| |
| Religion hampering efforts to save environments? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| am_I_doin'_it_rite |
 Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:54 am Post subject: Religion hampering efforts to save environments? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
Religious people (especially those that interpret everything literally) seem quite indifferent when it comes to environmental issues and the need for action to solve them. A lot of the pressing environmental issues today demand momentous action, otherwise we will cross a threshold of no return where technology could not save us in time. Not to mention that even today the world's resources are being depleted faster than they naturally replenish. This coupled with almost runaway/disproportionate population growths in developing countries we would need more than one Earth to meet ample needs if things keep going as they are.
How does religion play into this? Well I've been thinking on this issue a bit and I have come to a conclusion, if you will bear with me. A few hours ago I remembered a evangelical sermon that I watched over YouTube (can't remember its name and don't ask me why I was watching it in the first place) and it was basically a guy rambling on about how global warming and resource depletion were all BS because the Bible clearly states that God will give us everything we need. I was pretty much, "Wat? True story?" And, lo, behold:
http://bible.cc/philippians/4-19.htm
+
http://bible.cc/romans/8-32.htm
The only literal interpretation I can gather from that is simply this: If god gave us his son then he will give everything else, because nothing is more precious than his son.
This may be only Bible related, however since Christianity is the most dominant religion out there what they believe really makes a difference, because their beliefs might dissuade them from the necessary actions needed simply based on the fact that their belief tells them that the problem does not exist in the first place, or that god will fix it or give it to us (I do believe that Islam and Judaism share a view that is in common, knowing their history).
I realize that there will be religious people who do acknowledge these issues and press for action, and the likely-hood of them being here and telling me that my conclusion is BS based on the fact that they are here is higher than those who don't. But please consider that not all billions who are Christian or whatever have the privilege of a decent education and awareness of the world (plus internet), and that the word of the bible (as sad as it may be) is the extent of their education. Or if you can't read and your spiritual guide (pastor, father, etc...) tells you god will take care of everything as long as you have faith.
I feel like there would be more pressure on governments and corporations if people were more united in their worries for the environment, and it is my conclusion that religious beliefs (but on of many) play a big part undermining efforts for change, and since they are the majority, greatly so.
- Discuss |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| loftmarcell |
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:10 am Post subject: Re: Religion hampering efforts to save environments? |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 111
|
| am_I_doin'_it_rite wrote: |
Religious people (especially those that interpret everything literally) seem quite indifferent when it comes to environmental issues and the need for action to solve them. A lot of the pressing environmental issues today demand momentous action, otherwise we will cross a threshold of no return where technology could not save us in time. Not to mention that even today the world's resources are being depleted faster than they naturally replenish. This coupled with almost runaway/disproportionate population growths in developing countries we would need more than one Earth to meet ample needs if things keep going as they are.
How does religion play into this? Well I've been thinking on this issue a bit and I have come to a conclusion, if you will bear with me. A few hours ago I remembered a evangelical sermon that I watched over YouTube (can't remember its name and don't ask me why I was watching it in the first place) and it was basically a guy rambling on about how global warming and resource depletion were all BS because the Bible clearly states that God will give us everything we need. I was pretty much, "Wat? True story?" And, lo, behold:
http://bible.cc/philippians/4-19.htm
+
http://bible.cc/romans/8-32.htm
The only literal interpretation I can gather from that is simply this: If god gave us his son then he will give everything else, because nothing is more precious than his son.
This may be only Bible related, however since Christianity is the most dominant religion out there what they believe really makes a difference, because their beliefs might dissuade them from the necessary actions needed simply based on the fact that their belief tells them that the problem does not exist in the first place, or that god will fix it or give it to us (I do believe that Islam and Judaism share a view that is in common, knowing their history).
I realize that there will be religious people who do acknowledge these issues and press for action, and the likely-hood of them being here and telling me that my conclusion is BS based on the fact that they are here is higher than those who don't. But please consider that not all billions who are Christian or whatever have the privilege of a decent education and awareness of the world (plus internet), and that the word of the bible (as sad as it may be) is the extent of their education. Or if you can't read and your spiritual guide (pastor, father, etc...) tells you god will take care of everything as long as you have faith.
