Cooperate Or Die

flat flat buy apartment

flat flat buy apartament

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

rynok kvartir sankt peterburg kuplyu kvartira pyatigorsk kuplyu 1komnatnuyu kvartiru prodazha kvartir m planernaya sdam kvartiru shartashskiy rynok novopodrezkovo prodazha kvartir arenda kvartir dombay prodazha kvartir m planernaya snimu kvartiru yaroslavskoe shosse

From today’s WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth
Iran, Russia and Venezuela Feel the Benefits

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; A01

“High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone…”

“"There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices "are not spiking; they're just rising," he added.

The benefits, to the tune of $700 billion a year, are flowing to the world's oil-exporting countries.

Two of those nations -- Iran and Venezuela -- may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. Venezuela has used its oil wealth to dispense patronage around South America, vying for influence even with longtime U.S. allies. And Iran could be less vulnerable to sanctions designed to pressure it into giving up its nuclear program or opening it to inspection.”

The topic is:

“Are We Heading for WWIII?

President Bush has talked about the danger of World War III if Iran doesn't stop its nuclear program. What do people think is the risk of war where you are?”

My answer is:

Yes, primarily because of our dependence on Mid East oil and our war on Islam.

If we had spent the $1 Trillion that we have squandered on the illegal and immoral preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq on developing alternative energy sources instead, we would be well on out way to energy dependence, and would have dramatically reduced the likely of WWIII.

If we did not unconditionally support the illegal and immoral Israeli usurpation of Palestine from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people, we would not have enraged the Islamic world, and would not have served as the catalyst for a probable WWIII.

Some argue that the “State of Israel” is legal because of the Balfour Declaration and its inclusion by the League of Nations in the British Mandate following WWI. However, the Balfour Declaration was the British response to the lobbying influence of the powerful Jews Baron Rothschild and Barron Hirsch.

So as a spoil of war after WWI, and as a result of the lobbying influence of wealthy Jews on the British government, Palestine was taken away from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people who had tended their flocks and orchards and farmed this land for millennia, and given instead to the Jews.

In a like manner it was the lobbying influence of the powerful American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that mislead us into the moronic and disastrous preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The dual motives for this disaster were our greed to control the world’s second largest oil field combined with the Israelis’ fear and loathing of Saddam Hussein. These same motives are at work in pushing us to bomb Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities.

Until we develop a fair and balanced policy with respect to Palestine, develop energy independence, and free ourselves from the influence of the Jewish lobby, the likelihood of starting WWIII will only increase.

The $64,000 question is: “Why are we digging ourselves such a deep hole in the Middle East? With the $1 Trillion that we have blown in Iraq; we could have achieved energy independence by now.

Remember that show, The $64,000 Question? Nah, ya’ll are way too young for that.

Here’s the link to the NBC wind power video:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=6266fa18-666b-4d02-9a38-952858230437

By 2030, wind power could supply 20% of the power needs of the U.S. Denmark is the world’s leader in wind power; more than 5500 wind turbines off shore and on land provide 20% of Denmark’s power needs, with plans to expand to 50%. Denmark’s wind power industry is the world’s largest employing 20,000 people; 90% of the wind turbines produced are exported.

The tiny island of Samso with 4300 citizens became the focus of a government experiment in 1997. Could the island convert all energy to renewable sources in 10 years? The answer is yes. Using wind, solar and bio fuels, it’s not only carbon neutral, it is carbon negative.

On a West Texas ranch, you can see more Wind Turbines than in all Denmark, generating enough power to supply 1 million homes. The first turbines went up in 2001. Texas leads the western hemisphere in this technology.

Here's the link to the NBC wave power video:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=1c9f32ef-9a20-43a5-a23f-b4c798189bdf

Wave power has the advantage of being more predictable than wind power. By 2025, wave power could provide 10 GW of power, enough to power the entire state of Massachusetts.

Jed said:

"It is hard to imagine how it will revive years from now."

Now Jed, you know how advances in theoretical physics occur irregardless of the engineer's search for practical applications. Don't you think that we will soon uncover the theory behind the successful Cold Fusion experiments that have occurred, even without overtly seeking to reproduce those results?

BTW, the price of oil is expected to crack the $100.00 per barrel threshold tomorrow.

General Musharraf has declared defacto Marshall Law in Pakistan.

President Bush is just itching to Bomb Bomb Iran (in the immortal words of John McCain).

The Palestine peace talks scheduled to occur in Annapolis later this month don't have a prayer.

NBC Evening News is running specials on alternative energy sources this week. Wind power in the Netherlands and Texas was covered last night, and wave power off the New Jersey cost is tonight. By 2025, wave power could provide 10 GW of power, enough to power the entire state of Massachusetts.

Rick quoted me quoting Max Planck:

"First, as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I predict that if Cold Fusion doesn’t emerge as a successful new technology in the next ten years . . ."

I am glad you liked the book, but the problem is, as I explained in the rest of the paragraph, the cold fusion researchers are dying off a lot faster than the opposition. Look up cold fusion in any newspaper or in the Scientific American and you will find that it is remembered only as a mistake and a farce. There is no trace of institutional memory of the actual facts about it, even at the University of Utah. It is hard to imagine how it will revive years from now.

testing

Just in case anyone was offended or shocked by the reference to "white privilege" in an earlier post:

White Privilege Shapes the U.S.

By Robert Jensen

Department of Journalism

University of Texas

Here's what white privilege sounds like: I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege. So, if we live in a world of white privilege—unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask. He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means. That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians. I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many.

As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them. I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship.

Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor. There certainly is individual variation in experience.

Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives. Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there.

But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

copyright Robert William Jensen 1998 (first appeared in the Baltimore Sun, July 19, 1998)

Jed said:

In response to my question: Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years.

“Well, it will either be in the next 10 years or never. The researchers are mainly WWII-era retired professors and National Lab researchers, such as Schwinger. One of them was the guy who pressed the button to trigger the first bomb at Trinity. He died some years ago, like so many others in this field. They will all be dead or incapacitated in 10 years, and cold fusion will be forgotten. Young scientists aren't allowed to do creative or risky stuff. As soon as the top brass finds out they are interested in cold fusion, bang! -- out the door. (You can thank the Washington Post for that. They have a charming habit of accusing all cold fusion researchers of criminal misconduct, fraud and lunacy, which kind of puts the damper on funding and people's careers.)

Anyway, assuming the geriatric scientists cannot make it work . . .”

Not so fast my friend. Jed also said in the introduction to his wonderful (free) e-Book:

http://www.lenr-canr.org./BookBlurb.htm

“First, as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I predict that if Cold Fusion doesn’t emerge as a successful new technology in the next ten years, it will eventually emerge if it is viable. And your wonderful technical library and inspirational (and free) e-Book will play a large part in it.

What World War III May Look Like:

http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11666

Yup, we are all nuts!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/31/104328/05

Americans support bombing Iran

by Hiraga

Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

According to "Raw Story" Zogby International reports that 52% of Americans polled support air strikes against Iran.

In spite of all the talk on this site about Bush's approval ratings tanking, Bush "best Democratic strategist ever", and so on, this poll is absolutely devastating. The American public is ignorant, fearful, and violent as ever. I've never felt this way before, but what this 52% number means is that we - the progressive, reality-based community have lost. Media consolidation, the concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, the military industrial complex, the hubris of empire - all of this institutional power that the reactionary right has - is too much for us.

This country is on a glide path to a bloody, reactionary, anti-democratic late imperial demise. I'm sick to my frickin' stomach.

The title of this thread is "Cooperate or Die". The message to the Iranians is "Cooperate or be Nuked".

Did you see PBS’s News Hour yesterday? Here’s the link to the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html

“JUDY WOODRUFF: And the debate goes on outside Congress with perhaps even more intensity. Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz wrote in June that military force was "required" to stop Iran from getting a bomb and offered this description of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Quote, "Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism," end quote.”...

...“Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

Norman Podhoretz, let me begin with you. You wrote over the summer that, if Iran is to be prevented from going ahead with a nuclear program, then the United States has "no alternative" but to strike against Iran. Do you still believe that? And if so, why?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ, Foreign Policy Adviser, Rudy Giuliani: Very much so. It seems to me that most people in the world, at least until recently, agreed that it would be catastrophic to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability. The only debate was over what the best means to prevent this from happening might be.

Well, for over four years, diplomacy has been tried, first by the Europeans and then with some American participation, and all they've accomplished, these negotiations, is to buy the Iranians more time with which to move forward inexorably toward a nuclear capability...

...So that leaves us with only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether or allow them to go nuclear. And I agree with what Senator McCain has said in the past: The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb.”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Fareed Zakaria, the choice, either strike Iran or allow them to go nuclear, are those the only two choices?”

FAREED ZAKARIA, Editor, Newsweek International: Well, there is a third choice, Judy, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons, and that is deterrence.”...

... “This would be the third invasion of a Muslim country that the United States would have undertaken in the last five years; that seems to me a pretty serious business. And we've seen deterrence work against all these other countries...

...Let us even assume that Iran gets the bomb, and it's not clear that it will. Why are they more crazy than Kim Jong Il, a man who let two million of his own people starve in the last decade?”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you pose several points that I want to bring to Norman Podhoretz, but, number one, this question of deterrence. If these other countries Mr. Zakaria is listing have listened to the argument to use nuclear weapons they be destroying themselves, why do you think that argument doesn't work with Iran?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ: Well, I'll tell you why. First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough...

...The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with either Mao or even Kim Jong Il or Stalin, and that is the element of religious fanaticism.

The fact of the matter is that, with a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them.

And let me tell you why. Here is what the Ayatollah Khomeini, of whom Ahmadinejad is a devoted disciple, once said. He said: We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah, for patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land of Iran burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Well, you can't deter a nation that is led by people with that kind of attitude...”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “You know, I had a feeling Norman would bring up that one quotation that he's used before, so I have one from now. "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed from the ground." This is what Mao said.

And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world.

So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: They've been in power for 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy.

If you look at the way in which they opposed al-Qaida and the Taliban, this was another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would find them sympathetic, but, no, they were the sworn enemies of al-Qaida and they helped the United States depose the Taliban.

By and large, over the last 30 years they've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the United States, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.”...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we would love to have this go on for an hour. Unfortunately, we have only a minute or less left, so I have one final question...

I do want to ask you both, because I think it's important. Mr. Podhoretz, do you think that, as you wrote a few months ago, this administration, this president intends before he leaves office to strike Iran?”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “Yes, I do believe he will, because he has said many times -- or at least two times that I know of in public -- that, if we allow Iran to get the bomb, people 50 years from now will look back at us the way we look back at the men who made the Munich pact with Hitler in 1938 and say, "How could they have let this happen?"

Well, unlike Fareed Zakaria and the foreign policy establishment that is complacent and irresponsible, in my opinion, I think the president recognizes the danger. I think he knows that time is short, that time is not on our side. And I think he will take military action, not an invasion, but air strikes before he leaves office.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “And, Fareed Zakaria, if you would, a brief response.”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “Oh, I would doubt it. Look, in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives believed the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and Finlandize Europe. When Reagan started talking to the Soviets, started talking to Gorbachev, Mr. Podhoretz excoriated him, called it the "Reagan road to detente" and such.

It turned out he was wrong. It turned out that the Soviets were not that powerful, and that history was on our side, and that things were going to work out as long as we kept our cool.

I believe in just the way that we have deterred the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il, history will prove that we can use deterrence and containment to contain the problem of Iran and that we do not need to launch a third unilateral invasion just to do that.”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “God help us if we follow that counsel.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “Norman Podhoretz, we thank you. Fareed Zakaria, gentlemen, we thank you both very much.”

Maybe one should give Waldo's post a little more thought. Jumping into the conclusion that there was no grain of truth in his analysis of Jihadist is wrong.

Not to miss, the ones who are applauding her awards are the ones who have actually won them.

Men are charmed by her blog personality and sharp wit on the blogs. As Norrie Hoyt wrote she is a modern Indonesian woman married to a Malaysian Muslim. Jihadist made it a point to mention that her mother is Dutch and her father is Indonesian Muslim. Psychoanalytically speaking she made sure of the unconscious acceptance for her half white ancestry. With that she put herself above the average non-white Muslims of her country and in the league of white converts to Islam in the West who enjoy special privileges because of their Caucasian ancestry. Although it is not politically correct to say that people are affected unconsciously by such factors, Jihadist is smart enough to play her cards well. The other card she plays is to mention in passing that she is young and good looking, without need for Botox yet, without actually mentioning her age.

When questions about Islam get really tough Jihadist plays the charming woman and slips away by talking about her person instead. She makes it a point to emphasise that she is no different from the millions of Westerners in her tastes in music, food, hobbies, reading etc. She makes it a point to assure everyone she is no different from a 'living large' atheist at all. Atheists aren't asking themselves if they are dealing with Islamic views at all. Most don't really care about religions one way or another anyway. An entertaining and witty conversation is good enough. So the essay on pole dancing is considered fantastic although it has nothing to do with On Faith questions. Responding to questions about the sex life of Mohammad in a tittilating way was another ploy. Ross was given an award for his obsession and for hounding the Islamic women with questions on the sex life of Mohammad. Note how the posts seem to be geared to titillate the male mind. That seems to be the tactic of the three most popular female Islamics on this thread. The tactic was called 'using honey' to attract non-Islamics to Islam, the idea being once the non-Islamics are enamoured by the subtle erotic imagery, their love for Islam will follow. Pole dancing indeed!

As to awards

In case no one has noticed, this is not Jihadist blog. Only someone who is not an active participating member of the blog could make objective assessment.

Jihadist's choice smacks of nepotism loud and clear. Jihadist wanted to attract the attention of certain members for her own personal and political reasons. She invented award categories to suit that need. Period.

Non award winners must rest assured that Jihadist's judgement mean nothing at all. It has been seconded only by the winners.

No doubt Jihadist is an entertaining and intelligent woman. If all Muslims were like her there would have been no 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. But Jihadist cannot change the verses of the Quran based on which Islam used violence to propagate itself for many centuries. Jihadist cannot stop the terrorists from using Quran verses to justify their zeal for their religion. It would be time well spent if Jihadist would use her charm with the Islamic terrorists to keep their minds occupied with her brilliance.

Trying desperately to be politically correct is one thing. But dealing with real problems associated with verses from the Quran is another.

Don't dismiss Waldo's comments outright. Norrie Hoyt did mention that he was 68 or 71 years old. Norrie Hoyt is a charming, kind and intelligent man. He managed to convey that without using erotic imagery. His age doesn't matter on a blog such as this at all.

I want to thank he academy for this award. You like me, you really like me. Seriously, perhaps I come across as a militant in my writings but I would like to clear one thing up. If people practice their religion in their churches and homes and among those that think as they do, I have no problem. My problem comes when religious groups force their beliefs on the rest of us. Politicians are enacting laws that do just that. Thats when the little militant in me come into play. Our planet could be in serious trouble and we might not have much time to do much about it. Science will not be able to bail us out because religious groups will not let our government fund research. Every idea we the people have seems to be challenged by the likes of Jim Dobson, Tony Perkins, ACLJ and other well funded religious groups. They have a big say in our government because week-kneed politicians on both sides don't want to anger these groups for fear of losing votes or otherwise support. No other group is powerful enough to challenge these religious groups right now, but I am reading some encouraging reports that a new evangelical is being heard and is concerned about the planet and helping less fortunate people and are not pushing for government laws against gays and athiest. (NOTE: Jack Lahay sp author of the left behind series has stated on the Glen Beck show that athiests are mentally sick and should be put away)
So there is some encouragement from religious groups that want to live and let live. Get back to what religion is supposed be about. Teaching the gospel, feeding the poor and talking better care of the planet. I hope these people win out. Until they do I will be a militant secularist. JWEST

I wonder if the 'report of Imperialist Aggression' was really a plot against Islam. If it encouraged population control in Nigeria, it would be to their benefit. That same attitude in Africa, that the west is telling lies to 'harm them by encourageing lower fertility rates', has led to a generally held belief that AIDS is a western lie and spread through inoculations from WHO and the like and the highest rate of AIDS infection in the world.

BTW, the conversion of crop production from food to biofuel may have contributed to food prices and reduced aid to starving African populations. Fuel prices and the displacement of Christian and Animist peoples by muslims taking over oil producing areas have done as much harm if not more.

Despite China's economic openness it still keeps an iron fist around its new outlets. What I have heard seems pretty dire. Has anyone seen a good source for info on China's environmental problems lately?

Rafael says:

“The sooner people drop the issue of population growth in the developing world as the driving force in environmental degradation, the sooner they will recognize the problem is in themselves.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree that the third world doesn’t consume too much, but it clearly can’t support its population. Either it must limit its population (voluntarily or through starvation), or the rest of the world must share the wealth.

Bulletin: this just in, the rest of the world is not likely to share the wealth.

Here is a link that may explain why Rafael says to “drop the issue of population growth in the developing world”.

http://www.missionislam.com/conissues/popcontrol.htm

“Population Control:

Centrepiece of Imperialist Aggression Against the Muslim World

One of the most politically explosive incidents in this history of American foreign aid took place in Nigeria in early 1991. That was when a group of researchers uncovered a plot to plant fake Islamic teaching manuals in religious institutions in northern Nigeria.”

I asked Jihadist and Victoria for their opinion on this, and you can read Jihadist’s response at:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/10/science_and_religion/comments.html

The time of day of Jihadist’s post was: October 29, 2007 10:27 PM

Jed says:

"Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years . . ."

“Let us hope the population does not double! That can be avoided more easily and for much less money than it would take to increase energy and food supplies. Frankly, I doubt that third world nations can support twice their present numbers. People already die of malnutrition in large numbers. If the population increases to ~8 billion, hundreds of thousands of children will die every week, and that will stabilize the population. You can thank the Vatican for that.”

I agree, but let’s do more than hope. If we refuse to take decisive positive action, the current world wide average growth rate of 1.167% will insure that the current population of 6.6 billion will double to 13.2 billion in 66 years. And the third world growth rate is much higher than the world average.

Here is another interesting article on population growth:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365p.html

...“Moreover, the world has enough resources to feed and shelter any foreseeable world population. For example, current agricultural technology is capable of feeding a population of 80 billion using less than 10% of the Earth's land for crops.

The solution to improving the living conditions for the present and future world population is increased access to wealth and resources--in other words, a free market economy. Taiwan has five times the population density of mainland China, but has a standard of living ten times higher. This is because Taiwan has a free market economy, whereas mainland China's communist government still controls both the economy and individual human ingenuity.

Opponents of free markets have variously suggested or imposed various methods to "control" population growth. The most extreme case is mainland China, with severe penalties for families who have more than one child and (despite official claims) mandatory abortions against the will of the mothers, sometimes in the ninth month of pregnancy. Those who prefer to limit human freedom as a solution often praise China's policies in general.”

We obviously need to get our political and religious leaders of the world together to resolve this issue. Jed and Wm. Robert Johnston, argue that the best solution is to eliminate poverty. Mr. Johnston says that it’s as simple as converting the world to a free market economy.

I am my usual skeptical self and doubt that this will happen. The only alternative that I can see is world wide government mandated sterilization programs (modeled after China perhaps) in regions that cannot (or will not) voluntarily regulate their population. I doubt that this will happen either.

No wonder this is such an intractable problem. My prediction is that we will just continue to proceed down the path of doing nothing, and continue to see more and more children (Jed says hundreds of thousands) on our TV screens, with their swollen bellies protruding below their skeletal rib cages and covered with flies. This will eventually stabilize the population at a very high misery index, but what a path to follow.

Of course we can thank the Vatican for that, but we must also be sure to thank ourselves.

Rick,

The moderators must have scrubbed it. Something about repent and be saved. That probably offended someone.

CTCNL,

What ever are you talking about? I don't see any Canyon posts on this thread.

You'd better take a break; you're working too hard.

Rick -

As to your referenced article by Maureen Dowd...now don't you think that was a total spoof on Cheney and his (not so fictional) pro-war stance toward Iran?? I would agree that this very conversation might have taken place somewhere in the bowels of the Whitehouse, but I see a little comedic hyperbole contained therein. As secretive as this outfit it, I can't imagine that anybody, including Tim Russert, is going to get a newspaper byline warning Iran just before an imminent strike. Then again, the smell of sulfur is in the air.......

No apologies, no prisoners & no warning - that's the Bush/Cheney operating policy. Unfortunately this monumental abuse of power is very far from abating & anything is possible. I would agree that this is more than a tongue in cheek exercise.

Thanks for the red alert!

Terry

Canyon,

Wow, you are thumping hard today!!! Those conference calls with you, God and your "pwtfft" must be going well.

Rick wrote:

"This may surprise some that Iran has one of the better population control records (and not just from hanging gays I’m assuming). But I guess the Iranian people do look more favorably on the western life style than most Muslims."

I would not call the use of contraceptives a "western life style." Muslim doctors developed effective methods for both camels and people in the 8th century, as I recall. The first effective spermacide contraceptives were described in Egyptian texts dating back to 1550 BC. The Japanese population growth was restrained with contraception and abortion throughout the Edo period.

Of course modern methods are safer and far more effective.

The Iranian government has had good public health policies since it was founded. Their infant mortality rate (IMR) has fallen from 122 to 29 since the revolution. The IMR is usually a good indication of overall public health.

Rick wrote:

"How about Hydrogen as an alternative to fuel cells? Is it really better?"

It is not an alternative. Hydrogen is most efficient when used with fuel cells, rather than combustion. See this NREL data:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf

"Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years . . ."

Let us hope the population does not double! That can be avoided more easily and for much less money than it would take to increase energy and food supplies. Frankly, I doubt that third world nations can support twice their present numbers. people already die of malnutrition in large numbers. If the population increases to ~8 billion, hundreds of thousands of children will die every week, and that will stabilize the population. You can thank the Vatican for that.

". . . and generating supplies of Hydrogen, how big a part will it play, and how will we handle the waste disposal? Can’t anyone come up with a safe use for the nuclear waste products?"

In my opinion, the danger of nuclear waste disposal has been somewhat exaggerated. Spent nuclear fuel rods can be recycled with breeder reactors, and much more energy can be generated with them. But at present this technology is extremely expensive & dangerous, so it is much better to use virgin uranium. perhaps in a hundred years we will improve reader technology and begin re-using the spent fuel rods.

People talk about the difficulties of preserving the spent fuel for tens of thousands of years without harming the environment. I think this should not be a concern. Within a hundred years or at most 200 years I expect we will have very cheap & reliable space elevator technology. People will then be able to take nuclear waste and dispose of it on the moon, or drop it into the sun. The actual mass of spent fuel and other long lived radwaste is small. I expect the space elevators in the year 2500 will be able to transport the whole kit-and-caboodle in a few days, at very little expense, with far greater safety and reliability than today's trucks and ships. I do not think that our descendents will be upset with us for leaving the mess for them to clean up. It is better than leaving the world afflicted with global warming.

"Tidal power is one extremely clean source that is only being exploited it a few places in the world."

The problem is, it can only be used in a few places in the world. Not many places have large tides.

"Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years."

Well, it will either be in the next 10 years or never. The researchers are mainly WWII-era retired professors and National Lab researchers, such as Schwinger. One of them was the guy who pressed the button to trigger the first bomb at Trinity. He died some years ago, like so many others in this field. They will all be dead or incapacitated in 10 years, and cold fusion will be forgotten. Young scientists aren't allowed to do creative or risky stuff. As soon as the top brass finds out they are interested in cold fusion, bang! -- out the door. (You can thank the Washington Post for that. They have a charming habit of accusing all cold fusion researchers of criminal misconduct, fraud and lunacy, which kind of puts the damper on funding and people's careers.)

Anyway, assuming the geriatric scientists cannot make it work . . .

In that case, I recommend the aggressive development of solar-thermal, wind, energy transport with hydrogen, and geosynchronous space-based solar. All four can be accomplished with today's technology. Spaced-based solar has made large strides since it was first proposed in the 1970s, because of the widespread use of geosynchronous satellites for television and telecommunications. It could supply unlimited amounts of energy. See:

http://www.powersat.com/

Once space elevators become available, the cost of geosynchronous space-based solar would fall to practically nothing. The earth-side "footprint" for this is also the smallest of any energy source (except cold fusion). A 5 GW receiver would be an oblong net, about 1.5 miles on the long side. It would probably no impact on the environment. Crops could be grown under it, just as they are grown under PV solar installations in Germany, and under wind turbines in the U.S.

The footprint for cold fusion is zero, or negative, actually. Machines powered by it will be more compact than the ones we have now, because the power density is high and the fuel takes up practically no space; i.e. ~1 gram of heavy water per year per automobile. Plus you don't need the distribution network, such as electric power lines, pipelines, gas stations and the like.

Did you see this Tim Russert interview of Darth Vader this weekend?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ei=5087&em=&en=3b06bd6ceca4de30&ex=1193803200&pagewanted=print

W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D.

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, welcome to “Meet the Press.”

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Good morning, Tim.

RUSSERT: How close are we to war with Iran?

CHENEY: Well, I think we are in the final stages of diplomacy, obviously. We have done virtually everything we can with respect to carrots, if you will. It’s time for squash. Not to mention mushrooms, clouds of them.

RUSSERT: But you squashed Iraq and that didn’t work out so well.

CHENEY: Iraq will be fine, Tim. It just needs a firmer hand. We learned that lesson. We’re not going to get hung up on democracy this time. (Expletive) purple thumbs.

RUSSERT: Isn’t Secretary Rice still pushing carrots for Iran?

CHENEY: The more carrots Condi feeds ’em, the better they’ll be able to see the bombs coming....

The rest is at the link.

Ender,

You say:

“I would be curious if some of the Muslims posters would comment on attitudes toward birth control and population growth in Islam. I would be suprised if it were not like the Catholic policy that encourages breeding followers to the point of outnumbering the 'competition'.”

Here is link:

http://bmz.de/en/service/infothek/fach/spezial/spezial049/190.pdf

Population Policy in the Islamic Countries

Ahad Rahmanzadeh

Study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

This study concludes that:

“Conclusion:

...There is a close correlation between urbanisation and population development. However, low population growth in Azerbaijan, which has a large rural population but a diversified employment structure, and high population growth in the Arab (oil) countries, which have a largely urban population with simple occupational structures, seem to contradict the assumption that had been generally held up until now that urbanisation on its own slows down population growth...

...The striking features of Iran's reproductive health policy are the complementarity of the programmes and the great part played by information and education. In contrast with some other policy areas, this policy endeavours to gain the participation of those concerned and their involvement of their own free will. The support and, to some extent, participation of the clergy is absolutely decisive in this. Indeed, contraceptive use is higher than in the neighbouring secular state of Turkey...

... Whilst population development has slowed down considerably in the three sample countries and the growth rate at the beginning of the 21st century now stands at between 1 % and 1.5 %, some other Islamic countries are recording very high growth rates. These include countries such as Saudi Arabia (3.1 %), Iraq (2.8 %), Syria (2.8 %) and Oman (as much as 3.9 %). Despite its reproductive health policy, Pakistan also still has a growth rate of 2.8 %3.”

