Green Energy is a giant crock of sh...

....



My state of mind is one of disgust with the lack of awareness of what the insidious malignancy of religion is doing to our planet.

........

And you; I am afraid to say are falling into this same trap of closed mindedness and intolerance, as I have previously pointed out, that you deride.
 
And you; I am afraid to say are falling into this same trap of closed mindedness and intolerance, as I have previously pointed out, that you deride.

Not at all. I tolerate religious belief. I support the right of all to their belief. However contrary to misguided political correctness, tolerance does not mean allowing a belief to be promulgated without criticism.

The intolerance is evident in the behaviour of religionists who deride the right of anyone to criticise their beliefs and misrepresent debate as intolerance.

For many centuries religious intolerance has been manifsted as brutal violence and murder. This includes the atheist religions who worship Marxist deities. In many places criticism of the dominant religion is still punishable by death.

The West has moderated from that stance through relentless pressure from those who uphold the principle of secular governence and law through open and uncencored debate. However religionists continually struggle to retreive their domininant standing and repress all criticism.

George W Bush actually went so far as to publicly state that he saw no reason to separate church and state. This is the same man who ignored the evidence of UN weapons inspectors on the Iraqi WMD issue and preferred to decide by praying to God for guidance.

Religion is still running the planet and those who object have every reason to speak out against it.
 
Not at all. I tolerate religious belief. I support the right of all to their belief. However contrary to misguided political correctness, tolerance does not mean allowing a belief to be promulgated without criticism.

.....

In effect you are now echoing precisely what I said way back here;
I believe that Brain's point was that it is not just the Religious "True Believers" that exhibit these traits, but also Atheists, such as yourself, who insist on trumpeting the virtues of non belief, to anyone and everyone. Atheism in that form could equally be describe as a cult.

Personally what you believe or don't believe is a private matter and should not be forcefully shared with, or imposed on anyone else.
 
In effect you are now echoing precisely what I said way back here;

No I am not agreeing at all.

It is up to the individual whether to to voice their opinion or not on any matter. To insist that what one believes or does not believe must be regarded as a private matter is to deny the right to free speech.

This right is a cornerstone of modern political practice. It was won by the work of many who stood against the abuse of power long exercised by the church, monarcy and state.

For the religious to insist that personal beliefs are keep private is a blatant hypocricy. Churches loudly present their doctrine at every opportunity. High profile buildings in prominent places, huge towers filled with pealing bells, noticeboards, door to door evangelism, televised addresses, press releases criticising public policy and the list goes on.

As I said before. Everyone has the right to belief, just not the right to express it and indoctinate others in the comfort of a society that considers it politically incorrect to criticise their belief.

Clearly I have hit upon a nerve that John would use such a large font in his reply. It is very typical of religionists who realise they cannot possibly prevail in any discussion based on rationality and fact.

Instead they shout that the non believers must keep their views to themselves. The believers are at panic stations and shout in vain while those who wish to live free of religious dogma stand up against the church in ever increasing numbers. Better get used to it.
 
......

As I said before. Everyone has the right to belief, just not the right to express it and indoctinate others in the comfort of a society that considers it politically incorrect to criticise their belief.

.......

Are you being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument, or are you lacking in comprehension skill?

What you said (above) looks very similar to what I said earlier;

.... what you believe or don't believe is a private matter and should not be forcefully shared with, or imposed on anyone else.

You say Indoctrinate I say forcefully shared with, or imposed I'd say the one provides the definition of the other.
 
My comprehension skills are fine. However that you cannot see the difference brings your comprehension skills into question.

Everyone has the right to belief, just not the right to express it and indoctinate others in the comfort of a society that considers it politically incorrect to criticise their belief.

You are arging that beliefs should not be expressed. (Though you seem content to allow the church full freedom in this regard). My position is that those expressing beliefs should not expect to do so without criticism.

For many years the concept of religious tolerance has been extended to the discouragment of those expressing criticisms of religious beliefs. It is presumptuous, arrogant as well as being objectively and philosophically wrong.
 
I really fail to see how you deduced all that from;

Personally what you believe or don't believe is a private matter and should not be forcefully shared with, or imposed on anyone else.

I am simply arguing that everyone should have the right to believe what they like (whether that be a god, a spaghetti monster or a lack of god/s), without fear or favour, however they do not have the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

You have continually managed to misconstrue what I have written and put words into my moth.

I suspect that your main beef is, that I had the timidity to point out the mote in your eye whilst ignoring the beam in my own :D
 
Then I suggest people use the word "manual".

How can a book of fairy tales be a manual? I'm sure nobody thinks Alice in Wonderland as being believable.

What's the difference? They're both works of fiction.