I feel like there would be more pressure on governments and corporations if people were more united in their worries for the environment, and it is my conclusion that religious beliefs (but on of many) play a big part undermining efforts for change, and since they are the majority, greatly so.
- Discuss |
Actually I recall one prominent atheistic scientist conceding that the world faces such a dire circumstance that he is okay with working with a current mood amongst theists that they have to get together and save god's creation.
Might have heard it here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2803672.htm
Charles Birch, the Australian biologist, ecologist and theologian, passed away December last year at the age of 91. The American ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, described him as "Australia's most distinguished single scientist". His work with the Council of Churches led to a breakthrough in ecological sustainability and in 1990 he won the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. His way of thinking influenced many prominent Australians. This is a discussion about Charles Birch and the legacy he leaves behind.
Frankly I don't think the current crisis can be relegated to a mere issue of anti/theological perspective. Just as there are theists who may think god is some sort of omnipotent vending machine more than eager to sustain our stupidity, there are some gross materialists who say there is no need to curb our stupidity since science has the means to solve any problem no matter how tight the fix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
I count three religious beliefs detrimental to good long-term planning: Firstly, the belief that this corporeal world is but one shabby & dispensable plane of existence. Secondly, the already mentioned belief that "it's gonna be alright" e.g. God will take care or it; or, want and suffering are all in the mind, and the world is in fact perfect. Thirdly, and not necessarily exclusive of the second, the belief that prophesies of Armageddon are coming true - these people may actually hope Israel and neighbours spiral into thermonuclear war, or hope that fires and floods ravage the Earth, because these signs confirm belief and precede divine intervention.
On the other hand, beliefs are as complex, changeable, and delusional as the people who live them. So they may rationalize good too: the Green Bible .
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| am_I_doin'_it_rite |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
So the majority of the world, inflicted by poverty, does not suffer from fundamentalist and/or extremist views and interpretations of their religion? It is common that when the level of education and living standards improve so does amount of people believing in outdated living instructions. Sadly most of the world that is today lives in a world much like the dark ages. Religion prospers in the poorest areas of the world, solely on the basis that a better life awaits you beyond the complete crap that it is now.
How can there be environmental reforms when many people refuse to believe in the issues because god will fix it, or it doesn't matter anyway because the world is gonna end in our life time? It's not feasible for industrialized countries to keep going as they are, nor is it feasible for developing countries to industrialize themselves as we did; there is simply not enough to go around.
I'm not saying religion is solely to blame, but it is one of the factors. A large one at that since there are many people that have literal interpretations of religious text.
I'm sorry, but some unheard of guy in Australia and the Green Bible? Stuff like that caters to a minority. Yes they may rationalize good, but you only see things like this in industrialized countries . I just wish there was some sort of real survey that can show whether there is a correlation between awareness of environmental issues and belief in religion (most likely it will be within industrialized countries so a survey like this may even be skewed from the world-wide reality). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| loftmarcell |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 111
|
| am_I_doin'_it_rite wrote: |
| So the majority of the world, inflicted by poverty, does not suffer from fundamentalist and/or extremist views and interpretations of their religion? |
generally they suffer from poverty, which simply menas they can't afford to be green
| Quote: |
It is common that when the level of education and living standards improve so does amount of people believing in outdated living instructions. Sadly most of the world that is today lives in a world much like the dark ages. Religion prospers in the poorest areas of the world, solely on the basis that a better life awaits you beyond the complete crap that it is now. |
actually there are plenty of arguments for modern life being complete crap
| Quote: |
How can there be environmental reforms when many people refuse to believe in the issues because god will fix it, or it doesn't matter anyway because the world is gonna end in our life time? |
Or alternatively, how can there be environmental reforms when people have such a resolute determination to continue with an industrial economy based on exponential consumption with the faith that science can solve the hardest fix?
| Quote: |
It's not feasible for industrialized countries to keep going as they are, nor is it feasible for developing countries to industrialize themselves as we did; there is simply not enough to go around. |
So what do you propose?