This may surprise some that Iran has one of the better population control records (and not just from hanging gays I’m assuming). But I guess the Iranian people do look more favorably on the western life style than most Muslims.

Jed,

Did you comment on this post by Ender? It sounds awfully good to me. How about Hydrogen as an alternative to fuel cells? Is it really better? Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years, and generating supplies of Hydrogen, how big a part will it play, and how will we handle the waste disposal? Can’t anyone come up with a safe use for the nuclear waste products? Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years.

Ender says:

“Tidal power is one extremely clean source that is only being exploited it a few places in the world. Fundy bay on the Maine/Canada border has 50 ft tides. Tubines that remained submerged most of the day could produce huge amounts of power, and with very little new technology be made ecologically harmless. Electricity generated could be used on the spot to create hydrogen from ocean water.

A new patent by a former IBM designer makes hydrogen fuel safer than the best fuel cells. A mixture of Gallium and Aluminum dropped into water produces hydrogen, so little hydrogen needs to be stored. The bi-product is aluminum oxide which can be easily collected and recycled at a cost effective rate by aluminum processors which already process recycled aluminum and aluminum oxide.

My point is that for the $Trillions we will have spent killing Iraqis and American soldiers, and rebuilding the bodies and infrastructure we have broken, we could have many technologies operating where they fit best and cause the least harm, and a hydrogen infrastructure developed. Even if we went nuclear we would still have to convert water to hydrogen as batteries are an ineffective storage media.

We should not be waiting for the perfect solution. We should be doing the doable. If private enterprise can't do it, and especially when they block progress, then it should be done by the gov't we elect to supposedly act in our interest.”

(Scientific/statistical) "Estimates of the number of human beings who have ever lived on Earth constitute an extremely large range, with low estimates around 45 billion, and the highest estimates topping out around 125 billion. Many of the more robust estimates fall into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Whatever the true number, Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are very crowded places giving credence that all three (if they exist) are spirit states as alluded to by Aquinas and JPII. http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

Conclusion: Earth's population problem (if it exists) can be easily solved by converting Earth to a spirit state. Or we could simply go on a food and energy diet :))))

Rick wrote:

"I am more concerned about the leaders of the world being able to convince their people to voluntarily limit population growth. . . .

As I said, it is easy to convince people to do this. Just give them a decent job and health care and nearly everyone will limit their family size. The hard part is to convince wealthy people and nations to give the poor people a chance. There has been significant progress in this. Microloans and other innovations have greatly reduced extreme third-world poverty in the last 30 years. If the U.S. would end subsidies to big agriculture it would save our taxpayers billions of dollars and it would a tremendous help to third world farmers who cannot compete with our subsidized exports. It would also go a long way to reducing our obesity problem. Entrenched welfare-for-the-rich government largesses is difficult to root out, but sometimes the good guys win.

"This requires the cooperation of our scientists and religious leaders to address the morality of this issue. As you know, reducing population growth is a most difficult topic to discus even with mainstream Catholics, let alone right wing religious extremists."

I do not think the Catholic hierarchy will support contraception anytime soon. The present Pope is even more retrograde than the last few. Fortunately, Catholic people and nations are ignoring the church and taking matters into their own hands. For example, here is a CBC report from Brazil, May 2007:

"Brazil's government is cutting the price of birth control pills to less than 25 cents for a month's supply so poor women can afford the contraceptive.

The move comes just two weeks after a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, who used his time in the mainly Roman Catholic country to condemn abortion, contraception and sex outside marriage. . . ."

I am sure the timing was not accidental. They are saying the same thing to the Pope that La Guardia said, regarding sex: "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules."

Right wing extremists have also had their day. Their grip on power is weakening. They went too far in the Iraq war, and they will be out of power for a generation. Then the liberals will go too far, and the pendulum will swing back.

I would never say that war and a hellish future are impossible. People are capable of suicidal folly. The 20th century was one of the grimmest on record. We still have thermonuclear weapons, although we have reduced the numbers from ~60,000 to around 5,000, which makes it much less likely that we will wipe out the entire human race with the damn things. But most people are sane. In my book, I wrote:

"Most people are sensible and right-minded. Our species would not have survived otherwise. Democracy and the free market system would never have worked. History has been a test of strength between the rapacious, foolish, greedy, shortsighted minority and the sensible majority. So far, in cold fusion, the fools have won every round, suppressing nearly all research. I have had a ringside seat at this fiasco. No one knows better than I how powerful the fools can be, and how badly the cold fusion researchers have muffed the few opportunities that have come their way. Without public support, researchers will never receive funding, yet they have often scorned opportunities to convince the public of the validity of their work. But history shows that people have often changed their minds, reformed, overcome great difficulties, and beaten back hordes of fools and angry naysayers. History gives us guarded hope that things may yet turn out as I have predicted here."

Jed,

Your arguments are persuasive, but I am not concerned so much that the required technologies will be developed in the area of clean energy, although this is a difficult enough challenge. I am more concerned about the leaders of the world being able to convince their people to voluntarily limit population growth. As you say, it will be difficult to support a doubling of our population, which is predicted to occur in just about 70-75 years, even with the improved technology that you describe.

No, I don’t think that we are facing the end of history in 75 years, but as you said, we may face some serious setbacks in our quality of life (and disastrous wars) that would be unnecessary, if we could just work together to reduce the rate of growth of our population. This requires the cooperation of our scientists and religious leaders to address the morality of this issue. As you know, reducing population growth is a most difficult topic to discus even with mainstream Catholics, let alone right wing religious extremists.

Rick wrote:

"So, it's 66 years, not 5 (blush). The odds of us getting our act together in 66 years is still about as good as that of the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

Not very good."

Are you sure? Based on what? Think about how much the world changed from 1850 to 1900, or from 1900 to 1966. Our ancestors remade the face of the planet and changed their way of life beyond recognition during these periods. They overcame seemingly intractable problems. Why do you think we are incapable of doing what they did? Human nature has not changed, and we are no less capable than they were. When the need for change becomes acute, people often accomplish astounding things in a short time. Not always. Sometimes societies collapse and people die out. But I would not bet on our extinction quite yet.

If you think the resources are not available, then I suggest you do not know enough about fission, solar and wind energy. If you think this is the end of history and nothing new is left for us to discover, then I suggest you study cold fusion. There are a million, million unknown and unexplored facets of nature. In the distant future we will develop technology unimaginably better, more powerful, more advanced and more dangerous than what we have now.

If you are betting against human ingenuity and our fierce will to survive, you are betting on the wrong side of history.

DZ,

So, it's 66 years, not 5 (blush). The odds of us getting our act together in 66 years is still about as good as that of the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

Not very good.

DZ,

Yup, you are right of course.

Thanks!

Rick:

I keep failing to finish. Sorry.

OR, you can just do 78/1.167 and get 66 years. It's a long-standing method of calculating how long it would take an investment to double at a given rate of return or what rate of return is necessary to double the investment in a given period of time. Rule of 78

Rick:

I expressed it poorly. The growth rate is .01167. To get 13.2 billion, it takes 66 years.

6.6 billion * 1.01167 = 6.71 billion at end of Year 1

6.71 billion * 1.01167 = 6.79 billion at end of Year 2

6.79 billion * 1.01167 = 6.87 billion at ebd of Year 3

Etc. 66 years

Rick:

Nope. Wrong. Learn the Rule of 78. It's a growth rate of 1.167% not 116.7%. Do .01167 to the 5th power.

BTW, Anon was me.

Jed,

I should have said that the chance of us getting our act together in 5 years is about as good as the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

DZ,

I don't know about your "rule of 78", but I think that we are dealing with a power series here.

If you raise 1.167 to the 5th power, or multiply 1.167*1.167*1.167*1.167*1.167, you get 2.16; and 2.16*6.6 billion = 14.3 billion; pretty close to 15 billion.

Rick:

Yes, you are reading your calculator. Remember the Rule of 78. At a growth rate of 1.167, it would take 66 years for the population to double to 13.2 billion. It would then take another 8-10 years to get to 15 billion.

Rafael,

Thanks for the link. I agree with your point wholeheartedly:

"The sooner people drop the issue of population growth in the developing world as the driving force in environmental degradation, the sooner they will recognize the problem is in themselves."

It is not that the “third world” consumes too much; but rather that it is so thoughtless of these people to show up on our TV screens with their children’s rib cages plainly visible over their protruding bellies and flies sticking to their eyelids, while we are trying to enjoy our Thanksgiving feasts and watch our football games.

Jed,

“We could not support a population of 15 billion, but we can support 6 or 7 billion with today's technology.”

And,

“Random chance and 50/50 odds play no role in this. We have free will.”

Well the current population growth rate is 1.167.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

Am I operating my calculator incorrectly, or do we have about 5 years before the world population doubles to your unsustainable 15 billion?

We have free will O.K., but I hear that the Las Vegas odds makers are betting that the odds are 1 in 1000 that we will get our act together in the next 5 years.

Sorry, I meant to provide a source for the last description

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=maps_page

A site worth exploring.

Duckphup, I don't see recognition of my point in your response. Sure these issues are "coupled," but per capita appetites in the industrialized world have far outpaced the number of capita added. If the planet were operating with the per capita appetites of the human population of 1900, we'd have easily been able to absorb the level of population growth seen since that time. The problem is lifestyle changes in the industrialized world.

Estimates of the ecological footprint (how much land and water area the human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology) indicate that even as recently as 1961, the world's population was using its resources at 49% of the planet's capacity. Today we are at 121%. And it's not population growth in developing countries that got us there.

rafael wrote: "The sooner people drop the issue of population growth in the developing world as the driving force in environmental degradation, the sooner they will recognize the problem is in themselves."

All of these issues are coupled. Certain parts of the world still operate in accordance with Malthusian bioeconomics. Any disaster of sufficient magnitude to deprive the industrialized world of its technology will thrust us all back into the grim reality of the 'Malthusian catastrophe'... under which population is constrained to its natural sustainable limits via some rather disagreeable realities.

"We have met the enemy... and he is us." ~ Walt Kelly (Pogo)

*********************
(Origins)

The Chapter: ZEROING IN ON THOSE POLLUTERS: WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US, By Walt Kelly, Page 224.  Beginning with the sixth paragraph:

"In the time of Joseph McCarthyism, celebrated in the Pogo strip by a character named Simple J. Malarkey, I attempted to explain each individual is wholly involved in the democratic process, work at it or no.  The results of the  process fall on the head of the public and he who is recalcitrant or procrastinates in raising his voice can blame no one but himself.  An introduction to Pogo Papers, published by Simon and Schuster in 1952-53, said in part:

'... Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass.  Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend.  So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly.  It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of the cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle."

'There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand.  Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.'

'As years passed, the final paragraph was reduced to "We have met the enemy and he is us." in a few strips having to do with pollution.  (...) WE ARE ALL OF US RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR MYRIAD POLLUTIONS, PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND POLITICAL'."

(Source: Marilyn White http://www.igopogo.com/final_authority.htm)

*********************

I am late to this exchange but I see that Rick and others have spent a lot of wind barking up the wrong tree.

Here are some relevant facts:

1) Between 1900 and 2000...
...world population size increased around 300 percent
...use of fossil fuels increased around 1200 percent
...use of raw materials in goods production increased around 2700 percent.
2) Per capita consumption of fossil fuels and raw materials is 50-300 times greater in highly industrialized countries than in developing countries.

Lessons learned:

1) Population growth is NOT THE PROBLEM. Fossil fuel use went up 4 times faster and consumption of natural resources went up 9 times faster than population growth. If the former two had remained at the same per capita levels, WE WOULDN'T BE FACING THIS CRISIS.

2) Developing countries are NOT THE PROBLEM. Increases in consumption of fuel and natural resources are due almost entirely to lifestyle changes in industrialzed countries. Of course much of the noticeable environmental degredation is occurring in developing countries--for example, the clearing of tropical forests--for two reasons. First, the insatiable appetites of industrialized countries for cheap beef create economic conditions that drive the land conversion--they're not cutting the forests to feed their own people. Second, industrialized countries have already destroyed most of their own forests.

The sooner people drop the issue of population growth in the developing world as the driving force in environmental degradation, the sooner they will recognize the problem is in themselves.

Rick wrote:

"'You say: “Once you give people education, a decent living and proper health care they limit their own population. In places like Italy and Japan the population is actually falling.'

That sounds wonderful, but I’m a natural pessimist I guess. Where would you place the odds of getting the 6.6 billion and growing a decent living and proper health care before we starve to death or annihilate each other?"

We could not support a population of 15 billion, but we can support 6 or 7 billion with today's technology.

This is not a matter of odds, or chance. It is a matter of choice. We have the technology, the living space, the resources and other means to give 6.6 billion people education and a decent living. If we want to do this, and if we have the gumption to act, I am sure we can accomplish it. There is certainly no energy deficit. That notion is absurd. The pollution-free energy resources of uranium, solar and wind that we can tap today are immense -- far greater than our present needs. In the future, space based solar, plasma fusion, or cold fusion may produce millions of times more energy than we presently use.

We may choose to fix these problems, or alternatively, we may decide to spend more trillions of dollars blowing up other people, building nuclear bombs, and building the Star Wars defense systems which has cost $90 billion so far with no end in sight.

We can choose to drive more SUVs and use up the remaining oil, or we can build plug-in hybrid vehicles that get 100 mpg today and will soon get 300 mpg (plus electricity).

Random chance and 50/50 odds play no role in this. We have free will. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic, because I know that in the past, people have sometimes chosen to build new civilizations and make profound progress, and at other times they have chosen annihilation. I know that no one can predict which way we will decide to go. Even if we do let things go downhill now, we can always change our minds and begin the work of repairing the world later on. We are still far from catastrophic, irreversible destruction.

Great points about population control. Population growth control in the US would be veiwed as totally unPC since the largest growth rate is by far in the Hispanic population. Imigration, particularly illegal immigration, account for about 40% of the population growth over the last 10 yrs. Birth rates are declining in most developed nations, but in the US, nonAsian minorities have fertility rates equal to third world nations. So the answer to population growth in the US is curbing illegal immigration and education. Our least educated and lowest earning minorities account for much if not the majority of US population growth.

Just an odd statistic i found, but the birth rate in refugee camps in Palestine is 6.5 per household, one of the highest in the world.
I would be curious if some of the Muslims posters would comment on attitudes toward birth control and population growth in Islam. I would be suprised if it were not like the Catholic policy that encourages breeding followers to the point of outnumbering the 'competition'.

Another component of population is the redistribution of population to coastal areas, the south, and cities. There are already a large number of 'megacities' with population over 20 million. How will third world countries continue to provide infrastructure, particularly water, in those environs? china is own the verge of poisoning itself to death if it does not get control of polution. All of the major rivers in China are considered so poluted as to be unusable for irrigation or consumption, but they are still used anyway.

That same population redistribution has areas of my home state, Florida, less than 20 years from exceeding the water supply, which was once considered inexhaustible.

Deforestation in South America combined with global warming, is reducing and changing precipitation patterns in North America dramatically. As the deforestation and temperatures reach critical 'mass', the fresh water supply may be a more immediate threat to our way of life than rising oceans.

Where religion has to be part of the solution is with the Catholic Church's proscription of birth control contributing to population growth in the Americas, and Islams encouragement to have large families. Can they overcome this competition to grow the most followers?

Jed,

You say: “Once you give people education, a decent living and proper health care they limit their own population. In places like Italy and Japan the population is actually falling.”

That sounds wonderful, but I’m a natural pessimist I guess. Where would you place the odds of getting the 6.6 billion and growing a decent living and proper health care before we starve to death or annihilate each other?

I would say it is much less than 50/50.

This crazy message system ends up posting things twice . . .

Rick wrote:

"I know this is a most unpopular subject, and I wonder what my fellow posters would have to say about the idea of a government mandated sterilization program to stop and/or reverse population growth in our country, and perhaps all countries of the world if such a program could be sold."

That is completely unnecessary counter-productive. Once you give people education, a decent living and proper health care they limit their own population. In places like Italy and Japan the population is actually falling.

"And also, what would you consider to be the optimal world population from a quality of life point of view. I’m thinking that it would be on the order of half the current 6.6 billion."

That seems a little low. I find Europe and China crowded, but North America and Japan have plenty of room.

Agriculture causes most problems with population and resources. Agriculture takes up much more land than living space does, and in most places, it destroys the water table and depletes the soil. My solution is to get rid of it altogether. We should grow food indoors, in carefully controlled sterile conditions where insecticide is not needed, and water is recycled. There are a few advanced food factories in Japan and Europe. The food is cost-competitive, and the quality is better than outdoor-grown food. (There are some photos of the factories in my book, listed twice above.) If we built large, multi-story ones with the same capacity per square meter as today’s food factories, we could grow all of the food consumed in the U.S. in an area about as big as greater New York City. That would free up most of North America for wildlife or housing, and let us support a much higher population with no adverse effects on the ecology. This would take a terrific amount of energy but, as I am mentioned, my geriatric retired professor friends hope to make cold fusion work, and that will supply all the energy we need to do this.

In the distant future I hope that people live on the moon and other planets. This too, is way easier to do and much cheaper when you have unlimited supplies of energy.

Inexpensive and pollution-free energy can be used to reduce the impact of humans on the ecology in many other ways. For example, water is limited at present. There is talk of wars over water in the Middle East. In China population-pressure is destroying the water tables, and in Atlanta this week we have about a 90-day supply, and factories are closing down. If we had unlimited amount of energy we could easily purify and recycle water indefinitely, so we would never have to take it from rivers or aquifers. We could also set up ~15,600 desalination plants the size of the Israeli Ashkelon plant, and use them to convert desert into as much agricultural land as there is in the U.S.: 3.9 million square kilometers. (For details and copious footnoted references, see my book.)

For more about resources and the future see Arthur Clarke’s masterpiece, "Profiles of the Future." (The latest edition which available in the UK has newly added material about cold fusion, plus a very nice acknowledge to me for me secretarial work. Clarke is one of my many geriatric professor friends. If you are looking for bold new ideas and youthful thinking nowadays, you need to talk to people over 70 years old. The Generational Role Reversal has made our young people into crabbed, conservative fools who lack vision and common sense, and who think that we have reached The End of History.)

DuckPhup wrote:

"After they had made their presentation... spend the $100 million on solar power... I asked them if anybody had bothered to do any arithmetic. It tuened out that they had not. . . . I informed them that if they spent the $100 million just on solar cells . . . With those solar cells . . . they could generate enough electricity... during the day-time... to run ONE of the plant's reactor coolant pumps."

Yup. Large-scale solar cell (PV) installations in places like Florida make no sense. Solar cells in Florida are good for niche applications such as roadside telephones. Small-scale solar cell rooftop installations in southern Japan are increasingly common. The government subsidized them years ago. The subsidies have been all-but phased out but sales are booming, because electricity is expensive there, the cost of PVs has fallen, and people have been installing solar water heaters in Japan for at least 50 years, so there is a large, established industry devoted to bolting things on roofs. (Solar water heaters are everywhere, and they are incredibly cheap and effective. I have showered with solar-heated water an hour after sunrise in Japan, and the water was already hot.)

Giant solar thermal installations in the Mojave Desert are cost effective.

It is unreasonable to demand that an alternative energy source be cost-effective from day one. Some may take years to mature, and you should factor in the hidden savings from reduced pollution. But solar enthusiasts who would spend $100 million on PV solar in Florida hurt their own cause.

Rick wrote:

"I am speaking of the need to get our world wide population growth under control. How are we going to convince the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and evangelicals of the world (especially the third world) of the urgency of this issue?"

The energy and CO2 crisis is mainly technical. The population problem is just the opposite: the technical solutions were invented decades ago, and they are cheap and could easily be made available to everyone on earth. Population continues to grow out of control in the Third World because of politics, greed, and to some extent, because of religious opposition to contraceptives. If I may take the liberty of quoting myself on this issue, “Three steps are essential [to controlling population], and all three are desirable for many other reasons:

1. We must improve education and job opportunities, especially for women.
2. We must improve health care, with a special focus on the reduction of infant mortality. Poor people have many children often because they are afraid some will die. If parents can be assured that nearly all children will survive to adulthood, many will have fewer children.
3. We must provide old-age pensions. Many poor people have children so that they will have someone to support them in their old age.”

- From “Cold Fusion and the Future,” An on-line book recommended by Arthur Clarke and others, now available in Portuguese and Japanese! See:

http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

DuckPhup wrote:

"After they had made their presentation... spend the $100 million on solar power... I asked them if anybody had bothered to do any arithmetic. It tuened out that they had not. . . . I informed them that if they spent the $100 million just on solar cells . . . With those solar cells . . . they could generate enough electricity... during the day-time... to run ONE of the plant's reactor coolant pumps."

Yup. Large-scale solar cell (PV) installations in places like Florida make no sense. Solar cells in Florida are good for niche applications such as roadside telephones. Small-scale solar cell rooftop installations in southern Japan are increasingly common. The government subsidized them years ago. The subsidies have been all-but phased out but sales are booming, because electricity is expensive there, the cost of PVs has fallen, and people have been installing solar water heaters in Japan for at least 50 years, so there is a large, established industry devoted to bolting things on roofs. (Solar water heaters are everywhere, and they are incredibly cheap and effective. I have showered with solar-heated water an hour after sunrise in Japan, and the water was already hot.)

Giant solar thermal installations in the Mojave Desert are cost effective.

It is unreasonable to demand that an alternative energy source be cost-effective from day one. Some may take years to mature, and you should factor in the hidden savings from reduced pollution. But solar enthusiasts who would spend $100 million on PV solar in Florida hurt their own cause.

Rick wrote:

"I am speaking of the need to get our world wide population growth under control. How are we going to convince the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and evangelicals of the world (especially the third world) of the urgency of this issue?"

The energy and CO2 crisis is mainly technical. The population problem is just the opposite: the technical solutions were invented decades ago, and they are cheap and could easily be made available to everyone on earth. Population continues to grow out of control in the Third World because of politics, greed, and to some extent, because of religious opposition to contraceptives. If I may take the liberty of quoting myself on this issue, “Three steps are essential [to controlling population], and all three are desirable for many other reasons:

1. We must improve education and job opportunities, especially for women.
2. We must improve health care, with a special focus on the reduction of infant mortality. Poor people have many children often because they are afraid some will die. If parents can be assured that nearly all children will survive to adulthood, many will have fewer children.
3. We must provide old-age pensions. Many poor people have children so that they will have someone to support them in their old age.”

- From “Cold Fusion and the Future,” An on-line book recommended by Arthur Clarke and others, now available in Portuguese and Japanese! See:

http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

Viejita Del Oeste (from another thread),

“I'm assuming that many of you are already aware of the environmental stewardship movement in evangelical Christianity.

Here's a pertinent link:

http://magazine.audubon.org/eCorrespondence/eCorrespondence.html”

Thank you!

From the reference introduction:

Can religion and environmentalism find common ground in the 21st century?

This week marks the publication of Pulitzer Prize–winning biologist Edward O. Wilson’s new book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. Written in the form of a letter to a Southern Baptist minister, Wilson argues that the gravest environmental threats facing the earth today, such as global warming, can be solved only if science and religion join forces. To this end, he calls for conservative evangelical Christians—one of the country’s biggest and most powerful constituencies—and environmentalists to form a mutually respectful alliance.

But can these two disparate groups, which have fundamentally different worldviews, find common ground? If anyone can speak to this, it would be Richard Cizik, a prominent conservative Christian and evangelical leader who, in recent years, has become a high-profile advocate for the environment. Cizik is the political point man for the 30-million-strong National Association of Evangelicals (see “The Holy & the Hawks,” Audubon, September-October 2005).

Audubon asked Cizik and Wilson to discuss how evangelicals and environmentalists can team up to save the planet, a core theme of Wilson’s book. Additionally, we asked Stuart Pimm, a leading conservation biologist who has recently coauthored an essay titled “The Christian Ethics of Species Conservation” (in the book Religion and the New Ecology, also published this week; click here to download a PDF of the essay), to join the conversation. What follows is their online exchange, which will play out all this week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My take on the article is that it offers a lot of encouraging promises for the evangelicals and scientists to work together to bring to the attention of the public and government officials the urgent imperative to work harder to protect the environment.

Unfortunately, there was not one mention of the elephant in the room; i.e. the more urgent imperative to get world wide population growth under control. I know this is a most unpopular subject, and I wonder what my fellow posters would have to say about the idea of a government mandated sterilization program to stop and/or reverse population growth in our country, and perhaps all countries of the world if such a program could be sold. And also, what would you consider to be the optimal world population from a quality of life point of view. I’m thinking that it would be on the order of half the current 6.6 billion.

Jed,

Danke Schoen!!!!

Jed Rothwell,

You say: “Although I agree that there is an ecological crisis with global warming, energy and water shortages, and oil supplies have peaked (which is both a problem and a blessing), frankly I wish that people on all sides would step back and try to see this more as a technical problem, with less emphasis on the moral aspects.”

Thank you for the good news contained in your many excellent posts. I expect that you have done your homework much better than The Duck’s example of Florida solar power “experts” in the early ‘70s. I am encouraged and more optimistic than I have been in years. Thank you!

However, Susan’s article is entitled “Cooperate or Die”, and she asks: “Why wouldn't the world benefit from an alliance between science and those forms of religion that regard the stewardship of the earth as a moral obligation? Indeed, the preservation of the environment for future generations is both a moral and a practical necessity--something that intelligent, decent people of any faith or no faith can and must recognize. If we fail to rise to the challenge, we will cease to exist as a species.”

You have done your part in working to give us clean energy that will protect the environment, without needing to address the moral aspects or need to cooperate with the religious community. I want to raise a more difficult, even more controversial and equally critical example in which the moral component and religious cooperation is an absolute necessity.

I am speaking of the need to get our world wide population growth under control. How are we going to convince the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and evangelicals of the world (especially the third world) of the urgency of this issue?

The necessity of bringing the religious leaders of the world together to focus on this issue is obvious enough I believe. The scientific community must in turn address the water, food and other resource issues, as you are addressing the energy issue.

I see many of our fellow posters saying that Science and Religion are totally incompatible when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. The reason being that many posters are struggling to find the unknowable answers to questions of who are we, how did we get here and what is the purpose of it all.

I think that Susan’s point is different, that we need to get science and religion working together to solve the most critical problem of our time; i.e. how are we going to get our exponential population growth under control before we run out of natural resources, and the world population goes into self limiting mode of relying on water, food and energy wars to regulate growth. I don’t expect it to impact us, but for our great grandchildren’s sake, I hope that some of you bright folks start figuring out some answers.

My answers to the posed questions are: (1) yes, the alliance between science and religion is absolutely necessary, and (2) it is also possible. However, I fear that it is highly improbable that the nations of the world will get their greed, mistrust and hate under control in time.

DuckPhup:

A stunning justification of using reason to examine the reality of a situation. Well done.

