The Swamp

ljam1.5 wrote:Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The race car driver?

normalasian wrote:

ljam1.5 wrote:Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The race car driver?

Taste the smoke!

Oh, how I missed you nested quotes.

Humans just can't get past that stupid insecure need to believe in something greater than themselves.

I don't think it's insecure at all. That mentality comes from the idea that this was all put here for us. If humans didn't see themselves as superior to everything else they share the planet with, they wouldn't need keep their egos in check.

I guess a white man just can't make it in Catholicism anymore. Time to join the Church of Scientology.

And no...environmentalism is not a religion. You can't just take something you're ideologically opposed to and call it God.

Zlax46 wrote:I guess a white man just can't make it in Catholicism anymore. Time to join the Church of Scientology.

Who are you, anyway?

Temporary J-Lo wrote:

Humans just can't get past that stupid insecure need to believe in something greater than themselves.

I don't think it's insecure at all. That mentality comes from the idea that this was all put here for us. If humans didn't see themselves as superior to everything else they share the planet with, they wouldn't need keep their egos in check.

Fine. Arrogance, then. Arrogance, insecurity and stupidity are bedfellows. And you'll never see anything more self-righteously arrogant than a treehugger or a clergyman.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:And no...environmentalism is not a religion.

Oh, you're dead wrong on that. Environmentalism is exactly a religion. Exactly. Corporate, social-engineering driven, faith based, disdain of all who disagree, mythological, denied reality, demagogues, propaganda; yep, it's got it all.

You know what takes faith? Thinking that Carbon Dioxide will just disappear or turn into something else on it's own. Trying to take action on it and holding humanity accountable for fixing it is really the opposite of what religious people would do. This is why every fundie wingnut you'll ever meet is a climate change denialist.

New Pope: “Gay Marriage is the destructive attempt to end God’s plan.”

So, I guess we’re doing that again.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:You know what takes faith? Thinking that Carbon Dioxide will just disappear or turn into something else on it's own. Trying to take action on it and holding humanity accountable for fixing it is really the opposite of what religious people would do. This is why every fundie wingnut you'll ever meet is a climate change denialist.

Ugh.

I'm a Christian fundamentalist now? Or perhaps I'm someone who has done their homework and is particularly adept at making observations about that which surrounds me and does not blindly swallow everything some greencorp soldier regurgitates.

As you can see by your own final, silly, statement, it is politicized now, left/right. Even though that is the last thing it should ever be, that's what it is.

Consider World War II. Where was the world-wide Environmentalist movement after guhzillions of tonnes of ordinance was dropped on the world, after who-knows-how-many atomic weapons were tested and used? Nah, it didn't materialize. Because it wasn't trendy then to force people to recycle plastic grocery bags. It might have made some sense if it had materialized then. Or during the industrial revolution. It is not an accident that it did not. It simply would not have been profitable, as it is today.

You missed the point. As with Christianity, Islam, any blind-faith religion, Environmentalism is composed of the exact same follower mentality. Complete, unequivocal, submission to the doctrine. No personal research, no dissection, no tracing of where the funding comes from, just pure acceptance and belief. If you don't identify that as a religion, I'd urge you to reconsider for your own benefit. It may not have an invisible man in the sky, no, that's been replaced by a 6,000,000,000 year-old planet upon which humanity has resided for an eye-blink of time. Yet we've managed to destroy the place! Well, based on tree-ring readings of an obscure British coniferous fir at least; error margins be damned.

You know what takes faith? Selective science. That's entirely belief-based. You know what takes faith? Making up a theory and then hand-picking evidence to support that theory. That's religion; that's also Environmentalism. You know what makes good science? Examining all available evidence and then proposing a theory.

If you fail to identify Environmentalism as neo-religion, that's fine. That's your choice, in fact. Enjoy.

It may not have an invisible man in the sky, no, that's been replaced by a 6,000,000,000 year-old planet upon which humanity has resided for an eye-blink of time. Yet we've managed to destroy the place! Well, based on tree-ring readings of an obscure British coniferous fir at least; error margins be damned.