I mean do you expect the poorer countries to simply accept that they are destined to remain poor because the first world has screwed the environment in such a fashion that prohibits them from becoming industrial?
| Quote: |
I'm not saying religion is solely to blame, but it is one of the factors. A large one at that since there are many people that have literal interpretations of religious text. |
I think that you are simply using the environmental crisis as an excuse to lend weight to the chip you have on your shoulder.
The large contributor are persons with degrees in finance (which basically boils down to a belief in unlimited consumption)
| Quote: |
| I'm sorry, but some unheard of guy in Australia and the Green Bible? |
What is unheard of is the information you are using to back your claims that religion is synonymous with the notion of it being ok to trash the world.
| Quote: |
| Stuff like that caters to a minority. |
Then perhaps you should just come out and throw on the table exactly what you are citing for a "majority"
| Quote: |
| Yes they may rationalize good, but you only see things like this in industrialized countries . |
or, as the opposite to your tentative argument goes, "yes, you may rationalize theism as bad ..."
| Quote: |
| I just wish there was some sort of real survey that can show whether there is a correlation between awareness of environmental issues and belief in religion (most likely it will be within industrialized countries so a survey like this may even be skewed from the world-wide reality). |
I just wish you would speak straightly about what would constitute a data point for a correlation between environmental awareness and religious belief.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 6193
Location: Scotland
|
loft marcell,
are you disputing the suggestion that some fundamentalist Christian perspectives may encourage a disregard for environmental issues? This seems a reasonable postulate. It matches observations I have made. All am_I_doin_it_rite is asking is how extensive is this influence of religion on attitudes to environmental issues. Isn't that a reasonable thing to ask?
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
I wonder if religious people go out to eat as much as non religious people
and if religious people tend to have more family dinners than non religious people
you can save resources by cooking for a group, rather than just feeding yourself
also if you are living alone, you are paying for heating/cooling/hot water, just for yourself, wheras if you are living with others you will save some resources than if you each had your own house with heating/cooling/hot water
same goes for telivision, computers, radios, video games and even lighting
if you are sharing a telivision with someone, then you are using half the electricity than if you each had your own telivision, not to mention the materials used to manufacture, and the energy used to transport the telivision to where it was purchased. This same goes for all the things listed above and many more.
Sharing is one of the best ways to lessen one's impact on the world.
So I'm curious as to whether there are any significant differences in the amount that religious vs nonreligious people share, and if there is a significant difference amongst the variety of different religious points of view as well. Since not all religions are the same.
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| am_I_doin'_it_rite |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
| loftmarcell wrote: |
generally they suffer from poverty, which simply menas they can't afford to be green |
No it does not only mean that can't afford to be green. They can't afford to be many things, which coincidentally are offered as rewards in the afterlife. Besides you missed my point there somewhat. There have been numerous studies showing the correlation between poverty and religious activity/growth. If you read the two passages I provided from the Bible it is easy to see that if one interprets literally (which most uneducated people do) then it causes indifference; they simply don't care about the problems in the world.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| actually there are plenty of arguments for modern life being complete crap |
Modern life is not crap. You do not know what a crap life is. Not until you've truly seen how people live elsewhere in the world. And if you for one second think that I am saying that religion makes your life crap you couldn't be more wrong.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| Or alternatively, how can there be environmental reforms when people have such a resolute determination to continue with an industrial economy based on exponential consumption with the faith that science can solve the hardest fix? |
I'm quite sure I made it clear that religion is not the only culprit. Environmental issues are not handled due to many reasons, all I'm saying is that religion may be one of them, and possibly a large one too considering the capacity of religion.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| So what do you propose? I mean do you expect the poorer countries to simply accept that they are destined to remain poor because the first world has screwed the environment in such a fashion that prohibits them from becoming industrial? |
Did I make thread called, "How to fix the environment from religious obstruction."? No I did not, however you make a valid point which I am aware of. The recent Copenhagen convention was a failure because of such perspectives. Fast developing countries like China and India would not accept same standards as already industrialized areas like Western EU.