Jed... in the late '70s, plans were being made to replace the degraded steam generators in a FL nuclear power plant. The project cost would be about $100 million... about what it cost to build the plants in the first place. (Later plants cost over a billion each.) Anyway... a local anti-nuclear group... the Conch Shell Alliance... orchestrated a public meeting with the intent of confronting power company officials and raising public awareness of their proposed alternative... shut down the two nuclear units at the site and spend the $100 million on solar power. I did some homework before I went to the meeting. Before the meeting started, everyone was instructed to sit with their interest-group... nuclear power on one side of the room... anti-nuke on the other. I took my place on the anti-nuke side... which caused some consternation and drew some very curious looks from the power company folks, who were wondering what I was up to. After they had made their presentation... spend the $100 million on solar power... I asked them if anybody had bothered to do any arithmetic. It tuened out that they had not. Well... I had. I informed them that if they spent the $100 million just on solar cells, at discounted bulk rates, they could buy enough to cover a good sized chunk of the everglades... discounting the cost of land aquisition... discounting the cost of installation, engineering, power-conversion and distribution... forgetting all about the fact that they only worked in the day-time, and the necessity of energy storage devices. Forgetting all of those extraneous, niggling details... just buy $100 million worth of solar cells. With thous solar cells (if they could figure out what to do with them) they could generate enough electricity... during the day-time... to run ONE of the plant's reactor coolant pumps.

They didn't promote that plan any more, after that.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated wrote:

"You might be correct about the benefits of wind energy but I see no references supporting your statements."

See:

http://www.awea.org/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

"And unfortunately the wind does not always blow . . ."

Yes, it does. Over a large enough area, you can be sure the wind will always blow somewhere, for as long as the sun shines.

It does not always blow in one particular location, and that is why wind turbines must be tied into a distribution network that covers a wide area. Alternatively, they must store energy, for example as hydrogen or pumped water.

Because wind is somewhat intermittent, it can only be used to produce ~20% of the power in today's distribution network, but this is expected to increase in the coming decades.

"And it is great user of weapons' grade uranium. It is rumored that many US and Russians atomic weapons now fuel atomic power plants."

That isn't a rumor. The AUA reports:

"ex-weapons uranium is now well established as a source of fuel for power generation. One tenth of US electricity (ie half of the nuclear electricity) is generated from Russian ex-weapons uranium."

What better way to beat swords into plowshares!

I apologize to Susan Jacoby for hijacking this discussion into energy-related topics far removed from religion. Energy is "my thing," as we used to say back in the 1960s.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"'Unfortunately, you ARE facilitating the despoliation of West Virginia . . .'

You make it sound as if I alone were responsible for all this."

I am sure I made it clear that everyone is responsible for all this. However, people who reject wind power have the responsibility to support some other source of energy. We must have energy. Since you oppose wind, what do you want instead? Coal or nuclear? Those are the only other choices available today. Perhaps better sources will emerge in the future.

"Do you drive a car?"

Certainly! I am a gadget-happy American, after all. I drive a Prius and an electric bicycle.

"Then you are participating in and facilitating a process that kills more than 40,000 Americans a year, not to mention burning up scarce fuel and polluting the landscape."

You have failed to note that I advocate replacing scarce gasoline fuel with wind & solar generated liquid synthetic fuel. (And plug-in hybrid cars, which already get well over 100 mpg of gasoline.)
Wind and solar can generate more than electricity. Solar thermal installations in US deserts could easily supply the entire world with liquid fuel, eliminating the use of oil. This would have two advantages: it would bankrupt OPEC, bin Laden and most other terrorists; and it would earn a terrific amount of money for the US.

Regarding the 40,000 casualties, you have failed to note that we have no alternative technology available. We can spend ~$500 billion to eliminate coal and oil, and reduce deaths from coal pollution by ~20,000. But there is no technology waiting in the wings that would allow us to save the 40,000 victims of automobile accidents. If there was such a technology we would be morally obligated to spend the money and implement it. I am sure that in the distant future, fully automatic vehicles will be developed that will greatly reduce the accident rate. I expect they will be expensive, although perhaps not as expensive as the cost of accidents, which comes to $230 billion per year in hospital bills alone.

"Yesterday, in the discussion of cold fusion, you wrote:

'I have visited experiments in national labs and universities in Europe, the U.S. and Japan to observe experiments (rubberneck them, anyway) so I can judge the issue.'

What are the energy, pollution, health, and social consequences of your indulgent jetting around the world so that you can 'judge the issue'?"

Well, if I succeed I will help expand our energy resources by a factor of at least a billion, and eliminate all pollution from energy. . . .

But in any case, traveling on today’s airlines is not an indulgence. It is more like jail, "with the chance of crashing" to paraphrase Johnson. ("Being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned.")

"Couldn't the use of videotapes and emails have conserved some of that burnt-up jet fuel?"

Alas, no.

"Do you understand now why I said to you: 'Excuse me for living'?"

No, I think it is a childish response, and I think you are evading the issue.

"'Note that the dark Satanic mills are gone.'

Try telling that to miners and many industrial workers. Psychologically and spiritually, many white-collar cubicles are part of today's dark satanic mills."

If you could spend five minutes in an actual 19th-century mill or mine you would realize that today's cubicles are heaven in comparison. Today’s mills and mines are far safer and better to work in than they were even 30 years ago.

"'Progress eliminated them, and it will eventually eliminate wind turbines. But at present we must have them, or we will die for lack of energy. We can only conserve so much.'

There is no such thing as progress. Progress is an illusion."

Oh, how I dearly wish I could send you back in time for a few days. You would never say that again! Heck, I would not even have to send you to the year 1600, or 1800. Forcing you to write a term paper in 1979 without a computer would probably convince you that progress is real. Do you not recall what it was like living without antibiotics or computers? As Thomas Jefferson said:

"And it cannot be but that each generation succeeding to the knowledge acquired by all those who preceded it, adding to it their own acquisitions and discoveries, and handing the mass down for successive and constant accumulation, must advance the knowledge and well-being of mankind, not infinitely, as some have said, but indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix and foresee. Indeed, we need look back half a century, to times which many now living remember well, and see the wonderful advances in the sciences and arts which have been made within that period."

"You might try looking inward instead of just outward and quantitatively."

No technical problem was ever solved by looking inward. The energy crisis is out there in the real world and it can only be fixed with quantitative, fact-based engineering. Not by meditation or wishful thinking.

"Also, we haven't tried conservation."

Don’t be absurd. Of course we have. Automobiles, houses and appliances use far less energy than they did 30 years ago. Conservation can still save a great deal of energy, perhaps half, but it will never reduce energy consumption to zero. We must have energy.

Norrie,

The Cleveland Indian fans said the same thing.

Jed,

You might be correct about the benefits of wind energy but I see no references supporting your statements. And unfortunately the wind does not always blow whereas atomic power continues to radiate energy. And it is great user of weapons' grade uranium. It is rumored that many US and Russians atomic weapons now fuel atomic power plants.

Norrie,

Well, my kegs are empty as well, and more are on the way. My religion tells me to turn the other cheek, and love my enemies. Me Celtic heritage tells me to get my claymore, find a bagpiper, and fight like hell!

Well, this is baseball, and anything can happen. Boston is pretty sure to win, but hopefully the Rockies will make it difficult.

Arminius

Arminius,

I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you after our interesting conversation before the Series started. I was beginning to think you might not have watched them.

Remember that this Series is really Armageddon, a cosmic contest between the followers of the Abrahamic religions (particularly Christianity) and those of the so-called Pagan Gods.

So far so good. My Golden Calf is in the backyard, belching contentedly, and the kegs are empty.

All the best!

Ender -

Amen to that ... if we could only locate
elected government representatives that were actually acting in the interests of the people rather than on behalf of their corporate masters and other self-reference groups, we might make some headway on environmental/energy production issues.

If we looked, we'd find about the same statisical percentage of millionaires in Congress as there are self-professed Christians in the general population (significant majorities in both cases). Add to that unsubtle irony the fact that sizable numbers in both groups fail to believe in or support Evolution - as a primary life process in the one case or as a method of problem solving through enlightened public policy on the other. The public really has to share the blame for the pitiful failure to both recognize & deal with national and global issues that pertain to the environment.

We're either in retrograde motion or forward motion, but perpetual movement is the universal law. Government seems to be stuck in reverse the last 6 or 7 years, and the image of the 'common good' recedes like a quasar in the rear-view mirror. I'd like to believe we'll be changing gears in the next election but I warrant that would be overly optomistic.

In so many ways we don't even begin to recognize we have a problem.

Michael Melius wrote:

"Here in South Dakota, most of the [wind] turbines are being placed in pasture. Read: prairie/grassland. Why? To max power, the turbines are placed on hills and ridges, which is the last land to be farmed. So it means industrializing, for electricity export, the wildest places on the Plains. Grassland habitats are one of the most diminished and threatened habitats in the world."

DoE guidelines prohibit erecting wind turbines in national parks, ecologically endangered or sensitive locations, and similar places. The projections of wind power resources are all based upon excluding these locations. No one plans to put turbines where they might endanger species.

"How will native species of animals react to wind turbines and the roads and maintenance activities associated with them? I predict that many will move out, and we'll lose that much more habitat for ever-rarer species."

This prediction has been tested already. Careful studies of wildlife interaction with wind turbines have been made in Europe and the U.S. There is no sign that wildlife is bothered by turbines. Wind turbines do kill small numbers of birds. Coal and nuclear plants, on the other hand, kill millions of birds, fish and species with smoke, steam and waste heat in rivers.

"The turbines won't be placed on cropland because that's in the valleys. It'll be the high wild ridges that will be sacrificed first."

Yes, unfortunately. The turbines are unsightly, but there is no indication they disrupt wildlife. Actually, valleys between steep mountains are usually ideal. In Europe the best locations are miles offshore in the North Sea, which is shallow. Offshore wind turbines to have a profound effect on wildlife; they greatly increase the number of fish, as do most man-made reefs.

"Meanwhile, this promise of 'green' power undercuts efforts to reduce consumption. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint now, unplug as much as you can and do without as much as you can, for starters."

The way to reduce consumption is to raise the price of energy. This will discourage consumption, and promote conservation. Conservation can probably reduce energy consumption by roughly half, but the other half has to come from somewhere and it is much better to get it from wind than coal.

"But who is going to make those changes/sacrifices if the power source is thought to be green? Well it isn't green. Coal is the main fuel for electricity, while wind is just keeping up with growth in demand."

This is why we should stop using coal, as they have done in California. The only practical way to replace it now is with either wind or nuclear. Take your pick.

"This computer is solar powered. Solar electricity has the advantage of using already developed land, such as rooftops and parking lots, and needing very little distribution line."

Solar electricity also costs ~10 times more than wind, and the energy payback period for many solar cells is ~4 years, which is about half the life of the cell, when you take into account degradation. Wind turbines pay back in the first three to six months of operation

"There is a lot of urban land that could be used for wind power."

No, there is not. Cities are seldom built places where the wind blows strongly nearly all the time. It is difficult to live in such places. Cities also have many buildings that disrupt the airflow. Wind power only works in a few select places, where geography channels the currents of air. It is similar to hydropower which only works where the geography channels the flow of water in rivers.

"Those who think wind turbines are beautiful or necessary in rural settings should welcome them in urban areas."

I do not know anyone who advocates the use of wind power because the turbines are beautiful. Beauty has nothing to do with it. They are necessary for our survival, and they produce far less damage, death and suffering than other methods of generating electricity -- except perhaps nuclear power which is an all or nothing proposition; it produces either no suffering or boundless suffering.

Mark Eaton writes:

"My problem with the environmental (green) movement is that it is all talk. Very few are willing to put their lives where their mouth is. Are you willing to ride a bike to work? Are you willing to car-pool? Are you willing to take the train and not a plane? Will you use paper and not plastic? Will you recycle and not throw away?"

Is that really a problem of people within the green movement? C'mon. Greens do all of those things and much more. I've been recycling since at least 1986. I use public transportation when it makes sense. I rarely fly. I've car-pooled. I drive a 2000 VW Beetle that gets 35mpg highway. Etc. My money and my actions are firmly where my mouth is, and I know many environmentally concerned people who do even more than I do to lessen their impact on the Earth.

The "problem" with the green movement is that it can't seem to get people outside of the movement to do the simple things you ask.

Your problem isn't with the movement, it's with those outside of it.

Tidal power is one extremely clean source that is only being exploited it a few places in the world. Fundy bay on the Maine/Canada border has 50 ft tides. Tubines that remained submerged most of the day could produce huge amounts of power, and with very little new technology be made ecologically harmless. Electricty generated could be used on the spot to create hydrogen from ocean water.

A new patent by a former IBM designer makes hydrogen fuel safer than the best fuel cells. A A mixtire of Gallium and Aluminum dropped into water produces hydrogen, so little hydrogen needs to be stored. The biproduct is aluminum oxide which can be easily collected and recycled at a cost effective rate by aluminum processors which already process recycled aluminum and aluminum oxide.

My point is that for the $Trillions we will have spent killing Iraqis and American soldiers, and rebuilding the bodies and infrastructure we have broken, we could have many technologies operating where they fit best and cause the least harm, and a hydrogen infrastructe developed. Even if we went nuclear we would still have to convert water to hydrogen as batteries are an ineffective storage media.

We should not be waiting for the perfect solution. We should be doing the doable. If private enterprize can't do, and especially when they block progress, then it should be done by the gov't we elect to supposedly act in our interest.

I never thought we could agree on anything but I agree with you, Susan Jacoby. You surmise the problem best, but trumpet the problem the least. The problem with our plant is us. Specifically, our greed and our pride. Its not religion or science. Its us as people. We are ALL responsible.

We pollute because it is EASY and CHEAP. We buy from Wal-Mart because they are CHEAP and we can get lots of STUFF. We drive SUVs because we want to be SEEN in them. We buy gigantic houses to store all our STUFF in and to be SEEN. We take planes because we want to get there FAST. We ship all our stuff by truck because we cant wait for it by TRAIN. Good, fast, cheap, pick any two.

My problem with the environmental (green) movement is that it is all talk. Very few are willing to put their lives where their mouth is. Are you willing to ride a bike to work? Are you willing to car-pool? Are you willing to take the train and not a plane? Will you use paper and not plastic? Will you recycle and not throw away? How far does it go? Will AL Gore stop taking chartered planes and wasting 400 gallons of gasoline for 3 people?

We all need to do our part. It is not about religion or science. Get over it.

Norrie,

The Fat Lady ain't sung yet - but she's tuning up. Alas!

Arminius

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

"Go Rockies!!!!"

Haven't you heard? They've already gone.

Regards.

I am not Waldo but I enjoy his comments.

And I see The Jihadist continues her yakety-yak living up to her self-imposed award.

We stand ready to free her from her Islamic delusions/brainwashing with our proven Five Step program. Maybe it is her "pwtfft" that is interfering?

Go Rockies!!!!

Jihadist,

Brilliant!

Bravo!

RE: Wind Power

Jed Rothwell stated that most wind turbines are erected on farms, and don't require land to be paved over.

In the broadest sense of "farm" that is true. Most turbines are rural, and most rural land is ag land. There are two main kinds of ag land, cropland and pasture. Here in South Dakota, most of the turbines are being placed in pasture. Read: prairie/grassland. Why? To max power, the turbines are placed on hills and ridges, which is the last land to be farmed. So it means industrializing, for electricity export, the wildest places on the Plains. Grassland habitats are one of the most diminished and threatened habitats in the world. How will native species of animals react to wind turbines and the roads and maintenance activities associated with them? I predict that many will move out, and we'll lose that much more habitat for ever-rarer species.

I imagine it's much the same in Vermont. The turbines won't be placed on cropland because that's in the valleys. It'll be the high wild ridges that will be sacrificed first.

Meanwhile, this promise of "green" power undercuts efforts to reduce consumption. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint now, unplug as much as you can and do without as much as you can, for starters. But who is going to make those changes/sacrifices if the power source is thought to be green? Well it isn't green. Coal is the main fuel for electricity, while wind is just keeping up with growth in demand.

This computer is solar powered. Solar electricity has the advantage of using already developed land, such as rooftops and parking lots, and needing very little distribution line.

There is a lot of urban land that could be used for wind power. And it will be. If the turbines are so benign in rural areas, they're no less benign in urban areas. And please, no talk of aesthetics. Take a good look at city views wherever you are or travel. They are often already blighted by ugly buildings and lots and lots of powerlines. Those who think wind turbines are beautiful or necessary in rural settings should welcome them in urban areas.

Jihadist,

Your post on baseball and pole dancing is a classic. Thank you, thank you!

Now for the comments.

Pole dancing at the Olympics? Wow, what a great idea! I love it. Pole dancing is spreading from strippers to other places. My daughter is a dancer, her major, along with psychology, at college. She is also a part-time member of a professional team; her specialty is modern dance. But in her team's training room is a pole....

As to baseball; Lord, did I laugh! Yes, of course it is a religion, and I embrace it totally. But you underestimate the skill involved. Hand-eye coordination and upper body strength are a must. When that baseball is coming at you at 90+ mph, you have about 3/5 of a second to decide how fast it is really going, whether it is a fast ball, a curve, a sinker, or whatever (you tell by looking at the stitching), and where over the plate it might go. And hitting a ball 400 feet or so is no mean feat - the sport is not for weaklings. I could go on and on, and I'm sure Mr Mark could add even more.

Baseball is international - sort of. There is one Canadian team, in Toronto. The problem with getting Japan involved is the distance - there are 162 games to play, half in other parks than your own. The cost of commuting to and from Japan would be outrageous. Not to mention the effect of jet lag on the game. However, it would be great to see a major league team in Cuba.

Here's a bit of baseball trivia for you: in baseball, the past tense of fly is flied, not flew. It refers to a ball hit high into the air. If it is caught, then the batter flied out.

A grand and great game, is baseball.

Arminius

1. The ethical thing to do is to all work for the good of the planet.
2. Christians work for the good of the planet because God made the world, and if He so loved the world so should we - anything else is a lazy diatribe - as St. Paul said - "those that don't work don't eat" - enough said.
3. Atheists work for the good of the planet because they believe this world is all they have.
4. But moral weakness and self-indulgence undermine the best plans of mice and men - to paraphase Aristotle (quite crudely).
5. As individuals we have only so much hope, altruism, love - so we need help -
6. Christians therefore pray for the grace to overcome the inertia that keeps positive changes from happening - atheists - do the best you can and perhaps we will all get lucky.

Andrea:

The Games lost integrity back in the late 90's.

RE: "Saving the world." Is it possible that we humans could make the earth unlivable, especially by destroying our tissue-thin atmosphere, and God wouldn't stop us?

Mr. D.,

You don't think THO will subtract at all from the integrity of the Olympic Games?

"...And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith."

Anonymous: what kind of a fanatic (secularist fanitic?) would you label one who invades a country on false pretenses and kills (or causes to be killed) hundrends of thousand directly, and indirectly?

Any excuse, religous or otherwise, can be used to justify one's action.

A murderer, a thief, or a liar is just that....you can add any prefix, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, secular, whatever.

Andrea:

For the Summer Games---outdoors. We can throw in a wet t-shirt side event also.

For the Winter Games--outdoors also....then we can tell who's assets are real or fake. Point deduction right there.

Russell & Jihadist,

Would pole-dancing be a sport in the summer or the winter games?

Jihadist:

I like the idea of Pole dancing as a sport.

Those strippers need some recognition.

Jihadist
I have to agree with Waldo that your comments don't always make sense;or can be hard to figure out.
I ignored your comments on my first post,(at the top of this thread),because I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.OK,maybe that's my fault,but I tried a couple of times and gave up.Also the sarcasm didn't help.(If that's what it was).And the 'attitude' can grate.
I thought I made some good points,all of which may be spot on.(and may also be way off).
But you offered nothing that made sense to me,or prompted further discussion.
May Zeus be with you,or whatever his name is.

Mr. Mark, Norrie Hoyt, Arminius and all baseball cultists and anti-baseball types, and especially Waldo and Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

Waldo, thanks for the free analysis of my psyche and personality and what not. I don't have time to schedule prescribe times and dates for a shrink. I can refer to yours given freely here anytime I want to. Very convenient eh?

Actually, you gave me an idea Waldo, and Concerned the Christian Now Liberated too, on baseball from a non-American, unAmerican perspective who have absolutely no idea what the game is about nor undertand it. Am doing the same here on baseball the way non-Muslims do on Islam and Muslims.

Right Waldo, as it is only a first free session with you and analysis by you, I'm not completely cured as yet. So, I am now going to superficially, vainly, pretentiously, and childishly have a bit of silly fun with your national pastime - baseball. I am dying to read what your rebuttal will be on what I am going to write here on baseball - sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. Oh, and a second free analysis of me too. You too Concerned the Christian Now Liberated. LOL.

Baseball? What is this World Series where only American teams play at? Anyone thought of inviting Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese baseball teams to make it a really international series of baseball games? Those are the only other countries I know of that play baseball and have teams. There could be more.

We have to purge baseball too if we are to purge religion from the face of the earth. Baseball is a religion, a cult in disguise that no mainstream true religionists like me can accept because:

- Fidel Castro, the commie atheist, can bat a baseball quite well before he decided to have a commie revolution in Cuba. Therefore, baseball is tainted of its purity as a religion of faith and hope.

- Baseball as a cult, is indoctrinated and brainwashed in the young by the already brainwashed into perpetuating the baseball cult and groupthink.

- Baseball has many holy tracts including "Casey at the Bat" and mythologising movies such as "Eight Men Out", "Bull Durham", "Bad News Bears" and "Field of Dreams" that made it more interesting and faster than it actually is.

- Baseball as a cult, waste a great deal of time and money of its cultists every summer and in contributing to the coffers of the gods and sects of baseball.

- The great religion/cult of baseball has many sects, among them are Mets, Dodgers, Sox, Braves.

- All baseball cults have their own emblems, clothing, hats to distinguish them from other baseball cults and claim specific exceptionalism for their sects as the best, the truest, the only one that matters within the cult.

- Defecting from being a Metian to a Dodgerian is is a heretical act and cause for vilifications and worse by remaining loyal sect members.

- All baseball sects have their own temples called stadiums/Field of Dreams where Metian, Dodgerian, Soxian and Bravian cultists, among others, raptly and patiently watch the rites performed by the great gods of baseball.

- The holy tools of the baseball gods to perform their rites are bats and balls. Both are valued by the baseball cultists if they can lay hands on the bats and the balls the baseball gods has touched. Great sums of money are put out for these artefacts and holy relics used by baseball gods, except for the spittle and gum spat out by the gods in the Field of Dreams when they performed their rites.

- The rites of the baseball gods in the Field of Dreams, include meditating for long periods, chewing the holy gum, spitting on the ground to bless the earth, and scratching the holy balls on their person before deigning to hurl the ball to the bat. The running after and jumping for the ball has great cosmic significance for baseball cultists.

- Baseball cultists that congregate in the Field of Dreams have great hope, anticipation and faith that their gods will deliver them to ecstasy. They patiently wait for their great gods to move in prescribe ways. This includes staring and glaring at one another, making mystifying hand gestures to one another before throwing the ball, hitting the ball, running, jumping and sliding for the sake of the holy ball.

- Baseball cultists are expected to consume only specific food as part of the compulsory cult experience while their gods undergo rites to deliver them to redemption of their sect by that most hoped for miracle - the home run. This include eating animals one don't normally eat elsewhere - very, very small headless, legless and tailess dashchunds called "hot dogs". Eating hot dogs also have taboos, such as eating them with ketchup is heretical but dark mustard is cultishly correct.

- Baseball cultists engaged in a bit of cannibalism in consuming "foam fingers" during the rite when the baseball gods are chewing, spitting, ball scratching communition on the field to deliver what the cultists hope for.

- Baseball cultists also are showered by the Flying Peanut Monsters as part of their cult experience in the Field of Dreams to fulfil their needs for salvation from their daily existence.

- Baseball cultists also believe that if they build a Field of Dreams, their long gone gods will come - invisible to everyone else but to themselves to see and speak to.

- Baseball cultists also have many myths and legends about their gods, have pictures of their gods in their homes to pray and talk to for that home run, or to hope for that home run that will redeem their sect and themself by association.

- Baseball cultists are great memorisers of the batting averages of their gods as it has great mystical meaning for them, improve their mathemitical skills and displace from their minds, more urgent matters of life and death among their family and friends.

- Baseball cultists collect artefacts of their gods and sects as part of their body of religious accroutements - baseball cards, faux signed baseballs and baseball bats, baseball hats etc. Much money is contributed to their sects' headquarters.

- Baseball cultists are the most deluded of all religious beliefs as they have great faith beyond all reason that their sects will do better next year..............

.....and so, I am thinking of petitioning for pole dancing to be included in the summer Olympics. If synchronise swimming can be an Olympic sports, why not pole dancing? You don't sweat at all in synchronise swimming and:

- Pole dancing is something that requires great fitness and skills, more so than baseball. One never see a chubby pole dancer.

- A pole dancer is an acrobat, a gymnast, an artist. More so than pole jumpers, freestyle swimmers, pure gymnasts and baseball players.

- Pole dancers are physically elastic - they can slide elegantly up and down a pole and stretch their bodies horizontally and vertically as well as gymnasts. Baseball players can slide, but most clumsily.

- Pole dancing is a classier and more professional sports as its practioners don't chew gum, spit and scratch their balls while pole dancing. Unlike baseball.

- For the Olympics, their compulsory programme is to be how high and how well they can twirl around a pole to be judged on technical and artistic points. Baseball don't have that.

- For their freestyle programme, they can snake around, slide up and down as they wish in whatever and whichever way their bodies can. Baseball players can't do that and baseball is more restricted in style and form and closed to physical innovations.

Anyone can hit a ball and thrown a ball. Anyone can chew gum, spit on the ground, and scratch their balls.

Viva pole dancers! The most underpaid, under-rated and under-appreciated athletes in the world.

Best regards as ever

"J"

Sorry, that's Duckphup, brilliant. I was lost in a mental blur there for a sec. Brilliant as a mental patient...

Waldo, brilliant? Yes, I suppose so, in a Jacob Jozevz kind of way. The only thing funnier than a rabid fundamentalist is a rabid anti-religionist. Keep 'em coming, boys!

Norrie Hoyt;

I wouldn't have commented om Jihad,except your writing about how she comes across to you was reason enough to chip in with how she comes across to me,
quite genuinely,from what she has to say on these threads.
Look at her comments at the top of this thread,in response to Drew,and then to Jon Donovan.
Such drivel makes me cringe and throw my arms up.
So the last thing she needs is encouragement.
From people like Duckphup I learn.His comments are challenging,even brilliant.Likewise Mr Mark,and JWest and many others. I find Jihad's writing muddled,and her arguments vague and unclear,and not worth struggling through;so when you praise her writing,I react,and totally disagree,with that and most of your other comments.And the silly poll says it all.What is this,high school or what?
She's a big girl,with fixed views,and can defend herself I'm sure.But if you like being St George, well,good onya.

E Favorite,

In re Waldo:

I had same thought as you about the sudden appearance of this new name.

Who might he be? My guess is CTCNL. He's the only previous poster who seems to have had an active, persistent dislike of Jihadist.

Are you there, CTC? Please pick up.

Campbellite - I quoted from Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell - Religion as a natural phenomenon" pp 35-36. It's actually #3 of five possible scenarios for the future of religion, but I know it's his favorite, because I've seen him speak about it. (#5 is Armageddon).

