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.
+++and+++
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
Otto very basic,

So if you are a slave you aught to try to become free, why.... because slavery is bad.
If you are a slave you aught to convert your slave master by being a good example in other words the slave is to take control of the relationship.
If you are a slave owner you aught to treat your slave the way your slave should treat you....for a slave owner that's a big slap down.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2013
Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so
Yes and if you screw up and get beat down for it in the meantime (Luk12:47-48) well thats ok because xians make great martyrs. Dont they?

In fact if you die they might make you a saint.
http://www.ranker...ana-wynn

-The church rewards you (after you are gone of course) for dying for no good reason. Martyrdom is a most VILE form of violence.
Otto very basic
Even more basic

Your book CONDONES slavery and martyrdom. And self-castration.

"...and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." matt19:12
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
So otto thinks trying to save someone life at risk or your own is vile. But isn't it great love? The Bible says no greater love is this, than one would lay down his life for his friend.

So Otto is making something good into evil and what is evil good.

And one more thing Otto, do you know what a simile is? Ie. live like...
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
You live in a state. The state is the highest form of authority.

No, it is not and that is why Marxists demand atheism.
God is the highest form of authority and it was explicitly stated in the US Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
The state is third on the list of authority.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
Sticking within your own beliefs (just for sake of argument) wouldn't trying to tell people how to live, act, think, do, and do not's be God's place?
Wouldn't this mean you are breaking the first commandment yourself by trying to get people to live up to your code?

I cannot force anyone to do anything. God has the power to force anyone to believe him. Jesus has the power to force everyone to follow Him. They don't.
Doesn't that mean you are going to burn in hell for all eternity because you can't follow the 10 basic laws?

All I can do is try and ask for forgiveness when I fail.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
JohnGee
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2013
The Declaration has no force of law (see A. Lincoln's arguments and the result of the American Civil War). The Constitution does have force of law, and mentions no deities.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2013
The Declaration has no force of law (see A. Lincoln's arguments and the result of the American Civil War). The Constitution does have force of law, and mentions no deities.

The principles upon which the US was founded still holds and are documented in the 9th Amendment, which is ignored by socialists, like most of the Constitution.
"The Ninth Amendment is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers thought about the liberties they expected Americans to enjoy under the Constitution. They did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny. "
The first amendment also prevents the state from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
But why does any socialist care about the Constitution? It limits the power of the state so they must reject it to create Utopia.
JohnGee
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2013
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
US Constitution, Amendment IX

Yeah that says nothing about God or gods. You are wrong.

Also:
If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.
U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75

But why does any socialist care about the Constitution?
I don't know, you'll have to find a socialist and ask him.
JohnGee
1 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2013
The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them...
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting opinion, Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Lol, Scalia doesn't even agree with you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2013
So otto thinks trying to save someone life at risk or your own is vile.
You are assuming that jesus saves. Evidence suggests that jesus is a crude caricature of many many earlier godmen.

Your god doesnt exist and so convincing believers to present themselves and their families for holy martyrdom in his name, is EVIL in the extreme.

Convincing slaves to accept their lot rather than resent and resist the slave owners who buy and sell them, is EVIL in the extreme.

Convincing people that one very sincere way of showing affection for your godman is to cut off their genitals, is EVIL in the extreme... and only removing the foreskin just a little less evil. Token castration. What did you call it? A simile? Mark of the Beast??

Your greatest heros are martyrs. And the greatest of them all, jebus hisself, was the subject of human sacrifice. The scapegoat for the sins of the world. How many millions of innocent people have followed his example?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2013
Jesus has the power to force everyone to follow Him. They don't.
Well no, they dont. Thats why they need people here on earth to do it for them.

They also need to give people nightmares of eternal roasting and torture. They also have to tell endless stories about what happens to people who fail to follow their orders, which usually involve torturing, infecting, maiming, burning, and killing in THIS life.

Your gods are powerless and so have to resort to threats and thuggery in order to get people to comply.

Poor moses and aaron. All that hard work and they make one little mistake, and dont get to see the promised land. Poor david. He decides to take a census and so god decides to kill 1000s of his people. How could god do that to him??
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2013
What is great about the Constitution is that no matter how many rulings SCOTUS make that violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution, there is an amendment process that can be initiated by Congress or the states.
2/3 of the states can call a Constitutional convention and 3/4 can ratify. These are state legislatures, not Congress or judges.
There is a current best selling book describing the process an recommending new amendments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2013
Poor Job. He didnt do anything wrong at all did he? But god decided to torture him and kill his entire family anyway just because he was feeling a little insecure that day. What a Monster.

And how about the prince of monsters? Even though according to ryggy he had the power to cure ALL lepers everywhere, he only decides to cure one to impress his groupies. What an ASS.

Your gods are cruel, bitter, selfish egomaniacs. Which is why they have to go.
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2013
I don't post private PM's but but this is what I received from RUG and I want everyone to see how progressives think: BTW, I added the ***'s because I don't use vulgar language.


I do suppose it provides a distraction from how self-proclaimed conservative godders consistently fail to think, Notthinking. But given the time you spend preaching on this science info clearing house site, consider that it also presents yet another failure on your end as well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2013
"I don't see the problem with scientists believing in something for which they lack scientific proof such as a deity. I also have no issue with scientists who are atheists, but I do find it disturbing how some atheistic scientists in effect proselytize atheism or make fun of believers."
{and atheistic non-scientists}
"As I said, I'm an agnostic right now. I don't believe humans are necessarily smart enough to know everything and I see no compelling reason to rule out the existence of a deity."
{Amen.}
http://www.ipscel...theists/
JohnGee
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2013
Ryggesogn, when someone says they are agnostic, they are likely not agnostic toward YOUR god. That is, they are functionally no different from an atheist when it comes to Christianity.

You believe in fairy tales. Agnostics usually don't.