I completely agree that these countries got to where they are because they did not know and did not care for the cost. Now we are burdened with this knowledge. Even though it is unfair, the greatest tragedy would be taking away the future. Even now China is realizing its mistake too far. Its rapid industrialization without environmental control is costing a chunk of the annual GDP due to rising health problems.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
I think that you are simply using the environmental crisis as an excuse to lend weight to the chip you have on your shoulder.
The large contributor are persons with degrees in finance (which basically boils down to a belief in unlimited consumption) |
What is your problem. I'm asking for a discussion and I get a flame? I am aware of these things. The topic here is the impact of religion, not who does or did the most. You seem extremely defensive.[/quote]
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| What is unheard of is the information you are using to back your claims that religion is synonymous with the notion of it being ok to trash the world. |
I did not say that. Stop twisting my words. I said it causes indifference, based on the fact that scripture pretty much tells you that god will provide everything we need, aka infinite resources.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| Then perhaps you should just come out and throw on the table exactly what you are citing for a "majority". |
The majority of the world, if you have even bothered to travel outside your own town (I have been to Eastern Europe, Russia, Middle East, India, China, Sub Saharan Africa and Mozambique). I have personally seen what the world is like outside the comfort zone. The majority of the world is extremely poor, and these people readily accept superstitions and religious texts literally. Religion plays a major role in these people's lives, and it tells them how to live.[/quote]
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| or, as the opposite to your tentative argument goes, "yes, you may rationalize theism as bad ..." |
You are making this personal... which it is not.
| loftmarcell wrote: |
| I just wish you would speak straightly about what would constitute a data point for a correlation between environmental awareness and religious belief. |
I think I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| loftmarcell |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 111
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
loft marcell,
are you disputing the suggestion that some fundamentalist Christian perspectives may encourage a disregard for environmental issues? This seems a reasonable postulate. It matches observations I have made. All am_I_doin_it_rite is asking is how extensive is this influence of religion on attitudes to environmental issues. Isn't that a reasonable thing to ask? |
I am disputing that it is a major or large contributor
eg
I'm not saying religion is solely to blame, but it is one of the factors. A large one at that since there are many people that have literal interpretations of religious text.
IOW he is not asking how extensive it is ... rather he is already assuming that.
What I am asking is what body of work he is basing this assumption on.
At the moment, all it appears he is doing is offering a possible rationalization of how theism can be interpreted to justify environmental destruction. This is not very effective since practically any view point can be rationalized in the same manner (for instance persons can shirk responsibility on the strength of the conviction that there is no problem too big for science top solve)
For me, there is a real need to survey the social habits that underpin the environmental crisis and I find the attempt to relegate the subject to an anti/theological perspective akin to Nero's fiddling while Rome burned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| loftmarcell |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 111
|
| marcusclayman wrote: |
I wonder if religious people go out to eat as much as non religious people
and if religious people tend to have more family dinners than non religious people
you can save resources by cooking for a group, rather than just feeding yourself
also if you are living alone, you are paying for heating/cooling/hot water, just for yourself, wheras if you are living with others you will save some resources than if you each had your own house with heating/cooling/hot water
same goes for telivision, computers, radios, video games and even lighting
if you are sharing a telivision with someone, then you are using half the electricity than if you each had your own telivision, not to mention the materials used to manufacture, and the energy used to transport the telivision to where it was purchased. This same goes for all the things listed above and many more.
Sharing is one of the best ways to lessen one's impact on the world.
So I'm curious as to whether there are any significant differences in the amount that religious vs nonreligious people share, and if there is a significant difference amongst the variety of different religious points of view as well. Since not all religions are the same. |
How about divorce?