NORRIE - I can see why you got the "wit" award.

Meanwhile, the real question is, Who's Waldo?"
It's a new name, but he seems to be well acquainted with the personalities here. In disguise, anyone?

E Fav, I would also love to see this "Global League of Religions." I am not familiar with the author you mentioned, but based on this paragraph, I'd like to read more. What is the title of the book that quote is from?

Waldo,

I had thought that Pope Lucius and the Inquisition had gotten rid of you Waldensians in the 13th Century.(:-|). Congratulations on surviving!

You wrote:

'Norrie
'you say

'"As Jihadist appears here, she's a wonderful person with good values."

'Of course you're speaking for yourself,being a nice old guy with kind words for everyone.
Jihadist appears differently to me,superficial, pretentious,vain,childish,not well read but loves namedropping,fully indoctrinated into the religion of her culture,seems lonely,seeks attention shamelessly,treats this thread like a lonely hearts club,creates devices to focus on herself,eg,the poll,and praises to get the much needed praise in return.'

Really, Waldo, you could have done better than to try to play the age card and portray me as an elderly, well-intentioned, but obtuse old duffer who can't see through Jihadist's supposed schemes and wiles. I could say some things about what I'm really like, but won't rise to your bait, except to note that my opponents in our legislature didn't think I was a "nice guy".

And why are you trying to psychoanalyze Jihadist? Do you do that with any other posters? Do you do it with Christians and Jews, or only Muslims?

I don't try to psychoanalyze my friends, real or virtual. But I disagree completely with your dissection of her personality as it appears in On Faith.

You seem to have an extraordinary personal dislike of Jihadist. Your words about her seem to be a vast overkill, very personal, very hurtful and even venomous.

What's going on here? Methinks you do protest very too much.

Drew,

Thanks for the reply. Maybe one day we Americans will be as enlightened as the Europeans, but alas, it seems to be far away.

Jed,

Thanks for the link. I will investigate.

Arminius

Arminius wrote, regarding cold fusion:

"My reply: So show me some evidence, give me some links."

Ah, it is right here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

There is some good stuff and some questionable stuff. There are many positive papers and a few by prominent skeptics. Since I am the librarian I should be more specific than that. I get in enough trouble with these researchers already! It is like herding cats.

Susan – nice to see you chime in on sports. I’ll be at the NY Center for Inquiry Conference and will make a point to meet you. I think we’re on to something about sports and religion.

I’ll always remember a Thanksgiving long ago, when I was back home after being far, far away from TV and American culture. Now the TV was going in the background, but I wasn’t paying attention. Then, there came a moment when everyone in the house jumped and screamed. My sister, rushing from the kitchen, almost dropped the escarole platter on the living room floor. I was alarmed. What was happening? Everyone seemed to know but me. They were ecstatic. I was relieved -- obviously it was something really good - but what?

Well, the home team had scored an amazing final-seconds winning touchdown, that’s what! I watched my whole family go nuts before my eyes, in a way I realized I’d gone nuts many times myself. They were crying and cheering and hugging me into their circle of joy. I wasn’t there, though. I was removed, like an anthropologist observing the natives.

Very weird. Very much worth examining from a religious perspective and certainly a perfect opportunity to mention Dan Dennent’s hope for the future of religion:

“Religions transform themselves into institutions unlike anything seen before on the planet: basically creedless associations selling self-help and enabling moral teamwork, using ceremony and tradition to cement relationships and build ‘long-term fan loyalty.’ In this scenario, being a member of a religion becomes more and more like being a Boston Red Sox fan or a Dallas Cowboys fan. Different colors, difference songs and cheers, difference symbols, and vigorous competition – would you want your daughter to marry a Yankees fan? – but aside from a rabid few, everybody appreciates the importance of peaceful coexistence in a Global League of Religions. Religious art and music flourish, and friendly rivalry leads to a degree of specialization, with one religion priding itself on its environmental stewardship, providing clean water for the world’s billions, while another becomes duly famous for its concerted defense of social justice and economic equality.”

Jed Rothwell,

You posted to me:

"Unfortunately, you ARE facilitating the despoliation of West Virginia, and 20,000 deaths, and catastrophic global warming. Of course you do not want to do that, but you must choose between coal, wind or nuclear. If you make no choice and no changes, you get coal."

You make it sound as if I alone were responsible for all this. Is that not trying to turn me into a straw man?

Do you drive a car? Then you are participating in and facilitating a process that kills more than 40,000 Americans a year, not to mention burning up scarce fuel and polluting the landscape.

Yesterday, in the discussion of cold fusion, you wrote:

"I have visited experiments in national labs and universities in Europe, the U.S. and Japan to observe experiments (rubberneck them, anyway) so I can judge the issue."

What are the energy, pollution, health, and social consequences of your indulgent jetting around the world so that you can "judge the issue"? Couldn't the use of videotapes and emails have conserved some of that burnt-up jet fuel?

Do you understand now why I said to you: "Excuse me for living"?

"Note that the dark Satanic mills are gone."
Try telling that to miners and many industrial workers. Psychologically and spiritually, many white-collar cubicles are part of today's dark satanic mills.

"Progress eliminated them, and it will eventually eliminate wind turbines. But at present we must have them, or we will die for lack of energy. We can only conserve so much."

There is no such thing as progress. Progress is an illusion. There is only the present moment and the issues for the psyche are always the same in each present moment (a Buddhist sentiment with which I agree).

You might try looking inward instead of just outward and quantitatively.

Also, we haven't tried conservation.

Rick;
regarding your stats in the USA,here's a c/p of part of an essay above at Oct.23.12:12pm byProfessor A.C.Grayling,in a British newspaper,re the British scene...

"With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a startling one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith."

Sorry, anon was me.

CTCNL,

You say:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Apparently the comments/hatred of the Sunni Saudi "Wannebees" have for Shiites in general has no effect on you. So strange for atheist!!!”

Why? So, Sunnis and Shiites are having a family feud like the Hatfields and McCoys. Why should I care about that? The anarchy in the streets is because $Trillions of my tax money was spent overthrowing the sovereign government and disbanding their security forces. That infuriates me, but apparently has no effect on you. Strange…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The lack of following the Amman Message by most if not all Muslims does not bother you?? Strange!!!”

Do you have a reference for that? There are what, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world? And your claim is that the majority, if not all do not follow the Amman Message? How could you possibly know that I think that your only source for that thought is your own bigotry.

My sense is that the number is more like the 15 million or so that remain in Iraq (about 1% of the 1.5 billion total Muslims world wide). And that is not due to a fundamental characteristic of Islam, but rather the fact that the majority Shiites were mistreated by the minority Sunnis under Saddam’s brutal dictatorship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“And you never address the flaws in the founders and foundations of Islam e.g. the hallucinations of one mad Arab!!! So strange for an atheist!!!”

Why should I worry about that any more than I worry about the flaws in the founders and foundations of Judaism and Christianity? Are you really so concerned about the foundations of Islam; or are you just desperately trying to justify your president’s disastrous misadventure, costing thousands of our young peoples lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents lives, and $Trillions of our national wealth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Hmmm, a bit of anti-Jew in your former life??? Oh, there is that one friend you have in Israel that agrees with you. One wonders about that!!!”

Ah yes, if you can’t make your case based on logic, then resort to childish name calling. I’m sure that you know the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

I told you that my friend and I agree to disagree on the Zionist invasion and occupation of Palestine. But that’s OK; we are still friends. Did you really forget that previous conversation and unintentionally misrepresent the facts; or is that just another feeble attempt to confuse the facts and avoid facing the truth?

Susan;

I do agree with your comments at 6;12 pm.
although I said it first,at 4;22pm.
you say it so much better.

Recently read your book "Freethinkers;A History of American Secularism". Terrific read. I wish more would check it out.

Mr Mark,

Re the Yankees:

Please remember that I a a Yankee hater, and are therefore overly harsh on them. Yes, they are a good team. But they are not the incredible team they were in the '90s. No A-Rods, just the most bound-together, well-led team in the decade.

Not to take anything away from A-Rod, he is one hell of a great player; but I think he exemplifies the current fragmentation of the Yankee dynasty. I see two-three years of rebuilding. But what will the Bronx Bombers do without Torre and Steinbrenner?

I have admired and respected the Yankees. But I still hate them! Hell, this is sports!

With all respect,

Arminius

Jed Rothwell, you wrote:

"No one can ever judge an experiment except by studying it. I have read hundreds of papers and letters from scientists who knew nothing about the research and yet who pontificated about it. Some thought it was real, and proposed various theories to explain it. Most think it is not real. They were all wrong. Their opinions are all equally without merit. Speculation without knowledge is a waste of time."

My reply: So show me some evidence, give me some links.

Arminius

To those of you who are concerned that the evil Muslims (like Victoria, Jihadist and Moody) are going to overwhelm us: relax!

I Googled: “Fastest growing religion”, and guess what I came up with. Yep, it’s the Wicca, a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Its adherents increased from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001, an increase of 1600%.

Even we terrible heathen atheist/agnostics increased from 8% to 14.1%, an increase of 76%.

Christians declined by 9.7% in 11 years.

76.5% of Americans are Christian.

52% are Protestant
24.5% are Catholic
1.3% are Jewish
0.5% are Muslim

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Arminius wrote:

"Again, on cold fusion, I wish you luck."

Thank you! We need all the support and good wishes we can get in this business. We already have a surfeit of ill wishes, more than we can possibly use.

"I mean that sincerely. I hope it can happen."

I am sure you do sincerely mean that, and on behalf of the world's ~2,000 cold fusion researchers, I thank you.

Your wishes are welcome but please refrain from guessing about whether the effect exists or whether the research will pan out. That never helps, even if you do wish us well. Unless you have done your homework, you cannot say you "have no hope for it" or that you "have every hope." Enthusiastic but ignorant supporters cause almost as much trouble as opponents do.

No one can ever judge an experiment except by studying it. I have read hundreds of papers and letters from scientists who knew nothing about the research and yet who pontificated about it. Some thought it was real, and proposed various theories to explain it. Most think it is not real. They were all wrong. Their opinions are all equally without merit. Speculation without knowledge is a waste of time.

I have to admit that I've enjoyed all of the sports arguments on this thread. Of course being a fan of any particular team is EXACTLY like religion: there is no rational reason for it. It all has to do with what your childhood memories are. I am a Mets fan because I grew up as a fan of the Chicago White Sox in Chicago, and the Yankees were our great enemies. Therefore, in the World Series, I always rooted for the National League team. And hence became a National League fan when I arrived in New York 35 years ago.

Unfortunately, subscribing to irrational religious beliefs has universal negative consequences, while being a fan of a particular team has no negative consequences--except for your silly psyche when your team loses.

I'm glad to know that there are other silly sports fans on this thread. I promise: I don't apply the same irrationality to anything other than baseball.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"I did take offense at the suggestion that I was explicitly or implicitly facilitating the further despoilation of the West Virginia landscape."

Unfortunately, you ARE facilitating the despoliation of West Virginia, and 20,000 deaths, and catastrophic global warming. Of course you do not want to do that, but you must choose between coal, wind or nuclear. If you make no choice and no changes, you get coal.

Vermont has superb wind resources. Fortunately, all of your electricity in Vermont comes from nuclear or hydroelectricity, but you could easily generate more electricity for the surrounding states. See:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VT

"While I may have written somewhat generally about the negative aspects of windmills, my real concern is with what I see going on here in Vermont.

The amount of electricity that can be produced here is quite trivial (unless you "pave over" and industrialize our entire landscape) . . .”

No, it is not trivial. Vermont has some of the best locations in North America. Wind turbines do not require land be paved over. They are often erected on farms, which remain in operation. The "footprint" per megawatt of power is lower than any other source of energy.

"The esthetic damage from windmills is usually dismissed as an effete concern of a few over-sensitive individuals."

I am not dismissing it. Aesthetic damage is real and heart-breaking, but the aesthetic damage and the physical damage, death, and ruined health from coal is far worse. To put it another way, a pile of 20,000 corpses killed by coal or the whole of Florida being submerged by global warming is an aesthetic nightmare. Wind is the lesser of two evils. Nuclear power is certainly better aesthetically than wind, but it is somewhat dangerous and expensive.

"But consider the following:
In the 19th century, Emerson wrote: 'The eye needs a horizon.' It really does, in order to be healthy."

Then unfortunately we must choose ill health. It is a terrible price to pay, but better than killing people.

"Take an unspoiled seascape, such as Nantucket Sound, where the windmill wars recently raged, or a pristine mountain scene. There, the eye focuses to infinity, and the psyche attached to the eye is happy, at peace, and in touch with infinity and the spiritual."

Unfortunately, circumstances force us to destroy these pristine places -- at least for now. In the future better energy sources will be discovered and we can pull down the wind turbines and restore the landscape. We can do nothing to undo the damage from coal. We cannot restore the mountains and towns of West Virginia, of bring the dead back to life.

"Fill in that scene with windmills. The eye's focus is then foreshortened, the eye muscles tense, and the psyche cringes, separated from the infinite and the spiritual, forced to contemplate industrial machinery, now trapped in Blake's 'dark satanic mills'."

Note that the dark Satanic mills are gone. Progress eliminated them, and it will eventually eliminate wind turbines. But at present we must have them, or we will die for lack of energy. We can only conserve so much.

"Compare how the physiological body and the mind and psyche are wildly different (be sure to check your blood pressure along with many other things)
when contemplating (1) a junkyard filled with discarded metal objects, and (2) a pristine seascape or mountain view."

Now compare that junkyard to the prospect of 20,000 dead people every year, six times the 9/11 attack . . . 400,000 in 20 years, as many as died in WWII. Not to mention hundreds of thousands more living with chronic ill health because of coal smoke, and the whole eastern seacoast destroyed by global warming. Which do you prefer? Which do you want? We must CHOOSE! We cannot wish away the consequences of our choice. Wishing that there was a better alternative does not help.

"Windmills turn those natural views into metal-filled junkyards."

Unfortunately, yes. But people’s lives are more important than natural views.

"Do this thought experiment. Take a natural scene without windmills and one to which windmills have been added. Place matched newborns or young children into each setting. Follow them until they've all died. Compare their illnesses, their psychological disturbances, the rate at which they age and develop degenerative disorders, and their ages at death."

The 20,000 dead from coal each year are not a thought experiment. They are real. They are the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society who are forced to live in the most polluted places. Most of them have no health insurance. In your concern for the newborns and their psychological disturbances over a lifetime you would condemn millions of other people to a painful early death from cancer and lung disease.

Now if my intrepid and put-upon geriatric scientist friends manage to make cold fusion work, before they all drop dead a few years from now, then you can have your cake and eat it too. We can get rid of all the coal, all the wind turbines fission reactors and everything else, and have all the energy we want with no measurable pollution. That would be wonderful. But alas we cannot count on their success. We must act now to prevent global warming with the tools we have now.

Religion... science... whatever we use to explain life and then form our moral blueprint...

the larger problems/conflicts in life arise from the need to be right. And while we assume we are right even in our pursuit of "proving" it, we use whatever justifications suit our purposes to treat any individual or group with less than the dignity they deserve, to deny them existence (much less the basics to have a decent shot in life), and deny that those who uppose whatever "us" have a point.

Wrap it in nationalism, religion, science... we create inequality where there is really cosmetic difference--so we can justly focus on our "causes" in which we judge (which really means "condemn" to something less than we have or deserve).

There are far more of us, regardless of affiliation, who would rather not kill each other. How about collaborating toward peaceful coexistence without the need to be absolutely correct?

Ego and fear are our biggest challenges.

Rick,

Apparently the comments/hatred of the Sunni Saudi "Wannebees" have for Shiites in general has no effect on you. So strange for atheist!!!

The lack of following the Amman Message by most if not all Muslims does not bother you?? Strange!!!

And you never address the flaws in the founders and foundations of Islam e.g. the hallucinations of one mad Arab!!! So strange for an atheist!!!

Hmmm, a bit of anti-Jew in your former life??? Oh, there is that one friend you have in Israel that agrees with you. One wonders about that!!!

Norrie,

The Jihadist believes in and practices the koran. Enough said!!!!

Norrie,

The Jihadist believes in and practices the koran. Enough said!!!!

Norrie
you say

"As Jihadist appears here, she's a wonderful person with good values."

Of course you're speaking for yourself,being a nice old guy with kind words for everyone.
Jihadist appears differently to me,superficial, pretentious,vain,childish,not well read but loves namedropping,fully indoctrinated into the religion of her culture,seems lonely,seeks attention shamelessly,treats this thread like a lonely hearts club,creates devices to focus on herself,eg,the poll,and praises to get the much needed praise in return.
She criticizes a commenter (back there somewhere),for making a comment that had nothing to do with Susan's lead essay; then she invents her own personal academy awards, which have nothing to do with anything.

Mariano Patalinjug wrote:

"Human beings need not believe in either Science or Religion to believe in the need to save planet Earth."

I disagree. People who do not believe in science, and who will not use the tools of science are incapable of saving the earth. See the Bush administration, for example. They only make the situation worse with things like ethanol, which consumes more energy than it produces. (It is a gift to OPEC and big agriculture.)

"Survival is the primordial directive as far as human beings are concerned.

If saving planet Earth is a condition to human survival, then human beings will of necessity do everything to save planet Earth."

Without science there is nothing we can do. We must have new technology or we will perish. Our primordial instincts cannot help us invent improved electric vehicle batteries or HTSC powerlines.

Failure is always an option; many nations and cultures have gone extinct. See J. Diamond, "Collapse" for examples. The ancient people who died off wanted desperately to survive, but wanting and wishing was of no avail. Only knowledge, science and innovation can save us. Or -- I suppose -- a population crash that leaves a few hundred million people worldwide struggling to survive in primitive squander.

"Neither science nor religion has anything to do with the need to save planet Earth."

But only science has the means to save it -- or destroy it.

Religion can only help by motivating people, just as it motivated people to fight polio in the third world, and to undertake various other science-based humanitarian projects. Religion has never cured a single case of polio or any other disease. It has never invented anything, or improved the human condition, or alleviated misery. Only science can do that.

Jed Rothwell,

I agree with much that you have written.

I did take offense at the suggestion that I was explicitly or implicitly facilitating the further despoilation of the West Virginia landscape.

I'm sure there's a large, necessary place for wind energy in the scheme of things.

While I may have written somewhat generally about the negative aspects of windmills, my real concern is with what I see going on here in Vermont.

The amount of electricity that can be produced here is quite trivial (unless you "pave over" and industrialize our entire landscape) and the psychic and environmental damage, from even very few windmills, is pronounced.

The esthetic damage from windmills is usually dismissed as an effete concern of a few over-sensitive individuals.

But consider the following:

In the 19th century, Emerson wrote: "The eye needs a horizon." It really does, in order to be healthy.

Take an unspoiled seascape, such as Nantucket Sound, where the windmill wars recently raged, or a pristine mountain scene. There, the eye focuses to infinity, and the psyche attached to the eye is happy, at peace, and in touch with infinity and the spiritual.

Fill in that scene with windmills. The eye's focus is then foreshortened, the eye muscles tense, and the psyche cringes, separated from the infinite and the spiritual, forced to contemplate industrial machinery, now trapped in Blake's "dark satanic mills".

Compare how the physiological body and the mind and psyche are wildly different (be sure to check your blood pressure along with many other things)
when contemplating (1) a junkyard filled with discarded metal objects, and (2) a pristine seascape or mountain view.

Windmills turn those natural views into metal-filled junkyards.

Do this thought experiment. Take a natural scene without windmills and one to which windmills have been added. Place matched newborns or young children into each setting. Follow them until they've all died. Compare their illnesses, their psychological disturbances, the rate at which they age and develop degenerative disorders, and their ages at death.

You might be shocked.

Someone mentioned that the article was entitled "Cooperate or Die" and that W.H. Auden was not mentioned. Here is his poem "September 1939" where the phrase "We must love one another or die" comes from.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939
W.H. Auden

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

Yonkers, New York
25 October 2007

Human beings need not believe in either Science or Religion to believe in the need to save planet Earth.

Survival is the primordial directive as far as human beings are concerned.

If saving planet Earth is a condition to human survival, then human beings will of necessity do everything to save planet Earth.

Neither science nor religion has anything to do with the need to save planet Earth.

It is survival of human beings as the primordial directive which has everything to do with it.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Allow me to suggest that sport has a lot in common with religion.
The sport one usually swears by,is usually the sport one was brought up on.To me,soccer is the greatest game in the world;but that's because I was born and raised in Britain. If I'd been born and raised in Canada,I'm sure I'd feel that way about ice-hockey. If I'd been born and raised in California I'd probably love basketball.(Which I actually find boring).
In India,cricket is very big,and all the kids play it.In Wales it's rugby first and soccer second.
I'm always surprised to read sportswriters claim their particular sport is the greatest;just like people claim their religion is the true one.
Though I love soccer,and watch it at every opportunity,my common sense tells me it isn't the greatest game just because I like it best. Everyone else make the same claim for the sport of their childhood years.
Maybe that's why I'm not religious. I'm aware of the groupthink and community reinforcement of one's religious belief just as in sport;and that other places reinforce a different religious groupthink,just as they do in sport.
We are what our community created us to be,in many ways,if not all.
And for that reason,it's not really very rational to assume that what we believe is true or correct,
when the guy from a different culture believes otherwise.

Jed -

Thanks for the clarification on wind power.

Rick -

Your point is taken on sectarian violence, but you miss my point.

"Sectarian violence" is a more-precise descriptor of what is happening in Iraq than the more-generalized "religious violence," but by eschewing the use of the word "religion," the implication of religion in the violence is removed.

Also, consider the audience for the terminology: bag-o-rock IQ Americans. For many of them, the word "sectarian" has absolutely no religious connection at all. They don't know that their particular brand of Xianity is a sect, so the use of the word sectarian in the context of religious strife most likely reads to them as political/economic/soccer team strife, not religious strife.

I'm willing to compromise: how about, "sectarian religious violence?"

Mr Mark wrote:

"Perhaps you saw the same report as did I on TV last night (I believe it was CNN or MSNBC). This particular report said for $1-trillion dollars, we could convert every coal-fired power plant, eliminate all fossil-fuel fueled power plants now operating, and shut down every nuke plant in the USA and replace them all with EXISTING wind power technology that would yield 100% of the energy we are now generating through those other technologies."

That's more or less what I said, but it is not quite accurate. Existing wind technology is adequate to generate all the power we need, but to replace all coal fired plants we would need new technology to transmit power over long distances or store it. Because wind is intermittent, with present-day technology it can only be used for ~20% of electric power, which is the level it has achieved in parts of Germany, Denmark and Spain. (http://www.awea.org/) In the U.S. we could provide much of the electricity in places like Texas which have lots of wind, but none in places such as Georgia and Florida, which have no significant wind resources.

I see no reason to eliminate nuclear plants at present. We should eliminate coal over the next 20 years, and this would cost much less than $1 trillion. In California they have already eliminated it.

Solar thermal could also produce all of the electricity and liquid fuel in the U.S. with a modest collection area. If you put the entire collection area for electricity in a square someplace like Death Valley it would be roughly 100 miles per side.

Anyway, there is no question that for the cost of this war we could easily have bankrupted bin Laden and our other enemies in the Middle East, and ended most use of fossil fuel. People would not stand for it though. They are always willing to spend spend a $1 trillion killing other people and dropping bombs, but when you suggest we spend that sum on new infrastructure or innovation, they say "that's socialism" or "not in my back yard" and they fight tooth and nail to stop it.

It isn't only that people do not want to spend the money. They don't want innovation. As my friend Martin Fleischmann says: "People do not want progress. It makes them uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it." It isn't only creationists who despise and distrust science. So do most people, religious or not. They pay lip service to academic freedom and the blessings of science, but when a scientist makes a disturbing or radical discovery, they come down on him or her like a ton of bricks. History is full of examples. Scientist think they are open minded, but when their dogma is challenged, most of them are as closed minded and irrational as any creationist. The only thing they have going for them is that most of their core beliefs are fact-based and checked against reality, whereas creationists make everything up.

Daniel,

P.S.: You also wrote:

"On the other hand, maybe it is a good thing, not to be noticed."

A reclusive billionaire once said:

"If you want to live happy, live hidden."

Having been something of a public figure in my state for three decades, before I retired, I think he may well be right.

Best wishes.

You're not the only one left out, Daniel, I've been trying to acknowledge people as they come to mind or show up.

How about "Most long-winded atheist baiter"

Also Realist deserves the title of "most patient atheist"

MR MARK - maybe the time is right for a new, bona fide football-related religion. Totally fact-based, with rituals, special distinquishing vestments and numerous real-life heros. I know all of this exists - well funded too. We just need to find a way to attach some good works (soup kitchens, hospital visits, children's programs)and some decent music and we're all set.

Daniel,

I'm sorry you failed to receive an award.

Since Jihadist is the principal award-giver, I suggest that you apply to her for redress.

Perhaps she sneezed when she came to your name on the list of posters, and simply overlooked you for that or some other neutral reason.

Good luck to you.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You wrote:

"Norrie,

"Unless you have met The Jihadist in person and somehow otherwise proved that she was a lady of peace, you have been "text tricked" and severely suffer from blog gullibility."

You said exactly the same thing to me about Jihadist several months ago. That's why in my current post, I deliberately wrote: "As Jihadist appears here, she's a wonderful person with good values."

No, I haven't met Jihadist in person, but I hardly think that's neccessary to comprehend her.

I think you get a better understanding of a person from their writings than from seeing them in person. The reading process takes you deeper into their psyche.

I think I understand Jefferson better from his writings than I would have if I'd only had tea and crumpets (or a quantity of Madeira) with him at Monticello.

And, by your own standard of a personal meeting being neccessary to comprehend a person, since you undoubtedly have not met Jihadist in person, you have no basis for saying negative things about her.

What about my award? I didn't get any award or even a nomination. But I have put in alot of work here.

I have worn my brain neurons down to a nub thinking about these things. For all my efforts, I have been called an idiot and an Islamaphobe.

I think the actual meanest response was when I said that it was "bad manners" to quote scripture to people who are not interested in hearing it. (It is bad manners, isn't it?) But I also got alot of negative reactions when I doubted the existence of "natural law" which, I guess, is just "obvious" to everybody, but me.

So anyway, what about me? Why didn't I even get a mention? On the other hand, maybe it is a good thing, not to be noticed.

Amen sister! Desperation makes strange bedfellows. Thus did Churchill warm to Stalin as ally, saying “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”.

Amen sister! Desperation makes strange bedfellows. Thus did Churchill warm to Stalin as ally, saying “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”.

Mr. Mark,

You say:

Re: "sectarian violence"

That's such a euphemistic way of avoiding saying what it really is - RELIGIOUS violence.

I'd pay real money to hear a journalist call it what it is - religious violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Normally I agree 100% with your posts, but this time I must protest.

By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the Amman Message has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: sedition and mass murder.

Actually, our invasion and overthrow of the sovereign government and dispersal of its security forces has more to do with the anarchy that we now see on the streets of Baghdad than does any tenet of Islam.