Climate change? Not my problem, I recycle my tins and papers but that's it. Leave it to future generations to deal with, it'll take their minds off fighting wars.

Col
 
Unfortunately resource limitations are set to drive even more wars then they already do. Humans are well known to be more easily motivated when in a group and in highly emotive states. This has been the basis major conflicts from mob behaviour to full scale wars. Religion exploits this characteristic.

Fights over resources amidst powerful religion is very dangerous. If we continue to face each other with fundamental attitudes based on bigotry then we have little
hope in our quest to make do with what is available on the planet for we will squander it in battles at every level of our existence.
 
I am simply arguing that everyone should have the right to believe what they like (whether that be a god, a spaghetti monster or a lack of god/s), without fear or favour, however they do not have the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

So it comes down to defining "impose". Is bringing up religion in a Green Energy thread imposing your views on others?

I can totally see Galaxiom's point. Religious organizations (or political, or any type of large organizations) have large platforms from which to espouse their views. The common person has a very small platform to share their views.

This in its self is not a problem, per se, but religion (and occasionally politics) are sometypes categorized as sacred cows; we're not to talk about them because people often disagree and get upset. So in essence, they get to spread their info (or filth, depending on your point of view), whilst we cannot.

I'm upset everytime I'm flipping through the channels on the TV and I see a televangelist. Through the medium of the TV, he is imposing his beliefs upon me. I'd be willing to bet that even if I had the money, if I tried to have the "Look at all the problems religion causes" 1-hour talk show, I'd be denied.

Anyhow, while I'm lacking education on Green Energy, it seems to me that it will take many nations embracing the idea before it has a large impact on our climate change problem. The US seems to want to lead the world in everything, so maybe we should try to lead it in this as well.
 
The US seems to want to lead the world in everything, so maybe we should try to lead it in this as well.

I can't see Americans giving up their 5 litre gas-guzzlers, or the Canadians doing the same for that matter.

Americans have such cheap fuel, they seem to be shielded from reality so therefore they ignore it.

Still, there will soon be plenty of oil along their coast they can scoop up if they get desperate. It's a good job the Americans are paying the bill for the clean-up, under US law, BP is only liable for the first $50 million, the current bill is now over $400 million and rising.

Col
 
I'm upset everytime I'm flipping through the channels on the TV and I see a televangelist. Through the medium of the TV, he is imposing his beliefs upon me.

Nothing to do with religion, just your bank balance. Plenty of other genres impose in the same way. Politicians, retailers, non-profits.

What do they all have in common? Money to do it.

There has been huge criticism and exposure levelled at the Catholic Church recently. I don't see where this 'untouchable' idea is coming from.
 
Nothing to do with religion, just your bank balance. Plenty of other genres impose in the same way. Politicians, retailers, non-profits.

Well, next time Vince comes on TV and tells me that I will be going to hell if I don't buy his super-slap-chopper, then I'll consider it on the same level. Granted, politicians are close when they tell you that "The USA is no more, we now live in the socialist states of America, blah, blah".

There has been huge criticism and exposure levelled at the Catholic Church recently. I don't see where this 'untouchable' idea is coming from.

Yeah, that's directed at an organization due to their .... activities. The concept of religion in general though often has a lot of safeguards against criticism.

I remember reading a while back that a humanist group wanted to put signs on city buses that said something like "Why believe in God? Just be a good person." The city prevented them, even though they had previously had pro-religion signs on their buses.

I think the concept that is often missed is just how much religion is thrown into your face everyday. I'm sure in the south there are still courthouses where you have to place your hand on the bible and "swear to tell the truth so help you God." That's offensive to non-religious people.

Its very difficult to see the other person's point of view, and I am aware of this fact. In the USA Christians are used to having things catered to them, so when something is taken away because it violates the separation of church and state, they look at it as if they lost something, and the non-religious movement gained something.

The truth is that Christians would have to lose a ton to just be on equal footing with the non-religious movement. They of course don't see it that way, but that's the truth of the matter.

Its the same with gay rights (now we'll really go on a tangent :P), you often hear religious people say they are tired of the "gay agenda". They're tired of people pushing the "gay lifestyle" in their face. What they really mean is they don't care that gay people are around, they just don't want to see them acting gay. They of course don't realize that telling gay people to "hide it" is a violation of their rights.
 
Last edited:
Well, next time Vince comes on TV and tells me that I will be going to hell if I don't buy his super-slap-chopper, then I'll consider it on the same level. Granted, politicians are close when they tell you that "The USA is no more, we now live in the socialist states of America, blah, blah".

The, "you are a lesser person if you don't buy" notion is implied by the advertising industry all of the time and we are constantly bombarded by it. Some do it more subtlely that others but the effort to "impose" is just as severe. Watch a couple of hours of a children's channel like Disney. The "imposition" there is unrelenting. Vast sums of money are ploughed into it.