It's not the Earth that we should worry about. The Earth will change. The Earth will adapt. It's us that we should worry about. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway but for fuck's sake if we can slow it down how can you be opposed to that? The argument over whether or not humans increase the rate of global warming is over in the scientific community. It has been for a long time. The fucking 9% or whatever it is that don't think so have lost the argument at every turn.

Surely, you don't deny that human activities are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. So tell me, how do you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without ending up with more thermal energy trapped in the atmosphere? Given the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, plus basic thermodynamics, I really want AGW-denialists to pony up and answer to that question.

Are you missing the point on purpose or is there a sale on strawmen at Chez J'Lo this week?

I'm clearly just missing it. I doubt I'm alone.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:I'm clearly just missing it. I doubt I'm alone.

I'll simplify it.

Environmentalism is a religion. Exactly. It's adherents follow it in the exact same fashion as Christians and Muslims follow their cults. And (as you have demonstrated) with the exact same hateful dismissive fervor toward any who think otherwise.

The irony here, obviously, is that you hate religion. (I can simplify that idea for you, too, if need be.)

Labeling me as a climate-change denier as a way of proving me "wrong" about Environmentalism being a religion is a strawman argument. This, too, can be simplified for you if necessary.

Time to get back on point. Pope Rasheed I.

Le Scottie wrote:The irony here, obviously, is that you hate religion. (I can simplify that idea for you, too, if need be.)

I agree that's the irony here but I'm thinking the same about you. Look at the people who are on your side here. 90% of the people who deny GW are doing it for a specifically religious reason..."Jesus ain't gonna let nuthin' happen to us." When you say this shit about having faith in science, you sound like one of those creationists that thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

Also...

Labeling me as a climate-change denier as a way of proving me "wrong" about Environmentalism being a religion is a strawman argument.

This is why every fundie wingnut you'll ever meet is a climate change denialist.

I'm a Christian fundamentalist now?

I'm pretty sure you labeled yourself as a climate change denialist.

90% of the people who deny GW are doing it for a specifically religious reason..."Jesus ain't gonna let nuthin' happen to us." When you say this shit about having faith in science, you sound like one of those creationists that thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

Read that again. If, after reading it again, you maintain that it is not completely idiotic, I'll respond. I'll even give you a hint: It's appallingly stupid. Why enter a conversation if your entire presence in it is simply about slithering your way away from the point?

Le Scottie wrote: Humans just can't get past that stupid insecure need to believe in something greater than themselves. The ones smart enough to dismiss the monotheistic myths merely switched their focus to the Earth Goddess in the neo-religion of Environmentalism which is the same shit (different pile) as Catholicism, Islam, whatever; swallowing doctrine whole, worshiping fictions, all at the cost of everyone else, the world in general.

Scottie, not sure if you commented on my review of Dawkins book The God Delusion, but I think you'd enjoy it. Also wanted to second your praise of Hitchens' God is Not Great. Hitchen's book is much more entertaining and filled with anecdotal evidence while Dawkins is more filled with logical and mathematical proof of my most arguments for God's existence fall flat. Both are very interesting reads, I would think they would be especially interesting for a skeptical believer or for someone who hasn't challenged their beliefs fully.

Le Scottie wrote:

90% of the people who deny GW are doing it for a specifically religious reason..."Jesus ain't gonna let nuthin' happen to us." When you say this shit about having faith in science, you sound like one of those creationists that thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

Read that again. If, after reading it again, you maintain that it is not completely idiotic, I'll respond. I'll even give you a hint: It's appallingly stupid. Why enter a conversation if your entire presence in it is simply about slithering your way away from the point?

Your point as far as I can tell is that environmentalism is a religion and the heaps of empirically tested and peer reviewed data supporting man-caused global warming is equivalent to a 4000 year old book written by a bunch of barbaric stone age goat herders that's been scribed 58 zillion times.