CTCNL,

You say: “Hmmm, another group that even if they did sign said messages, paid them no heed. (note the date)”

Yes, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites don’t much like each other as I agreed, but this has nothing to do with Islam. This is not an ideological conflict. This has more to do with hundreds of years of the Sunni minority dominating and abusing the Shiite majority under Saddam and others.

And who enabled this conflict? We did by toppling the sovereign government that was keeping the lid on, and disbanding their security forces putting nothing in place.

After all we all have our bad men don’t we. We have a pair of real winners in the Oval Office and EOB.

Mr Mark
You rock. I don't really have a problem with baseball or "futbol americano" but they both occasionally provide a definition for the word boring. In between Copa Mundial years, try the Mexican leagues. They are widely available on Univision and Telemundo. You can shut off the sound if the Spanish announcers are distracting (or leave them on and pick up some great Mexican slang.)
I'm told that the reason the networks don't like to show soccer and hockey is that they don't stop the action often enough for commercials. It couldn't just be viewership, since they show plenty of bull riding and other niche sports.

Rick wrote:

"can you imagine how much better off would be our economy and national security if we had spent the $Trillions of dollars that we are squandering in Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and achieving alternate sources of energy?"

Perhaps you saw the same report as did I on TV last night (I believe it was CNN or MSNBC). This particular report said for $1-trillion dollars, we could convert every coal-fired power plant, eliminate all fossil-fuel fueled power plants now operating, and shut down every nuke plant in the USA and replace them all with EXISTING wind power technology that would yield 100% of the energy we are now generating through those other technologies.

Side effects would be to pretty much destroy OPEC, which would cause oil prices to free-fall to ridiculously low levels, thereby providing cheap gas for our cars etc.

Instead, we have bush's war in Iraq.

Of course, bush listens to "a higher father," so we must assume that god doesn't like the idea of America having cheap, clean energy.

Norrie,

Unless you have met The Jihadist in person and somehow otherwise proved that she was a lady of peace, you have been "text tricked" and severely suffer from blog gullibility.

CTCNL,

You say:

“And with all those oil profits they can now afford big time terror!!!”

Yes and where do they get those oil profits? From us; can you imagine how much better off would be our economy and national security if we had spent the $Trillions of dollars that we are squandering in Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and achieving alternate sources of energy?

Rick,

Hmmm, the Messages were finally agreed to in 2006. Apparently the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq failed to read or approve of said agreement since they are still killing each other 24/7 with korans in their hands/pockets on their way to a spirit heaven/hell where physically/scientifically no intercourse could ever happen. More evidence of the sham nature of Islam.

And the "Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month (January, 2007) joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Hmmm, another group that even if they did sign said messages, paid them no heed. (note the date)

Russell D -

I watched the World Cup in its entirety last time 'round. When you're really into it, the matches are over too quickly. Same with hockey which is non-stop action. But I don't watch any soccer outside of World Cup.

Americans seem drawn to sports with high point totals. I guess more is better for some. I tend to like the low-scoring sports where each point/goal/run is hard-earned.

Joke: an NHL player is told that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scored over 38,000 points in his NBA career. "So, what does that mean?" sez the hockey guy, "did he play in, like, 90,000 games?"

Re: "sectarian violence"

That's such a euphemistic way of avoiding saying what it really is - RELIGIOUS violence.

I'd pay real money to hear a journalist call it what it is - religious violence.

Mr. Mark:

I am a soccer guy myself. Been playing for 20 years......really got better at playing when I was in England. It is a religion over there.

Tennis is cool.

Andrea:

Oooooh baby!

CTCNL,

You already know this but are in denial. The Sunnis and Shiites have formally declared peace as of King Hussein of Jordan’s Amman Message:

http://www.ammanmessage.com/

Yes, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites don’t much like each other, but this has nothing to do with Islam. This has more to do with hundreds of years of the Sunni minority dominating and abusing the Shiite majority under Saddam and others. And you know Saddam didn’t have a religious bone in his body.

From the three points of the Amman Message as posted by Victoria: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi)… is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable… This was endorsed by 552 signatories from 84 countries.

Note that 21 of the endorsees are from Iran (including I’m a Dinner Jacket and Supreme Spiritual Leader Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Khamenei fatwa), 28 are from Iraq (including H.E. Mr. Jalal Talabani (President) and Supreme Spiritual Leader Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Khamenei fatwa), and 15 from Saudi Arabia (including H.M. King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz Al Saud
(King of Saudi Arabia) and Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and Dr. Abd Al-Aziz bin Uthman Al-Touaijiri (Director General, The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) )

From the beginning in Iraq, the Takfiri foreign militants have targeted the Shi‘a in order to create a civil war and widen the conflict, thereby entangling the coalition forces in a never-ending conflict of which their countries will eventually weary. By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the conference has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: sedition and mass murder.

Actually, our invasion and overthrow of the sovereign government and dispersal of its security forces has more to do with the anarchy that we now see on the streets of Baghdad than does any tenet of Islam.

Dear E Fav -

I've long held that football is America's TRUE religion.

If you asked the average American if they'd sooner give up their religion or their football, I think we all know what the answer would be.

So, more of Mr Marks cherished beliefs are revealed:

He's an anti-footballist and a Yank-head.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"Please don't try to turn me into a straw man."

I do not understand this assertion.

"If you applied what you wrote about me to yourself, and if you decided to do the right thing in the light of what you had written, you would stop eating."

This is the exact opposite of what I said, and what I meant. I said that people have an unquestioned moral right to consume energy. But we must also take responsibility for the energy we use.

All sources of energy cause damage, and all present difficult choices and trade-offs. Few people want to see wind turbines in their own back yard, but people who oppose wind turbines must recommend some other source of energy such as nuclear, coal, or natural gas. When you say "no windmills!" and leave it at that, you are in effect advocating the use of coal. That is the default source of electricity. It will expand tremendously in the next 20 years if we do nothing. Coal kills thousand of people and destroys the landscape much more than wind turbines do.

If you do not want coal or nuclear than you must accept wind. That means you or someone else must pay by sacrificing the view, and cluttering up the landscape with wind turbines. It is unfortunate but unavoidable.

Unless the consumers stand up, make demands, and express willingness to pay more money for cleaner energy, and to make sacrifices, the U.S. will expand coal production from 1.1 billion tons to 1.8 billion tons in 2030, and world production will double, to 11 billion tons. This is a recipe for disaster. See:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

Russell,

You're on!

Dear Russell D -

No problem. I don't have a bad side to get onto.

Baseball is the only major league sport I follow, and my viewing is pretty much limited to the Yankees and the AL, which is difficult to do here in CA where the NL teams seem to be the contenders. If I can catch 2 Yankees games a month, I count myself lucky.

Football doesn't interest me and neither does basket bore. I'll watch Grand Slam tennis and the Tour de France and that about does it.

Besides, if I watched more sports I wouldn't have the time to annoy the religionists on this blog.

And this is why Braves fans and Yankees fans will never be able to truly band together to help the environment.

Andrea:

If we are ever single.........me and you baby, me and you.

Arminius writes:

"The moral of the Yankees: money does not buy happiness.

Where did they lose the idea of 'team'? All they have is a collection of egos."

Could you please explain to me how the Yankees don't act and play like a team?

Players who aren't team players are players who hit for average, not for effect. The guy who refuses to lay down a bunt or a sac fly because he wants a base hit in his stats. The outfielder who won't attempt to catch a fly ball if it means he's going to hit a wall in the process. The shortstop who lets a ball get into the outfield rather than diving to make a play on the ball. A runner who dogs it around the bases and refuses to slide or to attempt a steal when ordered to do so by the base coach. A starting pitcher who refuses to do bullpen duty under any circumstances.

Which Yankees do you accuse of such non-team-player types of actions? Jeter? A-Rod? Posada? I'd like to know.

Perhaps you're implying that the Yankees can't be bothered to throw runners out at first, or that they stand in the batter's box refusing to swing and taking a called-strike out so they can get back to that beer they're nursing in the dugout?

I've got a Yankee highlight reel you can borrow that will show you that they play like any other team.

You need to find a new spurious insult to hurl at the Yankees. The "not a team" BS is getting old.

Russell,

Oh! NOW I get it. ;)

Andrea:
"What hair?"

EXACTLY!

Mr. Mark:

I don't mean to get on your badside.
AS for the NFL..........don't get me started on that. NFL has more issues than Senator Craig.

And the NBA????/ Come on! Pretty soon a bead of sweat hitting another player is gonna be considered a foul.
Streetball all the way baby!

Russell D:
**Ever hear George Carlin', bit about Football vs. Baseball? Explains everything right there.**

I fall on my arse laughing every time he gets to the part about golf...

Rick,

Well you reaffirmed why the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. Simply a weird couple of nut groups!!! And all because of some "pwtfft" talking to some "fasting" hallucinating Arab in a hot cave supposedly 1400 years ago. Now there is a significantly stupid foundation of a religion!!

The USA unleashed them on each other??? Give us a break!!! Iraq is the off-country battle between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia!!! And with all those oil profits they can now afford big time terror!!!

From CNN:

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

From the Washington Post:

But consider this posting about Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah: “Let us explain that the party of Hassan Nasrallah, for us, is a party which has a Shia ideology. Thus, he is considered our enemy like our enemies the Jews, the Christians.”

And so we now have to spend billions keeping Shiites and Sunnis from starting the atomic holocaust of WWIII.

RUSSELL D. writes:

"Baseball sucks.

4 hours to play a game?"

The average major league baseball game runs 2 hrs 47 minutes. An article in today's NYTs states that the average length of an NFL games is 3 hrs 11 mins.

"And all the players are overpaid whiners."

The minimum salary for a MLB player is $380k. The average salary of a MLB player is $2.7MM.

Compare that to the NFL:

"The NFL Players Association's research department says the average player salary rose 5% in 2005 to $1.4 million and that the average starter earns $2,259,000. The median salary for all starters was $1.7 million, an increase of 17%. The average for quarterbacks, running backs and offensive tackles was in excess of $3 million." (Source: USA Today 2006)

"And why can't they play in the rain?"

They play in the rain all the time. They don't play in a deluge. The reason they don't play in a deluge has to do with player safety and fear of injury. Encouraging career-ending injuries isn't good "sport" and would hardly make things "more interesting."

We attacked Iraq because they would only trade oil in Euros, and will most probably attack Iran for the same reason. America produces almost no exportable material goods, and our economy is vaporware based on the dollars in circulation to support the Oil commodity market.

Israel is a scape goat for the chaos caused by the energy hegemony that runs this country and controls 96% of its wealth. It maintains that posistion with illegal wars and CIA dirty tricks designed to keep most of the world too angry and hungry to attempt to take control of their own lives and their nation's resources.

Thats why a Zionist minority in Israel is able to practise terrorism, even against the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

The rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia keep the unrest at a peak for our benifit.

As long as people are on the same page with respect to preserving and healing our environment, religion or the lack thereof shouldn't matter. It’s a very good point that should apply to other problems we face. I applaud those religious leaders who have embraced environmentalism, especially in light of the fact that they have been roundly criticized by others in the fold.

But there are still many religious people in this country who believe and teach their children that the world is less than 10,000 years old. It's sort of difficult to have a discussion about current environmental problems with someone who thinks the earth was created around the time that beer was invented in Mesopotamia.

Seriously, how do you explain to someone with that mindset that fact atmospheric trends take place over hundreds of thousands of years or that substances we are creating may not degrade for hundreds of millions or even billions of years. And with the ever looming apocalypse, why should they care? Wouldn’t they be interfering with the second coming? Maybe we should just hope that they will accept on faith that the earth is getting sick without needing to know the facts.

It would seem that the existence of a God is simply a matter of opinion.
Nobody can know whether there are gods or not..All that's known is in an old book that folk have fought over and disagreed on for two thousand years,and still no-one knows anything for sure.
A degree in theology has all the credibility of a doctorate in astrology or witchcraft.Its the study of a particular kind of superstition.
I believe that God is as much a myth as the old Greek and Roman gods were. There's no reason to think that the Christian God is anymore real than those guys..Same for the Islam's Allah. Just a fantasy,made up by a guy named Mohammed,and then taught as 'truth' by illiterate desert nomads.
It's scary that people actually believe such claptrap in these so called enlightened times.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Jacoby in this article.

There doesn't have to be ANY conflict between science and religion. They are two different lines of thought on the same subjects: what's the deal with this whole universe-thing?

Science asks, "How?"
and Religion answers "Why?"

Duckphup;

You are a voice of reason on this thread,and much needed.You argue your points brilliantly and make great sense. Would that religious folk read what you have written...which is doubtful.They gloss over the comments from you and others who have tried to comment intelligently from an unbelievers perspective. The religious cling to their belief in magic,and scream blue murder at anyone attempting to reveal the nonsense of it all.
I guess some people prefer the syrupy slop of the attention seeking Jihadist,who turns serious discussions into inane popularity contests and unsubtle put downs on those who are unconvinced of the existence of gods and devils,and other supernatural improbabilities.
As you noted...atheists are people who once were believers.I was once a choirboy,and bought the whole supernatural package...but as I grew,I began to have doubt,and more doubt;and one day saw it all clearly as ridiculous and false. It was actually a great feeling.A feeling of release and lightness.I wish others would try it.
As I said elsewhere,I believe this century will see a rise in nonbelief as people everywhere become smarter and better educated,and finally dump religions of the supernatural,which look increasingly ridiculous in this modern world.
The world was a different place just a hundred years ago. The world will be even more different in a hundred years time,almost unrecognizable.
And I expect people of that time will chuckle at the silly things that people still believed in the year 2007.

CTNL,

You say: “Bottom line: It is all about the ancient feud between the Shiites and Sunnis. Israel is simply a scapegoat for both groups in an attempt to promote their significantly stupid quest of having their version of the hallucinating Arab's "rightful" heirs in control of the world.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, the kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Here is an article from the History News Network (HNN):
What Is the Difference Between Sunni and Shiite Muslims--and Why Does It Matter?
By HNN Staff
Updated 12/18/06
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html

First some background information from the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.

The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims.

According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Another difference between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with the Mahdi, “the rightly-guided one” whose role is to bring a just global caliphate into being. As historian Timothy Furnish has written, "The major difference is that for Shi`is he has already been here, and will return from hiding; for Sunnis he has yet to emerge into history: a comeback v. a coming out, if you will."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is more background that you can read on the web, then this:
Osama bina Laden is a Sunni Muslim. To him the end of the reign of the caliphs in the 1920s was catastrophic, as he made clear in a videotape made after 9-11. On the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera on October 7, 2001, he proclaimed: "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. ... Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more [than] eighty years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated."

Juan Cole, a well-known historian of the Middle East, has pointed out on his blog, Informed Comment that the split between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq is of relatively recent origin:

I see a lot of pundits and politicians saying that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for a millennium. We need better history than that. The Shiite tribes of the south probably only converted to Shiism in the past 200 years. And, Sunni-Shiite riots per se were rare in 20th century Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites cooperated in the 1920 rebellion against the British. If you read the newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s, you don't see anything about Sunni-Shiite riots. There were peasant/landlord struggles or communists versus Baathists.

The kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You wrote,

"Norrie,

"The Jihadist is a "koranic". No one knows therefore what she really believes and what she might be hiding under her burka."

J. is a modern Malaysian Moslem woman.

As I recall from her posts, the only time recently that she may have worn a burka was on her trip to Saudi Arabia.

By the way, if you wanted, I'd be happy to join Victoria in providing a social service for you (see her post above).

Best wishes.

Russell,

What hair?

Norrie:

Nope, didn't watch the game.

I was busy washing my hair.

;)

Besides, Criminal Minds was way more interesting.

Russell D.,

How long do chess games last?

Didn't you watch the W. Series last night?

They did play in the rain.

Regards.

Rick,

Hmmm, terror state comparisons???

We have the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers in Iraq, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers in Iraq, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? Iran, the Shiite terror theocracy aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Israel- Simply defending their country which was established by the UN in 1948.

Bottom line: It is all about the ancient feud between the Shiites and Sunnis. Israel is simply a scapegoat for both groups in an attempt to promote their significantly stupid quest of having their version of the hallucinating Arab's
"rightful" heirs in control of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22jihadists.html?ex=1311220800&en=477ff07cfa579449&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Duckphup - good post on the perils of the evil empire. Seems like it all started with Reagan and has been building since. Declaring war in Iraq was the first step in giving the administration total political autonomy and control (Cheney's brainchild). This bunch has become the most secretive and 'covert' executive administration ever foisted off on this country.

Unfortunately even the media has been wholeheartedly complicit in the highjacking action that now seems to give Bush total political control - and it could be said that Bob Woodward himself sold out to the Bush administration. Congress is largely silent and the Supreme Court is stacked to the right. Homeland Security is a pretty scary national police force that apparently has complete legal jurisdiction over any legal venue whatsoever - under the aegis of 'national security' and the Patriot Act.

I don't think people realize how much has been lost. 1984 is here and is very much a reality.

Isn't this a joke; the terrorist state of US_Israel accuses the Iranian military of being a terrorist organization. Hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402758_pf.html

I know I am going to make some people mad, but oh well........

Baseball sucks.

4 hours to play a game?
And all the players are overpaid whiners.

And why can't they play in the rain? Seriously......it might make it more interesting if the rain was coming down.

Ever hear George Carlin', bit about Football vs. Baseball? Explains everything right there.

Jihadist -
I am honored by the award, but it isn't mine alone. I like to thank all the little people (wee folk, that is)...

Gerry wrote: "When the genesis writer posing as god said: 'And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein'."...

I think he was ordering them to become homosexuals, grow crops and to do arithmetic.

From the peer review committee

Name the non-white non-males on Jihadist's award list

How unbiased and unserving of her own agenda is the list

Supposedly a staunch defender of the Islamic faith the list is posted on an atheist blog

Reasonable..... wrote (October 25, 2007 1:34 AM): "There is much evidence to assist those that doubt the resurrection, including the fact that the body was never found after it was stuffed into a cave."

What 'evidence', exactly? You say "the fact that the body was never found after it was stuffed into a cave." How is that established as a 'fact'? There is no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed at all. Modern biblical scholarship makes a very compelling case for the idea that Jesus never existed... that he was, in fact, entirely fictional. Richard Carrier's review of 'The Jesus Puzzle' is probably the best place to start, if you've got sufficient intellectually honesty to check into the idea...
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml

"You can't fathom the great love that God through Christ has for mankind as you can't sacrifice your egos and self to accept that love. The excuse is : you have to PROVE it to me that what God says in the New Testament is truth."

Nonsense...

"A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism” ~ Donald Morgan

Most atheists WERE in fact raised in a religious environment. They became atheists because when one applies 'critical thinking' skills to their religious beliefs, those beliefs just tend to evaporate... poof. Religious belief simply cannot withstand the glaring light of reason and critical thought. But here's the rub... only a small percentage of the population of the USA is even CAPABLE of critical thinking. You are obviously not among them. Religious leaders have long been aware of this... and they have, for centuries, COUNTED on it as a way of bamboozleing people such as yourself...

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."~ Martin Luther (Works Vol. 12)

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him tear out the eyes of his reason." ~ Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~ Martin Luther, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1

"I know this- the mixture of faith, hope and love that proceeds from God and into families and communities in the churched world far exceeds the weaknesses and faults you can point to."

Like the tens of millions of dead bodies?... the Dark Ages?

"You can't prove in some empirical way love, hope or faith, but most of you seem to want to mock faith like it is opposite of reason, when what it is is opening up a part of you- wakening it up - to how we are to react to one another and treat each other as humans."

Who says that it is necessary to 'prove' love or hope? That's just plain silly... they are an innate part of the human psyche. So (unfortunately) is 'faith' (wishful, magical thinking). One should not be looking to PROVE 'faith'... one should be on guard to prevent such wishful, magical thinking from leading to the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., 'belief'.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence'.

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to vital aspects of existence and reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge.

Faith + belief ---> self-deception, self-delusion and willful ignorance.

Faith-based 'belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

"Just because you may have some political disagreement with those that voted Bush in does not take away from the central truth of the gospel of Christ."

The fact that you have deceived and deluded yourself into believing that a fictional account in a self-referential holy book is 'true'... without ANY credible contemporaneous external evidence... is nothing more than a testimony to your own gullibility. It has nothing to do with politics. It is most certainly not a testament to your rationality. Consider... you believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced (by a talking snake with legs) to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop. So... do you consider it to be a VIRTUE that you BELIEVE such nonsense? You are PROUD that you are that gullible and non-discerning?

The (thankfully imaginary) Abrahamic god of desert monotheism was often 'appeased' by blood sacrifice. It is well documented in the Wholly Babble that he thoroughly enjoyed a good barbecue... and that a generous serving of blood COULD get him to change his mind. So... when he set up his own son/self to be cruelly tortured and suffer a gruesome and agonizing death... in a perverse public spectacle of blood sacrifice... to APPEASE HIMSELF?
And you think that this is a GOOD thing?

C'mon, now... can you really tell us, with a straight face, that you BELIEVE that such nonsense is the defining 'truth' of our existence? That your highest moral authority is the collected and consolidated myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering, militant, marauding, genocidal goat-herders? And you DEFEND this? How about a universe in which all that exists are the earth and heaven, solid 'firmament' structure (the sky) separating the earth from heaven (terrarium earth), talking donkeys, shepherd staff turning into an asp, demons chased out of people and into pigs, woman turning into a pillar of salt, friendly spirits, evil spirits, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, people surviving in the desert for 40 years because of food falling from the sky, people raising from the dead, the sun stopping in its tracks, parting the sea, people being bodily sucked up into heaven (which, by the way, lies on the 'other side' of the sky), world-wide flood that drowned the earth to a depth of 40 feet above the tallest mountain, creating people from dust bunnies and ribs, magical tree of knowledge, and an invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) speaking from a burning bush? All of that USED to be the inviolable, divine, god-given 'truth'... although some of it was magically transformed from 'truth' into 'metaphor' and 'allegory', as actual 'knowledge' showed it to be nothing more than ignorant blather. So... apart from the parts that have been specifically shown to be ignorant blather... do you still believe the rest, because science has NOT specifically shown it to be ignorant blather? Huh?

[Creation science is] "... an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops." ~ Ron Peterson

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” ~ Sam Harris, 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Ignorance can be cured, via education. WILLFUL ignorance, however, is worthy ONLY of scorn and ridicule.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"I once wrote in a New York Times book review, 'It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)'. That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know. I am completely ignorant of baseball, and I dare say that you are as completely ignorant of cricket. If I tell somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am paying him the compliment of assuming that he is not stupid, insane or wicked." ~ Richard Dawkins, to physicist Lawrence Krauss, in Scientific American, July 2007 issue.

P.S.: You need to get yourself a new screen name. 'Reasonable' doesn't cut it.

Susa Jacoby wrote: "Thus, the conflict over environmental policies has little to do with religion, or the lack of religion, per se."

I fear that you are very wrong about that... at least with respect to the policies of the present administration. It is ALL about religion.

I think that everyone is still missing the REAL story... the story that accounts for WHY we're not making any real progress with regard to the environment and global warming... and why our national debt is spiraling out of control. The real story is that the people who actually have the power to DO something about these problems do not think it matters... they simply DO NOT CARE. Every now and then, though, some blabbermouth lets something slip, which provides a critical insight:

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther (This blabbermouth included for historical perspective, only.)

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

"I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, to a Congressional committee in 1981, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

It is NOT that the people who are high up in our government DO NOT BELIEVE that the destruction of the environment, and global warming are immediate and dire threats... it is simply that they DO NOT CARE about the threat. They BELIEVE that the return of Jesus is imminent... that this world will be destroyed, and a ‘new earth’ will be created for the ‘faithful’. They BELIEVE that is their 'Christian duty' to establish the necessary conditions here on earth such that they can hasten the day of Jesus' return. So, it simply DOES NOT MATTER that the earth may soon be unfit to support human life. For this same reason, they are not concerned about the burgeoning national debt... they simply don’t think that anybody will be around to 'collect'. They are NOT CONCERNED about future generations for the simple reason that they do not think there will be more that one or two future generations.

Here are some instances of administration interference with the science pertaining to these issues...
***thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/gerberding-global-warming/
***www.physorg.com/news112466433.html
***environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/censorship_clim.htm
***www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/kennedy
***www.emagazine.com/view/?2322
***www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/orwellian/?forPrint=1
***www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0820.htm

An excerpt: "In his 1949 dystopia, 1984, George Orwell detailed a frightening picture of a totalitarian society run by 'Big Brother' where a systematic distortion of language, 'newspeak', labeled everything the opposite of what it was. Endless war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance strength. Such propagandistic verbiage has long been a part of the political rhetoric of the United States and other countries, but it has reached a new extreme in the administrations of George W. Bush. One has only to look at the names of his major policies. President Bush's 'Clear Skies Initiative' weakened the 1970 Clean Air Act by allowing power plants to emit five times more mercury, twice as much sulfur dioxide and one and a half times more nitrogen oxides than previously allowed. President Bush's 'Healthy Forests Initiative' funds logging companies' access to old growth trees."

Of course, our ‘leaders’ cannot admit to this... if they were to do so, a large part of their ‘Satanically-misled’ constituency would denounce them and repudiate them. So... they prevaricate... they obfuscate... they lie... they deceive... they misrepresent... they ignore and even discredit the ‘science’. To them, it is no more than a delaying-game... a ‘rear guard’ action in what is (to them) a very real ‘war’... a war against Satan and his minions... and they think that they are the ‘good guys’. What a hoot... the 'good guys'... intentionally and gleefully paving the path toward the destruction of civilization and humanity, believing that they are going to put one over on Satan. In short... our leaders are quite insane.

From Wilson's 'letter': "I am puzzled that so many religious leaders, who spiritually represent a large majority of people around the world, have hesitated to make protection of the Creation an important part of their magisterium. Do they believe that human-centered ethics and preparation for the afterlife are the only things that matter? Even more perplexing is the widespread conviction among Christians that the Second Coming is imminent, and that therefore the condition of the planet is of little consequence. Sixty percent of Americans, according to a 2004 poll, believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation are accurate. MANY OF THESE, numbering in the millions, think the End of Time will occur within the life span of those now living. Jesus will return to Earth, and those redeemed by Christian faith will be transported bodily to heaven, while those left behind will struggle through severe hard times and, when they die, suffer eternal damnation. The condemned will remain in hell, like those already consigned in the generations before them, for a trillion trillion years, enough for the universe to expand to its own, entropic death, time enough for countless universes like it afterward to be born, expand, and likewise die away. And that is just the beginning of how long condemned souls will suffer in hell—all for a mistake they made in choice of religion during the infinitesimally small time they inhabited Earth."

Do you GET IT?... the people who are running our country are a part of the 'MANY OF THESE...' referenced (above) by Wilson.

These people think that they are the most moral of men... working tirelessly to further 'god’s plan'. And since they are are working on behalf of ‘god’, they see absolutely nothing wrong with lying, cheating... whatever it takes to thwart and delay those who would interfere with “god’s plan.” In other words, lying to those who (they think) are doing the work of Satan is not regarded as a sin. They think that god gave man ‘dominion’ over the earth (from Genesis)... and they view it as their god-given duty to claim the earth, subdue it and use it... physically and politically... for the glory of god... and anybody that opposes those aims is, of course, working directly for (or deceived by) Satan.

This is the real story... and it is a BIG story... bigger than Watergate... bigger than global warming itself... real ‘Woodward and Bernstein’ stuff. It needs to be told... and these crazies need to be exposed... and stopped.

Don’t take my word for this... it is relatively easy to research. The best place to start would be in investigating ‘dominionism’... ‘theonomy’... ‘Christian reconstructionism’. Here are a few good places to start:

***www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

***www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html

***religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html

Here is an excerpt from the first link:

“Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order.”

This endeavor has been underway for some years now, and guess what? It's working. In 2004, 'dominionist' congressmen made their first move, introducing the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" (HR 3799 IH). The following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
 
Implications: Because the judiciary is 'an element' of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.

Joint awards to the ones who have sold their persons the most without making any headway with the version of the religion they represent:

Pamela K Taylor
Jihadist
Victoria

When the genesis writer posing as god said:

"And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein",

I doubt that he had an infinite exponential growth in mind. I even doubt, that he had the slightest idea what exponential growth is.

Religion cannot produce any contribution to the solution of today's global problems.

Reasonable...
You would have to agree that voting for Bush was not an act of Christian faith, but of civil politics.
Personally George W. Bush always struck me as a rather poor Christian who seems to choose his positions for their political efficacy rather than their closeness to Christ's teaching.
Again, that's my politics, not my religion.
BTW there are posters and columnists on this site who claim to speak for Christianity and who espouse a very narrow-minded view of the faith and of those who do not share that view. What you often see here are responses to that attitude.

Mr Mark-

I don't know what to say about people like you.

There is much evidence to assist those that doubt the resurrection, including the fact that the body was never found after it was stuffed into a cave .

But as far as politics goes, I don't doubt that the evidence for WMD and going into Iraq was exaggerated. Powell probably believed it, and more than likely Bush trusted his people when he should not have. The apple fell very far from the tree in his case, as his father was a much more astute politician and much smarter.

It is , however, not a "illegal war" as the peace agreement signed by Saddam was violated over and over again. That is not the point- Bush opened pandora's box and put us into a situation where escape is very much catch 22.

I can't agree with you about many things as you have , as others do on this forum, and anti Christian bias. You can't fathom the great love that God through Christ has for mankind as you can't sacrifice your egos and self to accept that love. The excuse is : you have to PROVE it to me that what God says in the New Testament is truth.
I know this- the mixture of faith, hope and love that proceeds from God and into families and communities in the churched world far exceeds the weaknesses and faults you can point to. You can't prove in some empirical way love, hope or faith, but most of you seem to want to mock faith like it is opposite of reason, when what it is is opening up a part of you- wakening it up - to how we are to react to one another and treat each other as humans.

Just because you may have some political disagreement with those that voted Bush in does not take away from the central truth of the gospel of Christ.

JIHADIST- thanks for the award!

NORRIE- dont worry, being libs target is my social service-

LIB_ you can say alot of things about jihadist if youre bored enough-

but lack of expression isnt one of them.

Norrie,

The Jihadist is a "koranic". No one knows therefore what she really believes and what she might be hiding under her burka.

Jihadist – Great idea for the first year celebration. I graciously accept my nomination and am touched by your insight into my contribution here. I also nominate the additional following posters and reserve the right to nominate others.

Most Irreverent Critically-Thinking Anti-Theist - Duckphup

Most Scientifically-Based Newcomer Atheist - Jed Rothwell

Most Hardheaded Christian - Vinnie

Highest IQ atheist - Ba’al

Most Sincere Lutheran – Deanna

Most Militant Secularist - JWest

Hi, Lep,

I just tried to post a long reply to you, but it was impounded by the Thought Police. I have no idea how I could have offended them. Aaaargh.

Arminius

Arminius, I need to introduce you to my husband one of these days. He lived in Atlanta for 13 ears before moving to Louisiana, and he lives nad dies with the Braves. He gets very upset with me when I refer to baseball as just a game. But I must admit that two of my favorite movies are Field of Dreams and Bull Durham, so maybe there's hope for me yet.

As for science and religion joining hands to preserve his lovely green ball upon which we make our homes, I have never understood how anyone could believe in any sort of Divine and NOT do their best to be environmentally responsible.

I remember years ago, when I first heard Wretch Limpbough use the term "environmental wackos" and state that mankind did not have the capacity to destroy the earth. I wondered if e was able to say that with a straight face. We seem to be doing a pretty good job of poisoning the living daylights out of her.

From what I understand, the word used in Genesis that commonly gets translated as "dominion" is actually closer in meaning to "stewardship" - the planet isn't ours to do with as we please; we are to use the resources available to us with discretion and care.

And you would think that would be a no-brainer, no matter what your religious beliefs (or lak thereof). But I've actually had End-Timers tell me that it doesn't matter what we do in terms of the environment, that we might as well use all the toxic disposable crap we wisj, because Jesus is coming back any day now, and it's all going to be destroyed anyway.

I totally agree with the desire that people who are religious and people who have a totally secular humanist world view ought to be able to dialogue about how to positively impact the environment, but unfortunately many emotions that seem to inevitably kick in would have to be shoved out of the way, and that doesn't appear very possible.

What I find ironic is that those who absolutely believe in unguided evolution and the unguided existence of our planet exactly where it is with exactly the life-allowing circumstances that we enjoy here, speak often of needing to save species that are close to extinction, yet that is precisely what evolution is talking about having happened on super-macro scales, so why "fight" evolution on a micro scale?

The reality of our world suggests that most people on the planet will find the action that suits their own self-interest, and a relatively fewer number will try and find the set of actions that helps their community, nation, or posterity. Governments become an extension of the "self" of the people in charge. Thus, the marriage problems in China, and, yes, the shortsightedness of many of the Bush presidency decisions.

We can hope for a change in the dynamics, but it doesn't seem likely, and it didn't take Darwin to point that out although he did. He spoke of a positive role of religion in society. That can happen, but not with the constant bashing and bickering that seems so prevalent. We have to have changes of heart on a pretty big scale. Let's hope for that. Best to all.

Mr Mark,

Well, I am religious, and will always be here to gently defend it. Yet, I respect your position.

But if you want to discuss baseball, come to me! I'll be there, all guns firing!

Arminius

Dear Arminius -

Thanks for your comments.

If I had one wish for humanity, it would be that we would consign religion to the dust bin of history and spend out time arguing about something important - like baseball.

:)

Jed Rothwell,

Please don't try to turn me into a straw man.

If you applied what you wrote about me to yourself, and if you decided to do the right thing in the light of what you had written, you would stop eating.

After about 66 days, with most of your bodily functions gone, including vision, you would pass quietly from the earth, thereby relieving it of a considerable environmental burden.

Want to think about it?

As for me, all I can say to you is "Excuse me for living."

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Perhaps, but did Jihadist ever try to destroy two airports in the U.K.?

I doubt it.

Guilt and innocence are individual, not collective.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

"What made it go through was the same thing that's caused many environmental despoilations."

I am sure it is nothing compared to the destruction caused by coal mining in West Virginia, where they destroy mountains and bury communities under toxic filth. West Virgina is some of the most beautiful country on earth, rivaling New England, but the electricity powering your screen is turning it into a dead wasteland, and destroying the lives and health of its people. Is that what you prefer?

As I said, you have to compare this to the alternatives. Do you really want more coal? Do you want to breath tons of radioactive thorium and uranium that are released by burning coal?

"Many of the folks in that little town earn money from our tourist industry. Who's going to travel there to see the mechanical whirlybirds they already have at home instead of scenery?"

You would be surprised. There are thousands of giant wind turbines in Europe, especially in Germany and Spain, yet the tourists still go out of their way to see them.

As long as they are a novelty they will probably bring in more tourists than they repel. Also, the modern ones are perfectly silent, and they kill many fewer birds than glass building do, and millions of times fewer birds than the steam and smoke from combustion and nuclear power plants do.

Anyway, you may not have to worry. Now that the U.S. is building the equivalent of one nuclear power plant per year in wind energy, Big Coal has finally realized that wind is hurting its profits. It has instructed its top lackey in the House,
Nick Rahall (D-WV) of the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV -- where else?!?) to introduce a bill that will "essentially outlaw the generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the United States and even phase out power production from existing wind turbines." Problem solved!

I agree with Susan that we need to work together as a nation on matters of science, part. global warming, but from my own experince I'm not optimistic that it will happen in time.

In my own immediate family, the majority are many of the southern Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christians that gave Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy enough votes to steal two elections. They don't like him now, but only because they finally realized they were lied to. They STILL AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT HE IS DOING! And I live in a town FULL OF IDIOTS JUST LIKE THEM! They think Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are the best sources of information in the country, and FOX news has JOINED THE LEFT WING MEDIA!

I'm pretty sure that polls of voters south of the Mason Dixon line think "climate change is just a normal weather cycle" and any evidence to the contrary is left wing propaganda.

I'm sorry, but anyone that can believe in a Jewish Carpenter has completely lost touch with reality, and is incapable of rational thought.

A Jewish Lawyer, or Doctor...eh..Maybe.

But a Jewish Carpenter

Fuhhhhgetaboudit!

But really, as Sam Harris has often pointed out, polls in the US show a majority of Americans claim to believe A JEWISH CARPENTER IS COMING BACK TO SAVE THE FAITHFUL IN THEIR LIFETIME.

Anyone that makes a belief like that central point of how they plan their future, is pretty useless in a discussion of how to save the planet from human destruction.

Is it a fingers and toes thing? Do they just not have enough to imagine 7,000,000,000 humans and how much oil we remove from the ground and put in the air everyday? Or is religion a mental illness?

That, my friends, is the only intersection of science and religion that might really help, and then only if we can find a cure.

Norrie,

I am sure the seven UK Islamic doctors who tried recently to destroy two airports in the UK were just like The Jihadist, "intelligent, insightful, funny, interesting, and very good writers".

And as per that famous quote:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

Kevvy, you wrote:

"Norrie: Inre - the Three-in-One. Google the Athanasian Creed. It states something I take on faith - FAITH, not scientific proof, which all the many on this board like to make so much hay about."

One of my favorite writers, Ambrose Bierce, has the following definition of faith in his DICTIONARY, which he composed between 1881 and 1906:

FAITH, n.

BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE IN WHAT IS TOLD BY ONE WHO SPEAKS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, OF THINGS WITHOUT PARALLEL.

As you directed, I googled the Athanasian Creed. It's very interesting, and I would have copied it here for all to read, except that its 44 paragraphed statements seemed to be too much to add to this thread.

Regards.

Jed Rothwell:

Again, on cold fusion, I wish you luck.

I mean that sincerely. I hope it can happen.

Arminius

Arminius wrote:

"Ignore the 'end of the world is at hand' crowd."

Right. That's what I said too.

"Most of us Christians are not holding our breath. And most of us embrace science."

Of course you do. Naturally. Science is derived from enlightenment philosophy which was heavily influenced by Christian theology. Apart from the supernatural claims, they have much in common and few quarrels.

"Moral issues? Yes. The healing of the world is bound up with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, healing the sick . . ."

Energy is very much a moral issue, yet the solutions to the energy and CO2 problem are purely technical. That sounds contradictory. It is analogous to saying that the decision to eliminate polio in the Third World was a political and moral one, but the actual tools needed to do the job, such as vaccines and trained personnel, are strictly technical.

Once we make a moral choice to solve the energy crisis, the decisions about how to do it must be made according to technical merit, or we will end up with ethanol or some other crazy nonsense. There are many potential solutions to the energy problem. There is no doubt we can solve the problem -- but we must first summon up the will to spend the money and do what needs to be done. It does not help when the mass media reports that solutions are out of reach, or we will all starve, or we might as well give up now because it is too late, or what-have-you. It especially does not help when religious right wingers such as Bush deny there is a problem!

"As for cold fusion - I wish you luck. I hold no hope for that."

You should hold no hope for that. You should have no opinion whatever -- hopeful or not. It is a complicated subject, and you have to read lots of papers and spend months thinking about it before you reach a conclusion.

I have edited and translated ~200 papers and three books, read roughly 500 papers from the mainstream peer-reviewed journal literature, and about 1000 others from less reliable sources, plus I have visited experiments in national labs and universities in Europe, the U.S. and Japan to observe experiments (rubberneck them, anyway) so I can judge the issue. That doesn't mean I am right, but it does mean I have written technical papers describing what I know and how I reached my conclusions, and someone else can read the papers and judge whether I am right or wrong. You have to have more than an opinion -- you have to justify it in detail, with rigor and Sitzfleisch. The same goes for every aspect of the energy crisis. It is not a matter of opinion, and people's views do not all have equal merit.

Some people can judge the issue in less time than it would take you or me. For example, the late Director of the Max Planck
Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin was one of the worlds preeminent electrochemists, so he knew a lot about the technical issues. He spent a week with a group of experts, and then wrote a recommendation to the German Government, saying, in part: "In spite of my earlier conclusion, - and that of the majority of scientists, - that the
phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement
errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications
that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys."

Anyway, that's off topic and not likely to help, unless we can start making cells that produce a steady stream of energy instead of exploding or producing gobs of tritium, the way they unfortunately tend to do. Don't try this at home.

Norrie: Inre - the Three-in-One. Google the Athanasian Creed. It states something I take on faith - FAITH, not scientific proof, which all the many on this board like to make so much hay about.

Kummin,

You wrote:

'The likes of Jacoby always bring out the "There is no God" crowd. They come and go. No big deal.'

Yes, but the God Crowd keeps kummin and goin too.
That's even less of a big deal.

Mr Mark,

While I commend you, and agree with you, on some things - such as the Shrub's (Shrub = Bush = Darth Dubya) unfortunate pack of lies to lead us on to his disasterous ego trip, I must disagree on the Yankees.

The moral of the Yankees: money does not buy happiness.

Where did they lose the idea of 'team'? All they have is a collection of egos.

And, of course, much of this is fed by pure emotion. If Al Qaida had a baseball team, and played the Yankees, I would cheer for bin Laden's team....

Arminius

Jed Rothwell,

Thanks for your reply to my post.

While I was writing my post, I knew I wasn't expressing myself well, but couldn't bring the words up that I wanted.

Of course you have to know your math, your engineering, your technology, and so on, to do things right.

I was objecting to those who take only those things into consideration, ignoring quality of life.

"In any case, in a wind and solar-thermal economy, you probably would not see many turbines on your ridgeline."

This has become a big issue recently in Vermont, where I live. The windmill project Governor Douglas opposed is going ahead anyway, up in our northeast (known as The Northeast Kingdom).

What made it go through was the same thing that's caused many environmental despoilations. The dummies in the tiny town sold their souls for a few dollars in projected reduced property taxes, so they voted for the project (fewer than 600 voters).

The real costs to them in their lifetimes will be many times the property taxes saved, if that saving actually materializes. The general rule where development occurs in Vermont is that the governmental costs increase faster than the additional property tax revenues.

Many of the folks in that little town earn money from our tourist industry. Who's going to travel there to see the mechanical whirlybirds they already have at home instead of scenery? Those voters may have slit their own throats.

I live 70 miles north of a nuclear plant - no problems so far except for the accumulating waste.

We and our earth certainly are facing a host of intractable environmental and energy problems. I'm glad that smart and thoughtful people like you are working to solve them.

The likes of Jacoby always bring out the "There is no God" crowd. They come and go. No big deal.

Dear RNH -

I don't "doubt" the resurrection. I know it didn't happen based on the evidence and lack thereof.

I lived in NYC from 1977-89 and in the NY metro area until 2003. I was there when the Yankees sucked in the 1980s. A dynasty can have bad times, but they always, ALWAYS come back, and so will the Yankees.

For as much as their ridiculous payroll gets all the press, their team is actually a good mix of farm-grown talent and overpaid superstars. Losing an A-Rod wouldn't be the end of the world. Losing a Jeter would be a major blow.

As far as being on "the wrong side of the issue," I'd say I'm on the right side of the issues but the wrong side of received opinion. For instance, I watched Colin Powell at the UN and counted the knowing lies emanating from his lips. I was ostracized by my RW neighbors for asserting that SH had no WMDs and that there was no basis for bush starting his illegal war. And on and on it has gone in my life, from Viet Nam to the present.

Don't worry about it. because I don't. My batting average on such things is excellent, and I know that my positions will be vindicated by history, whether you ever get it or not. Short of putting an "I told you so" sign over my door, I don't know what else to say to guys like you.

Norrie Hoyt wrote:

. . . [T]here's more to the world and life than calculations and technical solutions.

True! But the only way to prevent global warming and fix the energy crisis are with calculations and technical solutions. It is not, fundamentally, a moral problem because most people in the world do not use immorally high levels of energy. In fact roughly 50,000 people die every week for lack of energy. (Mainly because they do not have enough to boil water for tea and safe drinking water.)

"A liberal Democrat, I stand with our conservative Republican Governor in his opposition to putting windmills on our ridgelines.

Those windmills degrade our environment and diminish the quality of our lives."

I couldn't agree more! They are ugly. But coal fired plants kill roughly 20,000 Americans per year. Which is uglier: 20,000 corpses, or wind turbines on your ridgeline? Wind turbines are infinitely less ugly than the results of severe global warming would be.

You might prefer nuclear power plants to wind turbines. They are rather dangerous and expensive, and the spent fuel is difficult to deal with, but I would much prefer to live next door to one than a coal fired plant. This is not a hypothetical option for me. The power company is building a nuclear plant about 20 km away from my summer house in Japan.

Energy conservation is also vitally important, and it can greatly reduce the need for generators and liquid fuel, but we still need some energy.

In technology you must always choose the lesser evil -- the least destructive, least ugly machines. There is never a perfect solution. You cannot turn away from reality, reject wind turbines, and pray that coal, oil, CO2 and global warming will magically vanish. You have to make tough choices.

In any case, in a wind and solar-thermal economy, you probably would not see many turbines on your ridgeline. Most of the wind turbines would be far offshore (especially in Northern Europe) or located in the Dakotas and Texas where you would not see them. N. & S. Dakota alone can supply the whole U.S. The energy would be transmitted as hydrogen or over high temperature superconducting cables. It might cost a tad more than $500 billion.

Mr Mark :

You seem to be on the wrong side of the fence on more than one issue- doubting the resurrection- and then thinking that the Yankees could continue to dominate as before.

You can't buy the championship unless you have the right chemistry (and the right/best pitching)

The Yankees have has neither.

It was good to see my Indians make them cry again, I am looking forward to seeming them go head to head with the big boys again with their paltry $60 million payroll.

Mr Mark,

Nah, I had that movie confused with that other baseball movie ;)

Andrea writes:

"Ooh! Fever Pitch II! I hope what's his face from the first one will be in it again...he's dreamy."

Who? Jimmy Fallon?

Fever Pitch II - Attack of the Gnomes

Mr Mark,

Ooh! Fever Pitch II! I hope what's his face from the first one will be in it again...he's dreamy.

Reasonable,

My apologies for attempting to explain my non-serious answer to this week's post that could have been construed as "bashing."

Arminius writes:

"As to Mr Mark: one of the highlights of my long life came in October, 2004, when the Sox Nation came back and trashed the Evil Empire. And if the Yankees are so damn great, why are they not in the World Series now? Where is Torre, one of the great managers of all time? The dynasty is dead."

Answers to your questions:

1. 2004 BoSox comeback over the Yankees. Thrashing of the evil empire, or an allegory on the Book of Job?

2. Why are the Yankees not in the WS now? Because there truly is a, "there's always next year" for the Yankees. To tell you the truth, unlike Indians fans, we're not sweating it, even if half the team leaves with Torre. That's what a dynasty is all about.

3. Torre is gone. BIG mistake by George. But then again, even god killed his own kid (who was also...himself???). Sh*t happens. Dynasties move on.

4. The dynasty is dead. Right, And Jesus was resurrected. You're entitled to your fantasy, but be prepared for reality to bite you in the butt.

BTW- the proof that there is no god will be, 1) if the Red Sox win the WS, and, 2) filming begins on "Fever Pitch II."

Jed Rothwell,

I have no doubt that what you say is correct about the vast potential to convert wind energy to electrical energy and then on to other forms.

But there's more to the world and life than calculations and technical solutions.

A liberal Democrat, I stand with our conservative Republican Governor in his opposition to putting windmills on our ridgelines.

Those windmills degrade our environment and diminish the quality of our lives.

Norrie,

Damnit, I nearly strangled with laughter at your last post! 12 points outta 10!

As to Mr Mark: one of the highlights of my long life came in October, 2004, when the Sox Nation came back and trashed the Evil Empire. And if the Yankees are so damn great, why are they not in the World Series now? Where is Torre, one of the great managers of all time? The dynasty is dead.

As to religion and baseball, I leave you all with this quotation from my favorite player of all time:

"When I come into a ballpark, I feel like I am surrounded by angels, and God's hand is on my shoulder."
- Hammerin' Hank Aaron

Still, in my humble opinion, the holder of the all time home run record at 755.

Arminius

Andrea- you said

"'m not sure if you meant me, but I'll try to clear the muddied water a bit, at least from my perspective. The Christian point of view regarding the environment as presented to the rest of us is scary. Judging from the policies set forth by the current administration regarding the environment, the blatant refusal to accept that global warming is real ("silly" is how I've heard it described by some Evangelicals), and the belief that the world will soon end all lead us activist/anti-religious folks to be more than a little put-off."

1) You seem to associate Bush and his environmental policy and push the blame on evangelicals. Given the choice in the past two presidential elections, and the myriad of issues that divided the country, global warming and the environment were not at the forefront as to what issues caused each voter to vote for whom. Most skeptics don't question global warming. What I and others do question is the fact that when you ask questions about the REASON for global warming, which is a fact, and other causations are thrown out there that appear to have at some rational connection as to why the warming is occurring, you are shouted down and insulted, which is common on this board .

2) As far as the end of the world scenario, to take that which you don't care to understand- and push it as a some sort of reason to believe that Christians that do believe in that scenario won't care about the future of the earth- proves to me that you have not completely understood the concept of the Second coming of Christ. Christian believe that they are supposed to live as if the world will continue for generations but also be watchful that it could end at any time. This translates into wanting our food, air water and environmental future to be ensured so we can sustain life on earth, yet know that all of it could be washed away at any time .

I don't know where your perception comes from how Christians perceive environmental issue or GW, but the silly part comes from the exaggeration that appears to be out there and the wild predictions of calamity that many reasonable people can assume they just can't make those sort of predictions with certainty.

Your association of evangelicals with the Bush administration illustrates to me to don't understand or can't separate the elected officials like bush and his cronies from those that elected him, which really is a big leap and illogical ......they are NOT one and the same. I may have voted for the man, but he does NOT represent my views or many Christians that I know.

Don't paint with such a broad brush and maybe you can make some headway /reconciliation with those that have beliefs you don't hold.

You might be surprised on how much common ground there is , that is, on non -spiritual matters that concern ALL of us on this earth.

We should all always remember that the earth is bipolar!

Jed Rothwell,

"I wish people here would stay on topic. Jacoby has made an important point, so stop gabbing about other stuff."

You've got a point there. But understand that these threads are like the world-at-large, and particularly like the scene in a Roman church during the old Latin Mass:

People moving around, whispering, reading newspapers, sleeping and snoring, going out for a burger and returning, while the very serious Latin keeps going on.

I generally prefer order and seriousness, as you do, but I've sort of gotten used to humanity and its disorderly ways. I even find myself contributing to the disorder now and then.

Best wishes.

Jed Rothwell:

Hoo-boy. A can of worms it is that you have opened. Maybe more than one.

Ignore the 'end of the world is at hand' crowd. Most of us Christians are not holding our breath. And most of us embrace science. The 'dominion over the earth' statement in the first creation story in Genesis is largely discounted. We are stewards, not rulers. Even a growing number of evangelists embrace this.

Moral issues? Yes. The healing of the world is bound up with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, healing the sick. All those issues grow larger with the ongoing deterioration of our planet. Many of the religious among us, including me, take that very seriously.

As for cold fusion - I wish you luck. I hold no hope for that.

Arminius

For anyone who might honestly consider a perspective on how religion and science necessarily work together:

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm

Mr. Mark,

"Take it from this Yankee fan now living in CA - you don't need to "believe" with the Bronx Bombers. The empirical evidence is in, and in spades. If the evidence for which team is "god's team" is the number of WS titles, then the roads of heaven are paved in Yankee Blue."

Actually, the Yankees' successes prove that the Cathers were right:

The material universe was created by "The Ignorant Demiurge" (YHWH) an evil, sadistic lesser diety who thought he was the Godhead, but wasn't.

Yes, the material universe (matter), including the earth, is in fact inherently suffused with YHWH's sadism and evil, as the Yankee's WS titles so clearly manifest.

Regards.

I wish people here would stay on topic. Jacoby has made an important point, so stop gabbing about other stuff.

Yes, even though religion and science are often at odds, environmentalism is an area in which both sides can wholeheartedly agree & work together. So are things such as healthcare for children.

A few fanatical religious people believe the world is going to end soon so we do not need to worry about saving the environment, but the vast majority are sensible and believe in being "good stewards."

Many religious people think that God gave man "dominion over the earth." I think that is a creepy myth, and I expect the other animals disagree, but for once I am glad these people believe in a creepy myth. It motivates most of them to take responsibility for the environment. (A few extremists such as Ann Coulter think it means God gave us permission to destroy the earth.)

Although I agree that there is an ecological crisis with global warming, energy and water shortages, and oil supplies have peaked (which is both a problem and a blessing), frankly I wish that people on all sides would step back and try to see this more as a technical problem, with less emphasis on the moral aspects.

Religious people tend to see problems as moral issues. Business people will perhaps view the energy crisis as an economic problem or an opportunity to make a buck. The people who will actual fix this problem are chemists, engineers and scientists. That's who I work with, as an editor and translator. I wish the other groups would listen to what the scientists have to say. First, they tend to see this as a sweet technical problem, and many of them believe it can be solved more cheaply, easily and rapidly than the public seems to think. Naturally it will require sacrifices but not as many as people seem to think. The cost of not fixing the problem will be incomparably higher, in any case.

For example -- sorry to oversimplify but -- the long-term cost of the war in Iraq is roughly $1 trillion so far. The world is now building wind turbines at a rate equivalent of 6 1-GW nuclear power plants per year (15 GW of new "nameplate" wind capacity divided by 3 because wind turbines work at about 33% of rated capacity). We could easily afford to build 20 to 30 GW actual wind capacity per year. The U.S. has the equivalent of 500 nuclear power plants, and about half are coal fired. There is more than enough potential wind energy in the U.S. to generate all the electricity in North America, and also to make synthetic liquid fuel (from wind energy and water) at about the same rate as the Middle East pumps oil. There would be problems transmitting and storing the energy (especially wind), but thermal solar can be saved with molten salt and other techniques. Taking into account one thing and another, for roughly half the cost of the Iraq war we could have replaced all of the coal-fired generators in the US, replaced all of our oil and gas with synthetic fuel, and put OPEC out of business. Other parts of the world with vast wind energy resources, such as China and Northern Europe, would follow suit and for a few trillion dollars we would make fossil fuel obsolete. So we should stop panicking, and stop yelling about the moral issues, and get on with the job. No radical breakthroughs are needed, although they would make it cheaper.