I remember reading a while back that a humanist group wanted to put signs on city buses that said something like "Why believe in God? Just be a good person." The city prevented them, even though they had previously had pro-religion signs on their buses.

It has something to do with a negative connotation. It's an interesting notion. That broadcasting a NOT is more prone to controversy than broadcasting a DO. It encourages the exposure of a flaw in something else rather than a benefit of your own offering.

I think the concept that is often missed is just how much religion is thrown into your face everyday. I'm sure in the south there are still courthouses where you have to place your hand on the bible and "swear to tell the truth so help you God." That's offensive to non-religious people.

It is everywhere but I don't agree that it is "thrown in your face". Both the UK and the US are founded on religious doctrine. It's impossible just to eradicate the symptoms of this fact in modern day.

I mean, do you find this offensive? :p

OneMillionYearsBCBIG.jpg


Its very difficult to see the other person's point of view, and I am aware of this fact. In the USA Christians are used to having things catered to them, so when something is taken away because it violates the separation of church and state, they look at it as if they lost something, and the non-religious movement gained something.

Yes, this comes back to my negative connotation thing. Taking something away from somebody sets off the "denial of rights" alarm. Change, though, is a painful thing regardless of whether it is for the better or not. Unless you're a buddhist of course.


They of course don't realize that telling gay people to "hide it" is a violation of their rights.

and the theists amongst us will use the exact same argument to protect their rights.
 
The, "you are a lesser person if you don't buy" notion is implied by the advertising industry all of the time and we are constantly bombarded by it.

Agreed, but I would argue it is not on a comparable level with religion. People choose who they associate with based on religion. People choose who they date/marry based on religion. People choose who they vote for based on religion. The impact of religion is much heavier than say owning a fashionable car or living in a particular area.

It has something to do with a negative connotation. It's an interesting notion. That broadcasting a NOT is more prone to controversy than broadcasting a DO. It encourages the exposure of a flaw in something else rather than a benefit of your own offering.

You are 100% correct, of course. If the ad had said something like "Join the humanist movement", it probably would have been accepted. But commercial advertisements often broadcast DON'TS. Don't buy that company's stuff, buy our stuff. Should religion be immune to such advertisement?

It is everywhere but I don't agree that it is "thrown in your face". Both the UK and the US are founded on religious doctrine. It's impossible just to eradicate the symptoms of this fact in modern day.

Well, as someone who is not religious, I can say from personal experience it sure feels like it is thrown in my face.

I mean, do you find this offensive? :p

My trick question-ometer is buzzing :p

and the theists amongst us will use the exact same argument to protect their rights.

Yes, of course. Which means we have to look at it from a legal standpoint, as that is the only fair way. The law says you can be any religion you want, believe what you want, practice what you want, etc. But you still have to follow the law. If your religion conflicts with the law, the law supercedes your religion, as it should.

The law says everyone is created equal. Marriage, being a legal entity, should be open to all. And before anyone brings up the insane "what happens when someone wants to marry their dog" argument, consent is required. And no matter how smart you think Fido is, he can't give consent.
 
People choose who they associate with based on religion. People choose who they date/marry based on religion. People choose who they vote for based on religion.

Can not the same be said of eharmony.com? :D I think advertising attempts to impede on any facet of life as long as it is profitable. Considering how much money is spent on it, I'd wager it's pretty successful too. Agree to disagree on this one I reckon.

Should religion be immune to such advertisement?

Something to chew on. I think probably yes because that type of advertisement relies on the discrediting of something to promote something else. Religion sits too closely to culture for me for that to be a good thing.

Well, as someone who is not religious, I can say from personal experience it sure feels like it is thrown in my face.

When I get dragged to church on Easter and Christmas then I agree but from day to day, as a non religious person myself, I am far more put out by the notes placed in my son's backpack every other day trying to raise money for one thing and another. The relentless pursuit of a child's attention by the commerical world is far more obnoxious to me than a crucifix in my local courthouse.


My trick question-ometer is buzzing :p

The last two letters of the movie title?
 
Only two movie posters on my wall when I was a teenager. This one and Easy Rider:D
 
The widespread use of Green has gotten really out of hand.

Advertisers constantly talk of green technology such as cars like say Toyota's hybrids. The real fact is that no car is Green but just a lighter shade of brown. (Though I hesitate with the use of brown as a comparison since brown is quite nice in its own right.)

NO car is Green. The only truely Green technologies are those which can be sustainable in the hands of every individual.

The whole lifestyle of Homo Consumericus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_consumericus) is very dirty indeed and any Westerners who pretend they are Green are profoundly delusional.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom