Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Connection between liberalism and environmental devastation?

I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas

I'd like to see sources for this.

Requesting that the off-topic religion banter be shifted to its own thread, if that's not too much trouble.

I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas

I'd like to see sources for this.

Requesting that the off-topic religion banter be shifted to its own thread, if that's not too much trouble.

You need sources to back up my previous claim that christianity has denied the earth revolving around the sun and still denies evolution? Or are you ok with just knowing these things in general? Perhaps you'd like evidence that if on a clock the little hand is pointing at 3 and the big hand is pointing at 12 then it's 3 o clock...

Either you people are trolling or you seriously can't read for shit. Either way you're making fools out of yourselves.

Ok. This recent article is of relevance.

Quote
The answer is as simple as it is obvious: liberalism caused our environmental crisis. Under liberal impetus, we removed social roles and allowed people to, just by having a line of personal credit, take on responsibility for more things than they can biologically understand.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/liberalism-caused-global-warming/  

I think this is a good summation of the mechanics of liberalism that have allowed people to participate in environmental discussion without discretion. Question is, as nous said, could a consensual principle of order be a possible solution to this lack of discretion? I think that by the very nature of the idea of order that this is entirely possible.


You somehow twisted my statement into something else in your mind. I did not literally say that "intelligent people do not require religion, but only science and philosophy" I said that idealistically I'd prefer a nation united in science and philosophy rather than united in (green) religion. And I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas, I didn't say it slows down progress in general. Learn to read before you go on some self-righteous rant about what I can and can't say on "your" forum.


I read you very well. I read that you think that in your ideal world, philosophy is somehow lacking of religion by definition, or surpassed it by definition, becoming a driving force for humanity. Could you say neopositivism, or philosophical materialism, at least? Please explain, because philosophy also contains religion, among other things.

A lot of religious people not only can't, but are not willing to oppose scientific progress and actually support it (like evolution, and in some cases, even eugenics too). You have a case against fundamentalists, I do too... but you don't see me ideally taking atheism out just because most atheists are liberals.

I do not see a necessary connection between having children and the destruction of Nature. How you live is crucial here; but liberalism--which also means caste disorder--allows some citizens to do what they want, not what is best, and get away with it, like dumping acid into a river etc.

Life IS sacred. But God gives and takes it. No abortion, but also no drugs or machines that sustain life that is supposed to end--think about the consequences. I think that religion is the key here, because the destruction of Nature will continue as long as she is not made sacred again. Religion could do that.

Secular humanism, where every person is what's most sacred, causes overpopulation + lack of reverence = ecocide.

When each person is what's most sacred, we apply drugs, machines, and surplus food exports to save every life. The public principle is altruism. The private principle is fear of mortality. The result is a surplus of people who each take life for granted because there is always a safety net like medicine or welfare to back them up. At its simplest, this linear logic says we've beaten nature, so it does not deserve our respect.

I have also encountered the most biologically illiterate strain which claims we do not or eventually will not require nature (natural processes and other lifeforms) for anything. These people should try a day in the sun with a belly full of food and get back to us.

I don't know whether you agree, or whether you just tried a strawman. For this reason, let me say:

That Life is sacred does not mean that the will to live of every creature is sacred.

Concerning overpopulation: I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but without such advanced medicine and machines which sustain life when it is supposed to end naturally, there would be no overpopulation at all.

Also, those of you who believe that Christianity means or causes (bad) humanism or liberalism are flat out wrong. Infected with modernism, every civilization degenerates, not only Christian ones. Cf. India, China, Japan, etc. Religions teach that there is something which infinitely transcends all creatures, something that is all-good and all-wise, and which gives and takes life justly. Religion even tells us that this earthly life is not the true Life, and that therefore, if we want to earn the true Life, we must sacrifice this earthly life in case virtue demands it. By this, religion puts the worth of creatures in perspective: have creatures ever created life? No. Then by what right should they end it? By no right.

And why should one prolong this earthly, miserable life when the true, good, and blissful Life awaits? The answer is that only idiots and vicious creatures want to prolong the earthly life, because they know no better, and fear death or the hell that awaits them.

To Umbrage, specifically: what is humanism?

I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas

I'd like to see sources for this.

Requesting that the off-topic religion banter be shifted to its own thread, if that's not too much trouble.

You need sources to back up my previous claim that christianity has denied the earth revolving around the sun and still denies evolution? Or are you ok with just knowing these things in general? Perhaps you'd like evidence that if on a clock the little hand is pointing at 3 and the big hand is pointing at 12 then it's 3 o clock...

Either you people are trolling or you seriously can't read for shit. Either way you're making fools out of yourselves.


Evidently, it's you who can't read.  Once again: do not use the word "religion" when you're merely talking about Christianity.  What I was asking for was absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance.

The only fool here is you.  You're coming across as a brash and purposefully ignorant fanatic.  I think, if you actually took the time to get to know fundie Christians, you'd really like them - you're cut from the same cloth, after all.

Is there any problem in the world that you guys believe is NOT caused by liberalism? Seriously. You're now even equating conservatists as the rest of the world knows them to liberals, becuase they're not the 'real' conservatists. All you need to do now to make the word completely useless is condemn socialists for being liberals in disguise.
Face it, democratic politicians, whether they be left, right, progressive, conservative, socialist, liberal, populist or whatever else, none of them give a fuck about the environment. The closest thing to environmentally conscious political parties over here in Europe certainly aren't conservative (or sane, unfortunately).

Also, wasn't the 13 page thread on science vs religion enough?

Gentlemen,

I am so sorry to interrupt the resultless bickering. However, a few points of discussion:


Those are conservative conservationists/environmentalists.

Here's another related article from a familiar source...

Liberalism caused global warming

I even said that religion only slows down scientific process in certain areas

I'd like to see sources for this.

Requesting that the off-topic religion banter be shifted to its own thread, if that's not too much trouble.

You need sources to back up my previous claim that christianity has denied the earth revolving around the sun and still denies evolution? Or are you ok with just knowing these things in general? Perhaps you'd like evidence that if on a clock the little hand is pointing at 3 and the big hand is pointing at 12 then it's 3 o clock...

Either you people are trolling or you seriously can't read for shit. Either way you're making fools out of yourselves.


Evidently, it's you who can't read.  Once again: do not use the word "religion" when you're merely talking about Christianity.  What I was asking for was absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance.

The only fool here is you.  You're coming across as a brash and purposefully ignorant fanatic.  I think, if you actually took the time to get to know fundie Christians, you'd really like them - you're cut from the same cloth, after all.

I wasn't merely talking about christianity. Me a brash and purposefully ignorant fanatic? Try this for size:

You have "truth", and you have "falsity".  At the moment, you're propagating "falsity".  It would be beneficial if you were to promote "truth".  I thought everyone here had grasped that concept already.

You are directly claiming that somehow "truth" is on your side. Truth is on nobody's side. I've know several fundamentalist christians as well as fundamentalist muslims, I had more in common with the muzzies. Don't act like you know me because you obviously don't and I'd hate it if people got the idea that we somehow hang out together and stuff. I already handed your ass twice to you in this thread, if you really are so desperate to be sodomized why don't you go cruising for cocks in your local gay bar? I mean, its pretty obvious that you weren't asking for "absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance" because then you would have taken the time to type that out. What you did was post "I'd like to see sources for this" while I had already given creationism as an example. So don't lie, it really shows your bad character and that you're a sore loser. If you really want me to answer your question then please give me a list of every single religion that has ever existed It would be quite an enormous list wouldn't it? In the Netherlands we have a saying for people like you "Overdrijven is ook een vak" It means "Exaggerating is a profession too" It's sarcastic and it applies to you here: you think you're smart just because you're exaggerating.

Why are people being so incredibly anal in this thread anyway? I have an opinion that's slightly different from yours, so the fuck what? I think I already made it clear that I'm not some "derp-religion-is-the-cause-of-all-wars-lets-try-secular-humanism-instead" type of atheist. Yet some of you are jumping up and down at every opportunity to call me one. And for what? Because you can't argue against philosophy being more versatile than religion? Because deep down you are aware that religion is based on philosophy and not the other way around? Because you can't argue that religious icons have largely been replaced with pop-icons, and the religious icons that are still prevalent in society have even been turned into pop-icons, and this in turn proves that humans don't essentially need religion, not even as a way to control the people?

And why would you need to control the people anyway if you want to create an intelligent society? Religion is anti-intelligent by design.


I read you very well. I read that you think that in your ideal world, philosophy is somehow lacking of religion by definition, or surpassed it by definition, becoming a driving force for humanity. Could you say neopositivism, or philosophical materialism, at least? Please explain, because philosophy also contains religion, among other things.

A lot of religious people not only can't, but are not willing to oppose scientific progress and actually support it (like evolution, and in some cases, even eugenics too). You have a case against fundamentalists, I do too... but you don't see me ideally taking atheism out just because most atheists are liberals.

Fundamentalists are the only religious people that I find respectable because at least they're taking their religion serious. Christians who believe in evolution are the ultimate liberals imo. The bible obviously says that God created the earth in six days. Contradicting your own religion like that seems so silly to me, why can't they just admit they need lies to be able to live with themselves?

Anyway, if you wanted to ban atheism in your utopia then by all means do it. It's not like anyone here is going to seriously change the world by posting about their dream utopias on the anus forums is it? As long as you don't give me any "because I repsect you you must repsect me" arguments, I'm not modern enough to buy into those.

Gentlemen,

I am so sorry to interrupt the resultless bickering. However, a few points of discussion:


Those are conservative conservationists/environmentalists.

Here's another related article from a familiar source...

Liberalism caused global warming


Thanks for this list. I'll read into it.


Why are people being so incredibly anal in this thread anyway? I have an opinion that's slightly different from yours, so the fuck what? I think I already made it clear that I'm not some "derp-religion-is-the-cause-of-all-wars-lets-try-secular-humanism-instead" type of atheist. Yet some of you are jumping up and down at every opportunity to call me one. And for what? Because you can't argue against philosophy being more versatile than religion? Because deep down you are aware that religion is based on philosophy and not the other way around? Because you can't argue that religious icons have largely been replaced with pop-icons, and the religious icons that are still prevalent in society have even been turned into pop-icons, and this in turn proves that humans don't essentially need religion, not even as a way to control the people?

And why would you need to control the people anyway if you want to create an intelligent society? Religion is anti-intelligent by design.


I think the entire conversation is irrelevant to the mechanics of the idea at hand, really. I don't worship religion, I worship order, if you could call it worship. I don't think people need to be controlled, I think they will or they will not to their own detriment or betterment. I know that's equivalent to saying "I don't really think anything needs to be done," but as you said, discussing Utopian possibilities is a fruitless endeavor. Philosophy and religion encompass each other, I think, in that they are both methods of explaining the same thing, which is reality. Ultimately I'm going to look at the results of people's ideas more so than how vehemently they argue for the validity of them, because what is the result of establishing the validity or invalidity of an idea? To me it seems like the only result is favoring one string of words over another, and that really doesn't matter to me much. Also, as far as the fundamentalist approach to Genesis goes, the traditional approach to interpreting Genesis has always been much different. The explanation I heard of it at mass last night is the explanation that has been given by the Catholic church for centuries, and that is that Genesis is a metaphor of the process of applying order to disorder.

Anyway.

Gentlemen,

I am so sorry to interrupt the resultless bickering. However, a few points of discussion:


Those are conservative conservationists/environmentalists.

Here's another related article from a familiar source...

Liberalism caused global warming


In case anyone didn't notice because of said bickering, I think all of this doesn't really extend outside of the premise that I offered earlier, which is that without a consensual system of knowledge to use as a foundation for deliberation, people are going to fulfill any whim without discretion. Ultimately, in a sort of cosmic irony, this seems to make such people slaves more so than the 'fascist' traditions that held them in check in the first place.

That Life is sacred does not mean that the will to live of every creature is sacred.
What does it mean that life is sacred?  Since you capitalized life are you referring to the larger process which we refer to as life, in contrast to individual living organisms?

Quote
Concerning overpopulation: I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but without such advanced medicine and machines which sustain life when it is supposed to end naturally, there would be no overpopulation at all.
Taking your approach, we would have a large population of short lived mediocrity and waste.  Under a eugenics system, we would have a high quality, low number population that lived long lives.  Which do you view as preferable in this light?

Quote
Also, those of you who believe that Christianity means or causes (bad) humanism or liberalism are flat out wrong. Infected with modernism, every civilization degenerates
Would you agree that modern Christianity and Liberalism are essential two manifestations of the same underlying thought pattern?

Quote
And why should one prolong this earthly, miserable life when the true, good, and blissful Life awaits? The answer is that only idiots and vicious creatures want to prolong the earthly life, because they know no better, and fear death or the hell that awaits them.
Do you literally believe in some type of life after death?

I'm with you on eugenics, and I'm not a fan of thinking of life after death in the sense that it's popularly portrayed, but I don't necessarily think that Christianity and liberalism are manifestations of the same underlying thought pattern. Take a look at the Philokalia, some of St. Thomas' works, the Divine Comedy, Meister Eckhart's sermons, or the poetry of William Blake and you'll find an interpretation of Christianity that is an exact match to Platonism.

Someone earlier said we need clarify meaning to move forward, otherwise we are trapped in the usual intertard debate. On an earlier thread lost in the chasm, someone brought up an excellent idea of individual lives as templates which are instantiated from a blueprint. The draftman for this genome blueprint from which people are instantiated might as well be Life. Capitalized Life, the process, is one the Forms. The One causes the Forms, of which Life is one. We can use this to bridge the science-religion gap in order to move forward.

Someone earlier said we need clarify meaning to move forward, otherwise we are trapped in the usual intertard debate. On an earlier thread lost in the chasm, someone brought up an excellent idea of individual lives as templates which are instantiated from a blueprint. The draftman for this genome blueprint from which people are instantiated might as well be Life. Capitalized Life, the process, is one the Forms. The One causes the Forms, of which Life is one. We can use this to bridge the science-religion gap in order to move forward.
In that case, can you provide a coherent and straightforward definition of the One?  I mean, I understand the general principle, but I'd appreciate an explicitly articulated definition.