If you are looking for a fabulous breakthrough in energy, look no farther than cold fusion, which is what I do most of the time. It may not pan out as a source of energy, but it has been replicated in hundreds of world-class laboratories and I think the prospects for a controlling and scaling it up are better than ever. If we ever get it to work reliably it will be thousands of times cheaper than any other source of energy, and the fuel is available in such quantities that we could vaporize the planet earth (~10E31 J) without noticing the deficit. For more information on that see LENR-CANR.org.

I digress. The point is, I wish that all sides -- religious, secular, business and politicians -- would calm down and look at the technical solutions.

Susan,

Oh, hell, I almost forgot. The Mets.

I am, being a resident of greater Atlanta, a Braves fan. But let it be known (maestro, trumpets and drums please) that I have a lasting love and respect for the Mets. This dates from the incredible dukeouts that the Braves and the Mets had at the turn of the millenium. Some of the best baseball that I have ever seen.

I still can't believe their truly unholy meltdown at the end of this season. This is PROOF that there are Baseball Gods, and that they are fickle. Their blessings fell on Colorado. And GO ROCKIES!

Best,

Arminius

Correx to my last post -

the short post in Fenway is actually the RF line. LF is about 8 feet longer + the Green Monster.

No Red Sox fans took me to task. Hmmm? They must all be off praying somewhere about something...

Concerning baseball - Considering that the Rockies are "God's Team", I'm gonna have to suck it up and root for the Sox. I'm just glad that it wasn't the Yankees and their owner, George Satan-brenner. Hey, Peter Angelos! I hear that Joe Torre is looking for a job...

Although I was rooting for the L.A. (cough, cough) Anaheim Angels to make it, just so that CCNL could refer to them as the "California Pretty Wingie Talking Thingies." :D

Susan Jacoby:

As a believer, I do not agree with too much of what you say. However, on the subject of science and religion cooperating towards a common good, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you. There is no reason why we cannot agree to work together. I have known too many Christians who agree with science, including a priest who was a full-time nuclear physicist.

And you wrote:
"What all of the purists here are ignoring is the ability of the human mind to accomodate conflicting beliefs."

This statement might interest you:
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Thanks,

Arminius

Dear Susan -

I'm shocked! Shocked that you - an atheist - are a Mets fan. What was their slogan back in 1986? IIRC, it was "You gotta believe!"

Take it from this Yankee fan now living in CA - you don't need to "believe" with the Bronx Bombers. The empirical evidence is in, and in spades. If the evidence for which team is "god's team" is the number of WS titles, then the roads of heaven are paved in Yankee Blue.

I must ask you this question - why back the AAA club in Flushing when you've got a professional team right there in The Bronx? I've never understood that.

So, it's Red Sox against Rockies. Hmm? That's a hard one. So easy to hate the Red Sox, so easy to ignore the Rockies. Short porch in left field (Fenway Park) v shoveling snow off the porch (Colorado). I guess I don't really care.

If I'm lucky, TBS or FX will be running a "Mannix" marathon this weekend so I'll have *something* to watch.

One thing the author did not include [but might as well have, given the topics] is that voting for Republicans is incompatible with having any future whatsoever to look forward to. I sincerely believe that this is NOT hyperbole at this point.

Concerned,

I really don't know what to say. As Jihadist appears here, she's a wonderful person with good values.

I don't think it's fair or reasonable to tax her with the horrors of contemporary Islam.

How about just relating to her as she is: intelligent, insightful, funny, interesting, and a very good writer.

Norrie!

I'm trying to recover here. I am laughing myself silly, not at you, but with you!

The point of that article is not really religious. It shows the Rockies as a TEAM, totally close knit, totally in sync with each other, totally confident. They could be a juggernaut.

So tonight I will pour a libation off my deck, into the woods, to the Gods of Baseball.

GO ROCKIES!!!

Arminius

(oh, by the way, when Boston loses, send me one of those kegs of Jack Daniels.)

Gerry,

You're quite right. One of my problems as a legislator was that I usually felt an impulse to throw at least a bone to the other side.

Not a good idea. Particularly with the staunchly religious and the staunchly right-wing.

They'll take the bone, give nothing in return, and then demand the whole animal.

Best wishes.

Another boring article from Suzie Jacoby the poor little atheist with no answers to how complex, organized, purposeful things arise from absolutely nothing at all by nobody at all. She never addresses these issues that DESTROY silly atheist nonsense. Just more lame commentary that is truly useless.

Norrie,

The Jihadist continues to obfuscate the major issue in today's world i.e. her religion. Citing flaws in other religions and their histories will not suffice in ignoring the very serious and very dangerous flaws in Islam, problems which The Jihadist cannot bring herself to address. But this is typical for someone that has been bred, born and brainwashed in Islam. Fear of Islamic death/punishment squads probably adds to her "ostrich-like" writings.

The fact that religion and science represent fundamentally different ways of thinking is undeniable, but that in no way means that people of many faiths (the more rational precincts within faiths) cannot reach the same conclusions on a number of practical issues as people who do not believe in God. And there are scientists who do believe in God, although, as many surveys have shown, the percentage of believers among high-level scientists is much smaller than among lower level scientists.

What all of the purists here are ignoring is the ability of the human mind to accomodate conflicting beliefs. This ability is not limitless, of course: people who actually believe that the earth was created in seven days cannot possibly think rationally about ecology, because the complexity of the environment--and the global nature of the measures needed to deal with environmental problems--is integrally related to the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. But most people don't live in a world of absolutes, and non-absolutists can cooperate even if they have vastly different ways of analyzing the world.

As I have already said, none of this has anything to to with the validity or invalidity of religion. It has to do with common sense, which tells us that nothing can be accomplished in the way of social change without forging all sorts of unlikely and sometimes uncomfortable alliances.

And, my friends, there are no baseball gods. If there were, the World Series would be opening tonight with my Mets as the National League representative.

Remaining a die-hard baseball fan, by the way, is an utterly irrational act. Being a Mets fan is even crazier.

Arminius,

Good Lord! What a revelation in that article!

So the Rockies are actually a tight-knit Christian mafia, tighter with each other than the Mormon-mafia bodyguards of Howard Hughes were in their day.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to redouble my supplications to the Baseball Gods.

Yikes!

This is not merely the World Series but a titanic cosmic struggle, Armageddon, between the followers of YHWH and the Crucified One (PBUH), and those of Bacchus, the Goddess, Mars, Ishtar, Ahura-Mazda and Sayoshyant (not to mention many others).

I'm running outside right now to leave kegs of Jack Daniels and Hendrick's gin (the best!) for my Golden Calf.

We'll see whose Gods are bigger!

I'm betting on the Red Sox!

I think when Susan writes that "religion, or the absence of religion, has little to do with the willingness of people around the world to face up to this global crisis," she passes judgment on that issue too glibly. Religious faith often minimizes or devalues what a person might directly perceive, or reason to, on their own, and favors instead "knowledge" that comes from above, whether from Church leaders or Sacred Scriptures. There is not the openness to reality, or interest even in reality, or a concept of being directed by one's perceptions of reality, instead of by faith-based directives or hopes. Sam Harris has argued cogently to this point in his Letter to a Christian Nation.

I tend to agree with him that religion and science reflect fundamentally different attitudes toward reality, and valuations of reality. So I think one cannot expect religious people to be motivated by realistic or reality-based considerations to anywhere near the same extent as people with a more secular or scientific attitude.

I think when Susan writes that "religion, or the absence of religion, has little to do with the willingness of people around the world to face up to this global crisis," she passes judgment on that issue too glibly. Religious faith often minimizes or devalues what a person might directly perceive, or reason to, on their own, and favors instead "knowledge" that comes from above, whether from Church leaders or Sacred Scriptures. There is not the openness to reality, or interest even in reality, or a concept of being directed by one's perceptions of reality, instead of by faith-based directives or hopes. Sam Harris has argued cogently to this point in his Letter to a Christian Nation.

I tend to agree with him that religion and science reflect fundamentally different attitudes toward reality, and valuations of reality. So I think one cannot expect religious people to be motivated by realistic or reality-based considerations to anywhere near the same extent as people with a more secular or scientific attitude.

Dear Jihadist -

While I appreciate the gesture of your nominating me as "Best Anti-theist" at On Faith, I can't accept the nomination on faith. You'll need to submit some empirical proof for the nomination. At present, your nomination is merely a hypothesis, not a theory/fact.

:)

I AM SORRY IF THS HAS BEEN POSTED MORE THAN ONCE. It would be a poor lookout if we had to reach agreement on religion, or on at least some religious matters, before we could cooperate on anything else. Most moral propositions can be stated with our without the religious addendum 'God hath commanded it', and we find that most moral and political propositions have both religious and non-religious supporters. It is true that some religious traditions are more specific about what God hath commanded, but if I want something done as a matter of moral principle and someone not of my faith sincerely wants to help me it would be paradoxical - show that I did not give the highest priority to putting my moral principle into effect - if I rejected that help. It is also true that those with different views about religion often suspect each other's sincerity, but that suspicion, like all mere suspicions, can often be overcome in practice. I use the archaic form 'hath' to indicate acceptance that religion is of archaic origin, but it is also true that the first extended and explicit atheist texts, the Letters of Epicurus, go back to the third century BC and show that atheism is older than many popular forms of religion. Atheism like religion can take different moral forms: Epicurus' demands for frugality - he would certainly not have liked SUVs - contrast with Marxist glorification of economic production.

It would be a poor lookout if we had to reach agreement on religion, or on at least some religious matters, before we could cooperate on anything else. Most moral propositions can be stated with our without the religious addendum 'God hath commanded it', and we find that most moral and political propositions have both religious and non-religious supporters. It is true that some religious traditions are more specific about what God hath commanded, but if I want something done as a matter of moral principle and someone not of my faith sincerely wants to help me it would be paradoxical - show that I did not give the highest priority to putting my moral principle into effect - if I rejected that help. It is also true that those with different views about religion often suspect each other's sincerity, but that suspicion, like all mere suspicions, can often be overcome in practice. I use the archaic form 'hath' to indicate acceptance that religion is of archaic origin, but it is also true that the first extended and explicit atheist texts, the Letters of Epicurus, go back to the third century BC and show that atheism is older than many popular forms of religion. Atheism like religion can take different moral forms: Epicurus' demands for frugality - he would certainly not have liked SUVs - contrast with Marxist glorification of economic production.

Although I'am not a biblical scholar, I seem to recall that one of the many concerns the early Christians faced in establishing their religion was to seperate themselves in the popular mind from the diest and pantheiest religions of the Zorasterian, Hellenic and Roman culturals that were beginning to predominate the Middle East and Western Asia at the time of the insipient Church. By proclaiming the belife of the seperation of spirt from the material world ("In it but not of it")the early Church fathers belived that they could create a seperate identity from the pagan religions whose belife held that mankind ought to strive to become closer to nature and the spirts/gods who dwelt there.
This early forced schism between the natural world and the spirtual world later during the Industrial and post-Industrial age seems to have born bitter fruit for the Christian nations, in regards to the almost total disregard (until very recently) for the importance of the peservation of nature and her myriad flora and fuana.
Now in the post-Industrial Age, it seems to me that if the Christian churchs wish to participate in helping to save whats left of our natural resources and not further contribute to the wholesale pollution of the earth, they must come-up with a new paradigm that does not promote the seperation of man's spiritual well being from his/her material needs and obligations.

To that I can add that religion would be the big winner, made legit by association. Religion has nothing to offer so why should religion have anything to say? What real scientist in h/er right mind wants to hear anything a minister and especially a "fundamentalist" one has to say?

Bringing up the question is a sly way of getting missionary-with-foot-in-door. Scientist are probably not the target but the weak minds that would listen to things like, "we're talking to science about that right now" implying religion actually has knowledge. Mays as well revive "Amos and Andy" and bring the King Fish in for advice.

How dumb is religion? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Maybe smart would be a better word? After all, the big money goes to the ones leading the multitudes to hell. Is that dumb or smart? I suppose that all depends on which side of the rail one happens to be, fleecer or fleecee.

Nice article. It's an obvious point, but it isn't mentioned often enough - religious differences simply aren't relevant to our most pressing problems. We tend to define people as extreme exactly when their views, whether motivated by religion or some other foundation, bizarrely intrude and cause them to lose perspective and balance on serious matters such as the environment.

This also goes for political differences. Essentially everyone agrees on what our ultimate objectives should be: justice, prosperity, peace, spread of liberty, democracy, and justice to all people, the end of tyranny, minimization of poverty, meeting at least the minimal needs of survival for all people, healthy people and a healthy planet, end to terrorism, etc.. Though different people and parties have different ideas on how we should work to achieve these aims, the ultimate goals are the same.

In our diverse country, where religious liberty and free speech are justly respected, where our ethnic and historical backgrounds vary so greatly, it's easy to forget how much we share in common. With so much political and financial motivation behind stressing our differences, it's important to be reminded of our unity.

So thank you, Susan Jacoby.

And by the way, I am very tired of catering to the "believers" as if having "no proof that there is no God" makes Beliving in God valid.

This premise is scientifical and logically absurd! At best beliving in God would be a scientific premise (doubtful it could make it to a theorum) that would need to be validated, verified with no contradictions, etc. which even the "true" believers admit can not be done as it is only a belief and no one can "know" God!

This illusion may have some practical psychological benefit, similar to tooth fairies, Great Pumpkin, Santa Claus, etc. An interesting subject for research, why do these latter illusions get dropped but we continue to cling to the God illusion? I suggest it has to do with economic and power benefits that flow to the religios "leaders".

Norrie Hoyt,

I admire the degree of tolerance you put forth to the superstitious crowd when you say
"Religion v. science. Yes, I guess most scientific findings are accepted by most religious people today, except for evolution."

As if the idea of evolution were a minor negligible point without which we atheists might readily succumb to the monsters like Robertson and Hagee and Bush and their ilk. Evolution today is the basis of any scientific thinking. It is not sellable for a few friendly words.

I don't think we should give up the quest for truth, even for the sake of an ephemeral bout of friendliness toward the archaic philosophies of lie.

Christopher, you said:

"The more we come to know, the stronger the things that have turned people to belief in a God become. A universe vaster than anything that could have been imagined until recently. A microcosmic world that is dazzling in its intricacy."

I agree. This prayer, from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, might interest you:

For Knowledge of God’s Creation

Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know
you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

God bless,

Arminius

Norrie,

Baseball again. Here is another article about the Rockies, and is a bit of an eye-opener:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/sports/baseball/23rockies.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/R/Religion%20and%20Belief&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1193246380-eYC4AbHRVcQH1UJhAQUEDw

But who knows? Yes, Beckett will be on the mound tonight for Boston. But the Rockies have defeated Beckett before.

The Gods of Baseball are fickle, and anything can happen. That is the great beauty of the game.

My prediction: if Beckett has a good night, Boston takes game one. After that, hammer and tongs. The legendary Fat Lady will begin tuning up in inning one of game six.

Arminius

Christopher,

Muslims think Christianity, because of the Trinity, is a polytheistic religion.

Is Christianity in fact a regression from monotheistic Judaism and Islam, to a more primitive polytheistic belief system?

I do agree with Norrie that religion does sometimes interfere with science and in a subtler manner our laws on morality. As a rational theist I believe we need to stop doing this. I hope I am rational and is rational and theist even allowed in the same sentence?

It is my belief that science and religion are actually heading to the same end point but coming from two very different starting points. Science may actually one day be the trigger to accelerated spiritual advancement of the human race.

As our scientific knowledge progress I believe it will become accepted that time is fluid and not linear as many today believe. This would certainly leaves most traditional religion in a rather large quandary as it renders then at best incomplete. This will either destroy traditional religion or open up new, forward thinking spirituality that can bask in the wonder of the infinite and take us in a new (better?) direction as a species.

Conversely I think science may also prove that human consciousness extends beyond the physical body which would also be a game changer. Though I still think it causes issues for traditional religion.

Science is one of the greatest gifts we have. If God exists He created science to help us evolve intellectually and perhaps one day it will be used to help us move forward spiritually since we are stuck in a rut right now on the spirituality front. If God does not exist, science still benefits us all if we use it properly. Spirituality is perhaps then reduced to just a way of thinking that help some people reconcile life. Again it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the way we use it.

However until we have enough evidence that suggests God really does exist we need to keep religion on the outside looking in when it comes to the law of the land. Let’s stick with what we know or at least with a model that leaves itself open to change.

I think we would benefit form this proposed science/religion alliance. If nothing else perhaps it gives both sides a better understanding of each other because without understanding how can there be peace?

One parting note… can we all agree that CCNL should leave his commentary on Jihadist until On Faith posts the question. “Should Jihadist be responsible for any potential flaws in Islam”

It is amusing to have people refer to the bible as 2 thousand years old; actually it was compiled from various versions of various reputed texts which were made from oral traditions and scraps of corespondence referring to other texts or corespondence. Then you have various interpretations by various Christian sects in various languages. Finally, you have the Christianized Old Testament using Heaven, Hell, Souls, etc. which have no basis in Judism, the source of the so-called Bible.

I think it would be useful theology for Christians to accept some spiritual responsibility for caring for God's creations; but they seem to prefer the dominion clause which gets interpreted that all of God's creation is for their exploitation!

Any way to get humans to care about anything besides themselves and their small tribal groupings will be a true miracle! Self preservation amy finally elicit some limited cooperation? My solace is that the planet can probably survive our demise and repopulate with a better form of life!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

It is just as inappropriate for you to try to tar Jihadist with all of the horrors perpetrated by Muslims in the world today, as it would be for me to blame a decent Christian person for the worse-than-Auschwitz concentration and death camps of WWII Croatia, operated by the Ustache, the Hitler-allied, Vatican-allied, rabidly Roman Catholic, exterminate-all-the-others regime.

I submit that the faithful and the non can play together very nicely indeed, as long as each accepts that the other's fundamental premise (supernatural "facts" are admissible or they are not) is neither subject to attack, nor is to be asserted as the end of a conversation. I submit that almost no dialogue has to founder on that rule before incredible common ground can be found if both parties are careful. Technically speaking, that would be because, as a matter of metaphysics, it is not possible for humans to know or prove the nature of ultimate reality, we can only hypothesize or not, for what it's worth, or believe or not depending on whether we have been inspired so. It is, to me, never necessary to invoke one's assumptions on the ultimate truth of reality to get through the day, or solve global warming, or anything else for that matter.

Christopher,

If it makes you feel better, I don't believe there is a God and I am not intelligent. Happy Wednesday

"The smarter we get, the more ridiculous religion appears." Huh? The more we come to know, the stronger the things that have turned people to belief in a God become. A universe vaster than anything that could have been imagined until recently. A microcosmic world that is dazzling in its intricacy. Also, our ideas about God have evolved along with the state of our knowledge. We have gone from a fanciful polytheism to monotheism, which makes a great deal more sense.

I am sick and tired of "intelligent" people telling me that there is something wrong with me because I believe in God. I am no worse off than all the "intelligent" people. If I cannot prove that God exists, neither can they disprove it.

Arminius,

Thanks for the baseball article. It's very informative, and told me more than I ever knew before about the Rockies. That greater knowledge will increase my enjoyment of the Series. The article was very nicely written, too.

But, as for saying that I should be very, very afraid, you surely realize that, as a Person of Faith, I have nothing to fear and I do not fear.

The Baseball Gods will surely look after their own, and the Red Sox and I will emerge victorious and unscathed.

If you should be in need of solace tonight, just give me a post and I'll try to help out.

Only about seven hours until it all starts, and eleven till we know the will of the Gods (or at least one-seventh or some other fraction of it).

Good luck!

Wow, The Jihadist must have lost her job investing blood/oil profits!!!

And note again all that verbage and nothing about Iran, the Islamic terror theocracy aka the Third Axis of Evil

And she supposedly is concerned about the environment while Sunnis and Shiites continue their blood letting in Iraq potentialy dragging the rest of the globe into WWIII with their significantly stupid ancient feud about who inherited the sham of Islam, the "religion" of the illiterate, hallucinating, womanizing Arab and his militaristic, anti-women male scribes.

And after giving out awards to many she quickly covered her rear by correctly awarding herself the awards for Islamic wishy wash and Islamic yakety-yak.

But she forgot to award herself the Ostrich Award for not being able to come to grips with the flaws in the founders and foundations of Islam.

Norrie,

You said: "Religion v. science. Yes, I guess most scientific findings are accepted by most religious people today, except for evolution."
My reply: as I said, the Vatican, representing a majority of Christians, has pretty much accepted evolution. Here is what John Paul II said about it:
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. "
Note - the encyclical he mentions is one by Pope Pius XII, who more or less accepted evolution as a necessary evil, without condemning it.

It is the vocal right wing 'Christians', those who get the media viewing, that condemn evolution. Not the majority of us Christians.

As to religion putting roadblocks in the way of science - quite true, aided and abetted by the current clueless bunch in the White House.

Arminius

Arminius,

I'd overlooked the recent posts that I guess you thought were evangelical bashing, not mine.

Religion v. science. Yes, I guess most scientific findings are accepted by most religious people today, except for evolution.

Religious beliefs do obstruct scientific research, though, when they lead to laws prohibiting stem cell research or funding therefor.

Actually, religion more directly obstructs the sound practice of medicine, e.g., Terry Schiavo, late-term abortions, use of morphine to end a horribly painful life, etc.

Norrie,

This is off-topic, about baseball. See this link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/10/24/scoop.wednesday/index.html?bcnn=yes

As a Sox Nation fan, be afraid. Be very afraid!

Go Rockies!

Arminius

Norrie,

I do not include you in the bashers of evangelicals. Sorry if I implied that. You are the soul of reason, not a firebrand.

Arminius

Hi, Norrie,

Regarding religion vs science today: I think the perception of an impassible chasm between the two is more due to media perception than to reality on the ground. Ask an average Christian - not a right wing one - about the environment, and most likely you will receive an answer that he/she is concerned.

Newton, by the way, also dabbled in astrology. He was no saint, but he was a genius.

As for baseball. One of my greatest experiences in watching that wonderful game was seeing Boston come back from that 3 game deficit in 2004 and crushing the Evil Empire. They must have heard me cheering in Boston, all the way from Georgia! But I am a NL fan, so will cheer for the underdogs from the mile-high city. But if the Sox win, that's ok. They are a great team.

Arminius

Arminius,

Is this what you referred to as "evangelical bashing"?:

"It's great if Evangelicals are turning their attention to the environment and global warming. But that's more in the realm of politics and good social policy than science itself."

I didn't intend it that way.

Russell,

Maybe this giant lizard could ride in on the tail of a comet?

Arminius,

That's encouraging to hear. Let's hope that the numbers grow enough to make a dent in what's happening right now.

A lot of evangelical bashing here. I will be the first to agree that Tony Perkins and his like deserve it. But there is a growing awareness among evangelicals about the need to pay attention to the environment. They even have their own website: http://www.creationcare.org/

No, they are not in the majority of evangelicals. But the movement seems to be growing, and they link it with things like human rights, feeding and sheltering the sick and poor. They view a concern for the environment as a duty to be the stewards of God's creation, rather than its looters.

I am not an evangelist - far from it - but I am a believer. And I agree with them on their views as expressed above.

Arminius

Arminius,

Thanks for your post this morning.

Of course you're right about the intertwining of religion and science from the Middle Ages on.

As usual I was being simplistic and setting up an historical false dichotomy.

In today's world, though, I fail to see that organized religion is at all helpful to science - the opposite, in fact.

It's great if Evangelicals are turning their attention to the environment and global warming. But that's more in the realm of politics and good social policy than science itself.

And I don't know if Newton's religious pursuits had any more to do with his great mathematical and scientific achievements than did his role as the Crown's chief agent to combat counterfeiting, including sending the coin-clippers to the gallows.

Did you know that Newton enjoyed acting like Eliot Ness? He personally set up stings and personally interrogated the counterfeiters he caught. And he loved it! Walter Mitty's dreams made real!

In re Manny: You wrote:

"But will the Sox Nation defeat the on-fire Rockies?"

I try to watch every Red Sox game on TV. Other teams are real for me only when they're playing the Sox, so, except for the archfiends of baseball, the Yankees, I don't have much awareness of them.

My son, though, tells me the Rockies will be really, really tough for the Sox. I do know enough about them that I'm wary of their 21-game winning streak and their adaptation to their oxygen-depleted atmosphere.

Would it be illegal for the Sox to get injections of extra red blood cells before they go out there?

Well, we'll see, and we must have faith.

All best wishes to you.

Is it too much to hope for a big giant lizard that has an appetite for evengelicals to come into the world?

We could do a Roman Coliseum theme to it!

Kristie,

Thank you for posting that.

There is research to prove that evangelicals put less priority on environmental issues.

From a Barna Groups study:

"The biggest difference came in environmental issues, where evangelicals dissented by 25 percentage points. Sixty percent of all respondents said addressing environmental issues was "absolutely necessary," while only 35 percent of evangelicals said the same thing."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, agreed saying, "Last on their list is the environment," he added. "So much for the global warming hype. Despite what the media may want to project upon evangelicals, they understand that if we, as a nation, get the spiritual issues right and build strong marriages and families, most of the other problems will be solved in the process."

Read the article here for yourself http://www.christianity.com/11552413/

Russell,

Yes, Jesus Camp is as scary as it sounds. The "better half" watched the extras on the DVD yesterday while I was at work. He said they pissed him off more than the actual documentary...glad I missed that! Many "jaw-drop" moments, but very worth it.

RE:Reasonable's post

I'm not sure if you meant me, but I'll try to clear the muddied water a bit, at least from my perspective. The Christian point of view regarding the environment as presented to the rest of us is scary. Judging from the policies set forth by the current administration regarding the environment, the blatant refusal to accept that global warming is real ("silly" is how I've heard it described by some Evangelicals), and the belief that the world will soon end all lead us activist/anti-religious folks to be more than a little put-off.

To Chris, who asked how I could title an article "Cooperate or Die" and not mention W.H. Auden:

I assume you're referring to Auden's famous line, "We must love one another or die." I love Auden's poetry, but if he's right that we must love one another or die, we're all surely going to die. It is too much to expect large groups of people to love one another; it would seem difficult enough for people to agree to abstain from inflicting violence on one another and to cooperate on goals in their common interest.

The reason why the Soviet Union and the United States didn't use nuclear weapons on each other during the Cold War had nothing to do with love. The nuclear standoff was based on each nation's realization that both would lose in a nuclear war. A similar realization is required for people of different beliefs to collaborate in reining in their selfishness in order to save our common earth.

Rick, Jihadist, Victoria,

I just caught up with your comments of October 21st on Susan's last previous thread.

Thanks very much for them.

Jihadist, you wrote:

"Mr. Norrie Hoyt:

As you are my favourite and most respected grandmaster of wit and wisdom in On Faith threads, I do hope you would go easy on the English of non-native speakers.

"One can disagree with what another said in On Faith, but surely one do know that some are non-native speakers of English and may have learned English as adults. Nor is English the only language learned apart from one's mother tongue.

In spoken and written forums, it is, perhaps, sometimes difficult for grammatically correct native English speakers to understand what non-native speakers of English, including the Dalai Lama, is saying.

"Thank you and best regards

"J"

I agree with you completely, Jihadist.

I felt that I had demeaned myself when I posted the following:

"Anonymous,

"You wrote:

'"Before 1959 tibet is still a slave society.The Dalai Lama's faith is a slavemaster's tool to rule the rest 99% population of tibet .It's not a message of love but a mind hint of bearing your slave life and not trying to struggle.Dalai Lama himself is a slave holder.His birthday gifts included slave's skin and blood."'

"Because of the sentiments you express, and the stilted, learned-from-a-schoolbook English you use, I assume you are actually John Hwang, back in disguise.

"I replied to your earlier propaganda diatribe above, and pointed out that what you wrote there was a total historical lie. Your current post is the same.

"Do you work for the Chinese embassy in Washington?"

My post was insulting and unworthy of me. I went over the line because I felt sure that this poster was a Chinese propagandist, and therefore tied in with the Chinese destruction of Tibet, its people, and its culture.

That was no excuse.

Thanks for catching me up on it.

The distinction between science and faith is simple: disprovable vs. unprovable. The two have nothing to do with each other.

This non- ssue is being exploited by those who have the most to lose from a frank and open discussion of the viability of our demand/growth based economy and its reliance on the continued use of ever-increasing amounts of energy (predominantly from fossil-fuel based sources which they control).

These vested interests are inherently selfish and short-sighted in their goals and strategies and when confronted, mouth such platitudes as "human ingenuity shall overcome," or, my personal, favorite, "humanity will adapt" -- sounds vaguely evolutionary, doesn't it?

The bottom line is that individuals need to start thinking for themselves and reject such obvious manipulation before it is too late. Oops, that's right, it is too late.....

Andrea:

Was Jesus Camp as scary as it sounds? I have yet to watch it, but I want to.

And as for the award......

I'd like to thank the academy......and to let you know that Jesus was in no way responsible for this award.

Welcome to Walmart, get yer sh** and get out!

Have a nice day....

It would be a poor lookout if we had to reach agreement on religion, or on at least some religious matters, before we could cooperate on anything else. Most moral propositions can be stated with our without the religious addendum 'God hath commanded it', and we find that most moral and political propositions have both religious and non-religious supporters. It is true that some religious traditions are more specific about what God hath commanded, but if I want something done as a matter of moral principle and someone not of my faith sincerely wants to help me it would be paradoxical - show that I did not give the highest priority to putting my moral principle into effect - if I rejected that help. It is also true that those with different views about religion often suspect each other's sincerity, but that suspicion, like all mere suspicions, can often be overcome in practice. I use the archaic form 'hath' to indicate acceptance that religion is of archaic origin, but it is also true that the first extended and explicit atheist texts, the Letters of Epicurus, go back to the third century BC and show that atheism is older than many popular forms of religion. Atheism like religion can take different moral forms: Epicurus' demands for frugality - he would certainly not have liked SUVs - contrast with Marxist glorification of economic production.

Initial post statement: "Why wouldn't the world benefit from an alliance between science and those forms of religion that regard the stewardship of the earth as a moral obligation?"

I think the first thing to be understood is that SCIENCE and RELIGION, actually agree, and that those who TRULY hold to God's principle's do "regard the stewardship of the earth". It's only those who refuse to see that they are the same who cause issues, be it the religous person or scientific person. This is what the Bible tells us; Gen 1:26-28 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the EARTH and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”... Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the EARTH and subdue it(THE EARTH); have dominion over the fish of the sea, ... and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” " This verse shows us that GOD gave MANKIND the responsibility of MAINTAINING THE EARTH.

Even when God comes back at the "end time", one of God's main issues is that He will have vengance on those who DESTROYED His EARTH.
Revelation 11:18 "The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should DESTROY those who destroy the EARTH.”"

You see, God created the SCIENCE, thus it's impossible for one who TRULY believes in God to refute the SCIENCE that HE CREATED. (It's kind of like saying, I love Microsoft, but always disagree with and hate Bill Gates. Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same. And so is God and SCIENCE, for HE CREATED ALL and established EVERY SCIENTIFIC method that we mere humans try to figure out.)

Thus we must understand that GOD actually warned MANKIND a few THOUSAND's of years ago about this SCIENTIFIC GLOBAL WARMING matter. Luke 21:25,26 "“And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." We just need to listen to what He said, since He is the CREATOR.
--Job 9: "8 He alone spreads out the heavens,And treads on the waves of the sea;9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south;10 He does great things past finding out,Yes, wonders without number."
--Psalms 104: " 19 He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down."
--Isaiah 51: "15 But I am the LORD your God, Who divided the sea whose waves roared— The LORD of hosts is His name. "

Thus if we truly want to understand SCIENCE, we must first UNDERSTAND the CREATOR of the SCIENCE. Thus the only true alliance, has to EMBRACE the RELIGION/GOD or else they will never understand the science.

The astute observer can see this: Many of the activist/anti religious crowd here have taken Susan's post as a excuse to bash Christians, which is about all many of seem to be able to do. Take the chips off your shoulders, and try to find common ground(there is some) to ensure that the planet's population makes a bona fide attempt to clean up the environment. The venom spewed will only muddy the waters and make it sure you can't get traction on doing so.

Norrie,

Religion and science have been mixing for centuries. A lot of stuff was done in the middle ages by men of the church; even today, the Vatican has accepted the Big Bang as well as evolution. And, of course, Newton was a believer, as was Darwin.

The church of my youth, Episcopal, had a very devout priest who was also a full-time nuclear physicist.

A growing number of evangelical churches here in America are turning away from the religious right's insistence on their platform of bashing only pro-choice, stem cell research, and gays, to following Jesus' message of caring for the poor, the sick, the homeless, and doing something about the environment.

As for Mannie - yup, what a character! And he can hit. But will the Sox Nation defeat the on-fire Rockies?

Jihadist,

Good Lord save us all - I am 'Most Charming Liberal Christian'? As they say in Australia, I am gobstruck! Thanks for making my morning brighter; I am still laughing.

By the way, I really liked your reply to John Donovan.

Keep it coming,

Arminius

SUSAN says : "Embrace secular knowledge" to save the world from environmental disaster.

Yet, she refuses to scream with me at the top her her lungs that "secular knowledge' cannot, by any stretch of the imagination mean "might is right".
It cannot mean "if the 'low-life' attempt to adopt modern technology --- say, (i) generic drugs, (ii) peaceful nuclear energy, (iii) the management of non-renewable fossil fuel resources for the optimal welfare of the population living in the area under whose soil those fossil fuel resources lie, or (iv) a common Asian currency: do these qualify as 'secular knowledge', Susan? --to pull themselves out of poverty, bomb them back to the stone age".

Susan, Susan! Remember Bhopal? Tell American and Western mega-corporations to stop cynically blaming environmental degradation on others, and leave both religion and 'secular knowledge' out of this.

Jihadist,

Ironically, it's the neopagans who are right up there with the scientists on the need to do something about the environment. There'll be no clash between them on that issue.

(Sorry, but I can't see 'carving out mountains to make statues' on the same level as CO2 contributing to global warming, toxins in the rivers and air, or other environmental issues.)

How can you name an article "Cooperate or Die," and not mention W.H. Auden?

You could weep for the billions spent in Iraq instead of on "health care" (AKA socialized medicine) and environmental cleanup. This implies you can't weep for the 25 million people of Iraq struggling mightily to escape the vast "killing field" their country has been for the last 40 years. Your neighbor's house is being attacked by criminals and terrorists and you complain that your tax money spent on the police defending your neighbor would be better used in renovating your entirely-livable house. How "selfless" you are!

Jihadist,

Thanks for the award, it's most appreciated! Life as a wife has been wonderful thus far. We say we've been married for 5 years, it's just legal now and we have better jewelry.

I was still frothing a bit in my last post from having watched "Jesus Camp" with my husband the night before. From what I gather, that's how they feel about the environment. Jesus is coming back and it won't matter if we've destroyed the environment. I don't put too much stock into what they believe, after all, at one point, an evangelical girl was asking Jesus to help her get a strike while at a bowling alley with her family. The ball went in the gutter...wonder what that means?

Susan,

Oil and water don't mix. Together they just make a sloppy mess.

Science and religion don't mix. Together they make a similar mess.

Let science be science.

Let religion be religion.

Let Manny be Manny.*

Don't try to mix the immiscibles. It only leads to trouble and mess that needs cleaning up, to the detriment of all.

***************

*Jihadist,

Manny Ramirez is a leading hitter on the Boston Red Sox. He frequently does things that are inscrutable, freaky, weird, and so on.

When that happens, Boston fans, bereft of a reasonable explanation for this behavior, are reduced to saying: "It's Manny being Manny".

Jihadist,

Good to see your post and thanks for your award, which is much appreciated.

You deserve a really top-class award, not the seven sillies you gave yourself.

You're the best at so many things, though, I don't know what to call it.

Best to you as always.

Jon Donovan.

Nice sensible clear comment,good to read.Keep on making sense.
You too JWest.Common-sense all the way.

The ACGrayling piece is brilliant.Hope nobody misses it.

Everything about god and religion is no more than a matter of opinion.
No matter what anyone says,the fact is nobody knows whether there are gods or not..All that's known is in an old book that folk have fought over and disagreed on for two thousand years,and still no-one knows anything for sure.
A degree in theology is like a doctorate in astrology or witchcraft.Its the study of a particular kind of superstition.
It's my opinion that god is as much a myth as the old Greek and Roman gods were. There's no reason to think that the christian god is anymore real than them.Ditto the muslim allah. Just a fantasy.

Goodness, gracious me! I almost forgot to immodestly and shamelessly give myself awards too! So, (drum rolls).......

Most yakety yak:
- Jihadist

Most "wishy wash" (correctly wishy-washy):
- Jihadist

Most rambling:
- Jihadist

Most worst grammar, spellings mistakes and idiosycrctic use of English:
- Jihadist

Most happily moronic and stubborn believer:
- Jihadist

Most irrational defender of faith:
- Jihadist

Most illogical defender of God
- Jihadist

Seven, count them, seven (7) self-given awards! No less! More than given to other reader-posters of On Faith.

Others are most welcome and free to challenge the above awards I've given myself for themself. I dare you all to claim them. They're all mine - deservedly, jubilantly, ecstatically mine. So there.

Again, happy birthday On Faith.

It has been most educational and pleasurable for me to read the views of panelists and guests writers of various faiths and non-belief, as well as to know the thoughts and feelings on faith from poster-readers of myriad beliefs and non-beliefs. I thank WaPo for this initiative.

Best regards as always
J

Andrea!

Hello again! How's life as a wife, a spouse, a better half?

And yes, why would anyone give a hoot? Let's join the Save the Spotted Owl Society, or better still, Save Our Own Hide Society. We need to prioritise. We have to save ourselves first before we can save others and the world.

Them crocodiles and sharks survived the dinosaurs and perhaps will survive homo sapiens. No surprise there, as a particular specie of crocs and sharks easily gobble up others in politics and business. So, crocs and sharks will survive through Armageddon, but not homo sapiens.

Way, way, way off topic, I read somewhere Ms. Quinn wrote that it will be about a year since On Faith was started. Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on environment awareness and action. So, let us do our our own awards as a Birthday gift to "On Faith" on the occassion of its first birtday:

THE FIRST ANNUAL AWARDS FOR READER-POSTERS OF "ON FAITH" 2007

Prizes : free continued access to On Faith until award winners wants to stop or On Faith stop.

So.........the categories and nominees for "Most" and "Best" are..... (suspenseful drum-rolls):

Best Wit:
- Norrie Hoyt

Best Anti-Theist:
- Mr. Mark

Most Long Handle:
- Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Most Repetitive:
- Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Best Crossanized Christian:
- Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Best Catholic of Reality:
- Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Most Laid Back Atheists:
- Russell D
- Andrea

Most Consistently Calm Secular Humanist:
- E Favorite

Best Pastafatarian and evolutionary biologist:
- Maurie Beck

Most Congenial Group of Believers:
- Wiccans/Pagans (Wiccan, Paganplace, Terra Gazelle, Priver, Athena, Lepidopteryx)

Most patient and kind Muslim:
- Victoria

"Best" "islamics" "expert":
- Frank Collins

Most "versed" on the Prophet's private life:
- Ross

Best literary and style critic:
- Henry James

Best gay Buddhist:
- Henry James

Most artistic gay atheist:
- A Hermit

Best atheist poet
- Gregory

Best Christian Humanist:
- Viejita del Oeste

Best Catholic defenders:
- Mary Cunningham
- Speed 123

Best traditional believers:
- Canyon Shearer
- Pablo
- Peter Huff

Best promoter and reminder of Satan the Evil One:
- BGone

Most Charming Liberal Christian:
- Arminius

--------------------------------------------------

The awards (judging by reader-posters' response) for On Faith Panelists and topics, are..........(suspenseful drum rolls again):

Most controversial topics:
- Islam, Muslims, Jerry Falwell, Mother Teresa

Most non-controvesial panelist:
- The Baroness

Most controversial panelists:
- Cal Thomas, Stevens-Arroyo, Chuck Colson, Sam Harris, Susan Jacoby

Most infuriating panelists:
- Cal Thomas, Chuck Colson

Most exasperating panelists:
- Cal Thomas, Chuck Colson

Most consistently best panelist/s:
???????????????????

Most wild and wooly panelist/s:
- ?????????????????

Have fun adding to, deleting and/or editing the above lists before submitting it to Mr. Meacham and Ms. Quinn for them to present the awards in whatever form.

I'm going off "on the road" again and won't see some irate posts saying I'm hijacking this thread or going way, way, way off topic here. So, I'm off flacks coming my way:)

But hey, let us do something without WaPo (Meacham and Quinn) asking us on the first anniversary of On Faith.

HAPPY Ist BIRTHDAY "ON FAITH"
(Whatever actual date it is on)
Many happy returns. The best is yet to come.

And congratulations Mr. Meacham and Ms. Quinn for starting "On Faith" for whatever official and unofficial reasons. :)

Best regards as ever.
J

I'm sorry for all the bad spelling and mistakes. I hit post before preview. My bad.

The evangelicals just help a big pow-wow in DC to talk to all the republican presidential candidates and the environment was not on their agenda. Controlling people lives was. Who will help them turn this country into a theocracy was the main focus of this get together. With every main issue that arises further divides us a nation and as a people. I have no faith that religious leader will take up the call to save our planet. They are to busy trying to take it over. Plus with a god will provide everything mentality so there can't be a problem we may just be doomed. The evangelical groups are the richest they have ever been so they just may be able to buy their own presidential candidate and there goes the neighborhood. Now put this all together with ring-wing talk show lunatics and its not going to look good for the ol blue marble. The rain forest is experiencing a drought that may be irreversible and we are losing ice sheets the size of Florida on a weekly basis. Even if they are up to their hineys in water and high temperatures they still won't believe in global warming. It is a shame we have been an industrialized world for less than two hundred years and we destroyed the planet. Yes there are a few christians that care, but they don't have any money or influence. Our planet is going through a major shifts in the magnetic poles. The ozone holes is the biggest its ever been and droughts conditions all over the world and floods in other parts. Like everything else throughout history religion will play a major part in the destruction of this planet. If it can be messed up religion will find a way to really mess it up good.

The comments so far don't seem to relate to Susan's main article.
Maybe it's because the environment has nothing to do with the current passion amongst atheists to get religious people to put aside "childish" thoughts about God,and life-after-death;and face reality.

You know what reality is? Reality is that Jesus is soon to return to planet Earth,at which time all Hell will break loose,Christians will be whisked off to Heaven and non-Christians will be sent down into the burning fires of Hell for ever and ever and ever. Man it's going to look so cool!

So why bother about the environment? God has His own plans for it. Maybe by trying to change things we are interfering with God's plan.Maybe we are supposed to mess up the planet.Maybe it is written somewhere,and this is how it plays out.
We should carry on as usual,and just enjoy watching God at work.

A.C.Grayling.
From the Daily Telegraph,UK.26/03/07.

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a startling one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.

But, why would the religious (evangelicals in particular) give a hoot about saving the environment? The planet isn't getting any warmer. Ok, maybe by only .06*, but whatever. Plus, Jesus is coming back soon anyway. Why bother? This "protect the environment" stuff is just silly.*

*Please note:not my actual view.

Mr. John Donovan

That was an interesting post you addressed to Ms. Susan Jacoby - globalisation of information, consumerism of goods and ideas, and the consequent end of religion due to knowledge and nary a sentence on the environment that Ms. Jacoby raised in her essay.

Francis Fukuyama wrote an excitable and jubilant book, "The End of History and the Last Man", after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was wrong.

Not taking religious thinking seriously and the survival of religion is also perhaps is a premature articulation. When it comes to religion, believers are like five blind men and an elephant, even for those of the same faith. It is their constant debates and discords that engages communities of believers and sustain religion over the ages.

There is not a chance that this century will be religion's last. Rather, there may be further rise of religions, fragmentations of current religions into school of thoughts, denominations and sects. In Nigeria, there is a hybrid of Islam and Christianity adhered to by some Nigerians. Not acceptable by orthodox Christians and Muslims, but there they are. Arthur C Clarke would be smiling as he did write about a group called Chrislam in one of his short stories.

Access to information via TV and the Internet does not necessarily makes one smarter. One can have access to everything and still limit oneself to something one is comfortable with, like or care for. It is highly unlikely that the Taliban will tune in to hear what US televengalicals have to say on religion.

As for man will at last be "too" literate and "too" knowledgeable for religion after having easy access to all those glitzy multimedia and ICT toys, as well as print media and books, which area of knowledge and literacy? The latest computers and computer software? On jazz? On Tom Cruise's movies, wives and girlfriends? Chances are, one is more interested to get literate and knowlegeable in what one loves in one's free time.

And what has it all got to do with the environment? Giving everyone a computer, a TV, a car would create more garbage to disposed of and clutter the environment if not processed or recycled properly, no?

Not everyone in Africa, Asia, Latin America or even in the west can read, have access to newspapers, TV or the Internet. Nor do millions have running water and electricity much less at least two TV, two computers and two cars in every home. Or a chicken in every pot every day.

In developing countries, villages are extremely clean as there is no piling of rubbish of disposed manufactured packages, electical equipment, vehicles. Perhaps they are electical and mechanical conveniences poor and relatively ignorant of Voltaire and never read "The Silent Spring" compared to the fortunate ones, but no one can accuse them of being the primary cause of environmental degradation due to excessive and indulgent consumerism.

And how can one be really certain that print and electronic media and the Internet not continue to spread further and faster to more people, "religious superstition", bigotry and hatred based on creed and colour globally?

ICT as tools to disseminate information and knowledge is a double edged sword. All fighting for attention and influence in the competitive marketplace of ideas knows that already.

We will forever be in the "grey ages" if we are uncertain of our own personal ethics and values and dont' have the spine to stand up against what is unethical and wrong and to do the right thing for us and future generations - no matter how smart we think we are, no matter the amount of knowledge and information we have access to, regardless of whether we believe in God or otherwise, regardless of whether we consider religion as a poison or a balm.

So, what do you think of Ms. Jacoby's call for all believers and non-believers to put aside for a while, whatever they think of each other, and to come together on the environment? We already know too well what non-believers think of believers. We want to know what you think on the environment - a real issue or an overhyped and overstated one?

Thank you and best regards

J

Susan;
Interesting article,but I don't see religious people as being any different from the rest of us when it comes to the environment. It effects us all.
I see religious differences,however,as an equally difficult problem,and just as dangerous.
Being an optimist, I like to think this century will be religion's last.The smarter we get,the more ridiculous religion appears.
We have access to information in this modern era,that our ancestors could only dream of.
Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning,not everybody could read,electricity was in few homes,automobiles were happening,and a whole new world was just taking off,leaving the darker ages behind for ever.
Now we have it all;computers,the net,TV and radio,CDs,DVDs,newspapers,magazines,books,and a greater knowledge of the world,and a greater mastery of science and technology than the most optimistic could never have predicted.
We are becoming too literate and too knowledgeable to take religious thinking seriously,for too much longer. More and more people are having second thoughts about the irrationality of it all,and,since 9/11 we see how terribly dangerous it is too.
As more and more people get more education than ever before,and literacy levels rise,and computer and internet access increases worldwide,religious superstition would seem to be a commodity increasingly unreal,and irrelevant; a relic of our weird and superstitious past.

Drew:

Thanks for sharing on what Voltaire said. So, he's not a brand of hair-dryer after all.

I suppose it is a capital idea for us to stop believing in the "Bigdaddy" up in the sky just so we can clear up the litter of stone statues of Apollo, Zeus, Hathor, Isis, etc. in temples here and there to save gawking tourists from tripping, and archeologists and historians from pondering and arguing among themselves.

Carving out stones from mountains to create statues and temples to these gods are the first steps of environmental degradation, exploitation of labour/forced labour, wars to pillage for slaves and wealth on one hand; and creation of magnificently hubristic works of art and architecture on the other hand. Greatness and great art has a human and material price, no? And environmental price too for mountains that are scourged for rocks and forever scarred. All for art's sake. Or religion depending on one's perspective.

Oh yes, I am happily "fearful, infantile, desperate and deluded" of course. What is it to anyone?

Ms. Susan Jacoby:

You stated "..why should you care if I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If you believe in an afterlife and I don't,...."

Jesus rising from the dead has nothing to do with the state of the environment now. Unless one surmises that there was environment degradation when that happened.

Like most believers, I don't care for the political affiliations, sexual inclinations or religious beliefs of anyone who cared for the environment.

I suppose I should care as much as atheists do when they call me "idiotic" for believing in God, and they are called "infidel" for not believing in God. But I'll happily call them "unbelievers" if they don't believe that enviromental degradation is an issue.

Nor do I think believers go around telling like-minded people on the environment who happened to be atheists, "I don't care that you're going to hell and be roasted there for all eternity for not believing in God, as long as you're willing to work with me on the environment."

How can anyone not agree that it is our joint responsibility to take care of Mother Earth, Spaceship Earth as a moral and a practical necessity? There is really no question about the incompatibility of science and religion on the environment.

It is not a just a secular issue, but truly a temporal one for believers of many faiths. All religious texts made extensive references to nature and other lifeforms on earth that are to be respected and/or to be used prudently by man. Maintaining the environmental balance is a spiritual, moral and ethical quest for all that requires a scientific approach and solution for the sustainability of earth and viability of our survival as a human race.

Some scientists now assert that the sun, the life sustainer on earth, is responsible for global warming. Perhaps, but we aided and abetted in hastening the dismaying environmental state of the world through the rape and pillage of equitorial and tropical forests for logs or agriculture purposes. Not to mention the short-sighted attitude and selfish mind-set already stated in your essay on some practical measures.

Now we have increasing desertification of sub-Sahara Africa. We have rising sea water level that will eventually see several island states disappear (including Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Maldives). We are witnessing deltas and river basins now cultivated with rice incrementally be lost forever to the sea in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand among others. And there the ozone hole of the Antartica.

(By the way, the United States and some other countries, including Australia, came up with an alternate pact outside of the Kyoto Protocol. Some wags incorrectly call it the Coal Pact countries.)

On war and religous violence, one really should not generalise them. Religious violence can be isolated and one off. It can be a full blown war of attrition by its guerilla tactics. It can also be motivated by ethnic and cultural rights. But violence said to be caused by religion are mostly against states and third parties with using mostly small arms, or home made bombs, or low grade rockets/missiles provided by third parties.

Only wars undertaken by states are truly capable of destroying the environment which takes years to recover. States can afford landmines, cluster bombs, atom bombs, nuclear bombs, and warships and planes to drop those. More damage done by states than any rag tag group in times of armed conflicts and wars. Afghanistan and Iraq are current examples on environmental and infrastructure wreckages. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are past examples on the devastating impact of the atom bombs on the environment (both man-made and natural) and people.

Wars are more profitable for the military-industrial complex, but converting to environment friendly vehicles and machineries and products are not and expensive for the affected industries to convert - e.g. cars that use biofuel.

In sustaining the environment, there's also a catch for developing countries. For example, some without oil to power their econnomy (and oil price can be unpredictably expensive) may seek to build hydro-electric dams - deemed clean power and more reliable.

Environmental groups do object to dams being build as being destructive to the eco-system as wildlife, flora and fuana in the designated area are deprived of their habitat and possibly lost forever. Mini-dams are seen to be the answer for some over massive dams. Solar power, wind power are other alternatives that don't seem to efficiently as yet. Biofuel as a viable possiblity is just getting started.

There's still eco-terrorism. And illegal logging. And forest burning to clear off land quickly and cheaply for plantations and other agriculure uses. Their impact is already well known. All these are still going on, but some contend that plantations of oil palm and rubber trees and replanting are options that do provide the needed green canopy for earth. Never mind animals and natural plants are direly affected.

So, the universe, galaxies, sun, earth and man are brought into being and given life in a chain of events beginning with the Singularity. And yet, and of course, man is seemingly either immoral, amoral or irresponsible, or all three, in not having individual concern for this earth. Nor do we really take joint responsibility and concerted collective action to care for this insignificant speck of cosmic dust in the universe which we live on and call earth.

We are, after all, temporary tenants, as individuals and as a specie, of this earth that belong to God and to us by consent of God as the descendants of Adam, the Vice-Regent of God on Earth, to live here and take care of earth. Oh yes, for atheists/scientists, we inherit the earth from dinosaurs as accidents of nature, evolution, natural selection of specie and all that. Either way, Satan and God has nothing to do with what we did to earth's environment.

Environmental degradation is a creeping Armageddon, the worst kind of the end of the world for man. We are aware of what is happening, why, have the ways and means to address it, but not the collective genuine will, and let it happen anyway. For shame.

Thank you and best regards

Peace be with you.

J

The default position on the god question has to be that there is no god.
Surely it is that simple and that straightforward.
Some say there is a god,I say where?
It would seem that god is either a metaphor,a hypothesis,a pipe dream,or a delusion.
There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that any god ever existed,anywhere anytime,outside of our imaginations;while at the same we know there's no limit to what our imaginations conjure up for us all the time.(Apollo,Zeus,Thor,Krishna,Amun,Balder,Wotan Isis,etc,ad infinitum).

The obvious conclusion is that the current god too is made up,like all the others. As Voltaire famously said,"If there were no god,the people would have to invent one".
Actually,we've invented hundreds of them.it's what we do.
The people need a god,so they invent one; always have and always will. The cosmos and existence are great puzzles which we may never solve.In lieu of a solution,we pretend there's a Bigdaddy in the sky who made everything,and who loves us and will assure us that we will never die. A comforting,but infantile fairy story,which is believed by only the fearful,the desperate,and the deluded.
And it certainly helps to be indoctrinated when you are a little child;when there's no option but to believe whatever the grownups tell you;especially when it's reinforced by the people in your community. Whether true or not you will grow up believe it is true.