You're wrong. You're wrong on every level imaginable. The idea that nobody else will tell you how wrong you are I can only chalk up to them being overly respectful for their gratitude in giving us the Swamp back. But just trust me...you're wrong. It's okay...you're usually right about shit. But sometimes you're wrong. This is undeniably one of those times.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:You're wrong. You're wrong on every level imaginable. The idea that nobody else will tell you how wrong you are I can only chalk up to them being overly respectful for their gratitude in giving us the Swamp back. But just trust me...you're wrong. It's okay...you're usually right about shit. But sometimes you're wrong. This is undeniably one of those times.

Yes, I'm wrong. Uh huh, sure. This from a guy who makes up statistics and passes them off as facts. When you're not bothering to stereotypically group everyone who doesn't drink the same Kool-Aid you are drinking as "wingnuts", that is.

And lay off the strawman bullshit. It just makes you look like a shallow fucking moron.

As I said earlier, if you don't have the wherewithal to identify blind adherents to Environmentalism as anything but religious followers, have fun. Enjoy. Condolences that something so blatantly obvious is beyond your ability to comprehend.

How many people here think it's blatantly obvious that we should identify environmentalists as religious followers? Does anyone else have a fucking opinion in this place anymore?

Temporary J-Lo wrote:How many people here think it's blatantly obvious that we should identify environmentalists as religious followers? Does anyone else have a fucking opinion in this place anymore?

Go to a university. Any university. look around. Look around at all the greenwashing. Think all of those kids have done their homework? Or do you think they just accept greenie-think as fact?

And that's just colleges. The green-swallowing is growing and the followers that pile on board know less and less and less with each iteration. You're seriously oblivious to this? Sad.

What's the difference between a greenie standing on a street corner selling green and a religious loon standing on a corner selling Mojesus? Here's a hint: None.

Le Scottie wrote:

Temporary J-Lo wrote:How many people here think it's blatantly obvious that we should identify environmentalists as religious followers? Does anyone else have a fucking opinion in this place anymore?

Go to a university. Any university. look around. Look around at all the greenwashing. Think all of those kids have done their homework? Or do you think they just accept greenie-think as fact?

And that's just colleges. The green-swallowing is growing and the followers that pile on board know less and less and less with each iteration. You're seriously oblivious to this? Sad.

What's the difference between a greenie standing on a street corner selling green and a religious loon standing on a corner selling Mojesus? Here's a hint: None.

Okay. I'll concede that there are "greenies" who simply accept it as fact without investigating the claims for themselves. There are also extremists who go overboard with it at a detriment to other people. But none of this takes away from the fact that there's loads of evidence for this being real.

Scottie, every time you get on a airplane, or take a drink of water, or put medicine in your veins, you probably don't think about it all that much. The reason for that is because this...



...has proven to be the most reliable process that we've ever devised for living and prospering and predicting future outcomes.

Why not call people that believe in gravity religious?

Posting an image of a flow chart? Really? Pffft.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:But none of this takes away from the fact that there's loads of evidence for this being real.

Ah, yes, that. It requires, of course, that you ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of AGW studies were commissioned. And commissioned studies will show exactly what the interests writing the cheques want those studies to show. If you miss the fact that it is all business-based, condolences, you've again missed its reason for existing. The largest funding of anti-oil movements in Canada comes from where? American oil companies. Why? That should be damn obvious. It's an effective way to kill off the competition, control the product and set prices as they desire. You think those fuckwits out chanting "hey hey ho ho" at an anti-pipeline rally really have any idea who funds anti-pipeline protests? They have no idea. Yet they unquestioningly believe in something about which they have no real understanding. That's religion.

To reiterate, forming a theory and then creating evidence to support that theory simply is not science. Well, "why aren't there a whole bunch of dissent studies?" you may ask. Who the fuck commissions dissent? There is no profit in it, no motivation. It's exactly the same as Christianity, for example. The Christian religion is highly organized. Why? That's the way the corporation works; that's the way it has to work. Why aren't atheists organized as such? Same reason nobody bothers to commission anti-AGW studies. There's no point to it. None.

Frankly I'm more than a bit disappointed that you can see the obvious poison that is any religion and fail to see that blind followers of any doctrine are behaving as all faithful disciples behave. Unquestioning, devout, deliberately ignorant to reason . . . that's not religion?

If you can look at a Muslim or Baptist and dismiss them as lunatics, which you have often done, yet not say the same thing about green worshipers, you are nothing more than a hypocrite; religion sucks unless it is your religion.

Dammit. You're completely fucking with me, aren't you? Everyone else is in on this, I bet. You bastards. Well played.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:
I agree that's the irony here but I'm thinking the same about you. Look at the people who are on your side here. 90% of the people who deny GW are doing it for a specifically religious reason..."Jesus ain't gonna let nuthin' happen to us." When you say this shit about having faith in science, you sound like one of those creationists that thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

You can't make an argument that you say is based on scientific fact and throw out complete conjecture percentages in the next breath.

EDIT: I don't really want to get involved in this shizz. All I'll say is that there was not some huge, crazy environmentalist movement when I was in college.

AB_skin_test wrote:

Temporary J-Lo wrote:
I agree that's the irony here but I'm thinking the same about you. Look at the people who are on your side here. 90% of the people who deny GW are doing it for a specifically religious reason..."Jesus ain't gonna let nuthin' happen to us." When you say this shit about having faith in science, you sound like one of those creationists that thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

You can't make an argument that you say is based on scientific fact and throw out complete conjecture percentages in the next breath.

Even despite the number, it's not even necessarily accurate. Corporate greed and money are the main reason for GW denial. They just use the anti-scientific stance of the religious right as pawns.

Don't want to get involved either, but kinda scratching my head a little. If I'm careful about making sure that I recycle as much aluminum, paper and glass as I can, does that make me a member of the religion? Or if I drive a car (I do) that gets 35 MPG? Curious minds want to know.

Since this has carried to the next day, I’ll jump in as well.

Scottie, I think your description of all environmentalism as just another nutjob religion is over the top. Yes, as with any movement, there are some adherents who go overboard and who take some basic feel-good principles and let them guide their lives without independent thought. There are empty-headed environmentalists, just as there are empty-headed Believers.

Also, any time you are talking about values, there are going to be elements of religiousness. Environmentalism generally involves putting a moral value on the natural state of the world. But the truth or worth of that value cannot be proved logically. You either hold that value or you don’t.

But all that being said, most environmentalism, as I see it, is fact-based. Concerns about anthropogenic global warming, as far as I can tell, based on what I have read over the past ten years or so, appear to be legitimate. I do not think the consistent views of scientists on the issue can be explained by the fact that they are all being paid off. By whom? The tree-selling industry? Big Arbor?

I don’t consider myself a blind follower of anyone. But I do give money to groups that purchase land to protect it from development, and I did just buy a hybrid car even though I am never going to make up the extra cost in gas savings. Does this make me the equivalent of a bible-thumping fundamentalist from Alabama?

I do find irony, though, in the fact that it is Jerloma that is caught in this argument, because the error I believe Scottie is making about enviros is the same error that I believe Jerloma makes when he talks about religion. Just as most enviros are not empty-headed followers to take literally everything they are fed, neither are most believers. Loma likes to characterize every Christian who actually believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that if you don’t eat a piece of dead Jesus often enough, you will suffer eternal torment in Hell. I don’t think that is an accurate description of most Believers, just like I don’t think Scottie’s description applies to most Greens.

Get y'all popcorn ready.

Organic?

Grasspenis wrote:EDIT: I don't really want to get involved in this shizz.

me neither. trust, i have no hesitation in telling scottie when he is full of shit (objectively, or in my opinion). i might parse what is and is not a religion, or the difference between a religion and a heavily dogmatic, profit-driven movement manipulating public opinion and behavior of millions of people. but i substantially agree with his characterization of the environmentalist movement, and that of the climate-change monetary and political scam.

the facts regarding climate change have fuck all to do with the carbon credit money skimming operation. shocking that obummer and gore didn't force the american bill through congress for a goldman sachs run exchange market.

check the penn + teller episode of their Bullshit show that explains recycling. a good leftie (penn jillette) explains it all.

but this is as far as i care to be dragged into these shallow waters. i've seen with my own eyes, since the first whole earth day, the arc of the environmental movement in this country. a lot of good, a lot of bad, a lot of manipulation and control of mass human behavior (some good, some bad, some very profitable). this is established history, with versions written from all biases imaginable. i have no interest in rehashing my opinions around the clear body of facts; at least not today.

Steve, I've told you so many times...I'm completely aware that people cherry pick the bible using their own moral guide in order to create a version of God that they are comfortable saying that they believe in. I get it. I fucking get it. All I'm saying is that if you don't literally believe that the dude that blinked the universe into existence sent a human manifestation of himself to this speck of dust in order to have himself sacrificed to himself to appease himself so that he could forgive humans for the sinful way in which he created them, and his physical body would literally rise up to heaven, where he sits by his dad who is also him to judge humanity...if you don't believe that...in no meaningful way are you a Christian. You're just a person calling yourself a Christian in order to reap the social advantages that come with being a Christian in this country. In this regard, I have a certain respect for creationists as they are at the very least more intellectually honest than Mr. "I just think Jesus seemed like a cool guy."

howard test2 wrote:

Grasspenis wrote:EDIT: I don't really want to get involved in this shizz.

me neither. trust, i have no hesitation in telling scottie when he is full of shit (objectively, or in my opinion). i might parse what is and is not a religion, or the difference between a religion and a heavily dogmatic, profit-driven movement manipulating public opinion and behavior of millions of people. but i substantially agree with his characterization of the environmentalist movement, and that of the climate-change monetary and political scam.

the facts regarding climate change have fuck all to do with the carbon credit money skimming operation. shocking that obummer and gore didn't force the american bill through congress for a goldman sachs run exchange market.

check the penn + teller episode of their Bullshit show that explains recycling. a good leftie (penn jillette) explains it all.

but this is as far as i care to be dragged into these shallow waters. i've seen with my own eyes, since the first whole earth day, the arc of the environmental movement in this country. a lot of good, a lot of bad, a lot of manipulation and control of mass human behavior (some good, some bad, some very profitable). this is established history, with versions written from all biases imaginable. i have no interest in rehashing my opinions around the clear body of facts; at least not today.

Were they talking about the carbon offsets market or whatever it is? If so, yeah, that's stupid, but I thought they were discussing basically who is more fanatical about the cause, Bible bangers or tree-chained hippies.

Temporary J-Lo wrote:Steve, I've told you so many times...I'm completely aware that people cherry pick the bible using their own moral guide in order to create a version of God that they are comfortable saying that they believe in. I get it. I fucking get it. All I'm saying is that if you don't literally believe that the dude that blinked the universe into existence sent a human manifestation of himself to this speck of dust in order to have himself sacrificed to himself to appease himself so that he could forgive humans for the sinful way in which he created them, and his physical body would literally rise up to heaven, where he sits by his dad who is also him to judge humanity...if you don't believe that...in no meaningful way are you a Christian. You're just a person calling yourself a Christian in order to reap the social advantages that come with being a Christian in this country. In this regard, I have a certain respect for creationists as they are at the very least more intellectually honest than Mr. "I just think Jesus seemed like a cool guy."

You basically just described me, and for the most part you're probably right. Like, I don't think I'm going to heck for eating meat on Fridays where I should be eating heartless, soulless fish.

EDIT: And this is basically what a baptist acquaintance of mine told me. But he's a prick.

Grasspenis wrote:Were they talking about the carbon offsets market or whatever it is? If so, yeah, that's stupid, but I thought they were discussing basically who is more fanatical about the cause, Bible bangers or tree-chained hippies.

you mean penn and teller? they were talking about recycling.

howard test2 wrote:

Grasspenis wrote:Were they talking about the carbon offsets market or whatever it is? If so, yeah, that's stupid, but I thought they were discussing basically who is more fanatical about the cause, Bible bangers or tree-chained hippies.

you mean penn and teller? they were talking about recycling.

Nah, Jerlomes and Le Scot.