Study: Single households consume lots more per capita than married ones
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22086806/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
Well, considering that religious people get divorced more often than non-religious people, your argument sort of fails.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
| Quote: |
The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians.
<...>
The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.
Barna isn't the only group to arrive at these numbers. Other researchers have also found that conservative Protestants get divorced more often than other groups, even more often than "mainline" Protestants. The fact that atheists and agnostics divorce less often than other religious groups was, however, surprising to many.
<...>
The difference in divorce rates is particularly interesting given the fact that the Christians getting divorced in the highest numbers are among the same Christians who are most likely to raise an alarm about the state of marriage in society. They also tend to be the same Christians who want to deny gays the right to marry on the assumption that gay marriage is a "threat" to the institution of marriage. If marriage is in any danger in America, perhaps the threat comes from the unstable marriages of conservative Christians, not the relationships of gays or the marriages of godless atheists. |
Specific to the thread topic, a really short write-up here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/environment.html
| Quote: |
What's so important about the potentially powerful influence of conservative evangelical Christians on environmental issues, especially global warming? For years, many of these evangelicals have been charging environmentalists-and those progressive Christians who support environmentalism-with idolatry for lavishing worship on "God's creation" rather than God. Moreover, they have been skeptical, if not downright hostile, toward government-mandated protection of the environment.
So as President Bush early in his administration initiated efforts to roll back a slew of federal environmental regulations-including safeguards on clean air and water and protections against commercial logging and drilling on public lands, among others-and withdrew American support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming, he knew he could count on conservative evangelicals to remain firmly in his corner. |
And... this being a science site... Here is an AMAZING write-up which appeared in the journal Science in 1967 (Science 155(3767):1203-1207, 1967) on this very topic:
http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/destiny/reading/HistoricalRootsofEcologicCrisis-Science-v155p1203-1967.pdf
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
Divorce rates are misleading because often non-religious don't marry in the first place.
I think it's fair to assume the most religious people will be most intent on legal marriage and traditional family lifestyle. They will spend accordingly. On the other hand they'll have more children.
I agree with marcusclayman's suggestion that environmental footprint of non-religious may be larger. A materialist may be wedded to consumer lifestyle, for lack of other purpose. One embodiment of this you can see in the Canadian habit of vacationing to tropical countries every winter. These are comfortable, relatively irreligious middle classes; the same people who spend more on groceries and dining out in a month than poor people spend in a year.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2246
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Divorce rates are misleading because often non-religious don't marry in the first place. |
Is there any data that supports that non-religious marry at rates less than religious?
| Quote: |
| I think it's fair to assume the most religious people will be most intent on legal marriage and traditional family lifestyle. |
Why would this be a fair assumption? I'm not sure I follow.
_________________
A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inow |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Divorce rates are misleading because often non-religious don't marry in the first place. |
What? I'd like to see you show some evidence on that, as I wholly disagree and sense that you've just pulled that out of your anus.
| Pong wrote: |
| I think it's fair to assume the most religious people will be most intent on legal marriage and traditional family lifestyle. They will spend accordingly. On the other hand they'll have more children. |
Again, this requires substantiation. It's not a fair assumption, and I am here now directly challenging it. How will you meet my challenge? Will you support, retract, or evade?
| Pong wrote: |
| I agree with marcusclayman's suggestion that environmental footprint of non-religious may be larger. |
And the environmental footprint of churches and church goers may be larger... and I may win the lottery... and my enjoyment of whiskey may lead to shenanigans... Seriously? Is this the level of argument we're having? Come on, man.
| Pong wrote: |
| A materialist may be wedded to consumer lifestyle, for lack of other purpose. |
You have a really distorted view, and the distortion is steering you AWAY from reality, not toward it.
| Pong wrote: |
| One embodiment of this you can see in the Canadian habit of vacationing to tropical countries every winter. These are comfortable, relatively irreligious middle classes; the same people who spend more on groceries and dining out in a month than poor people spend in a year. |
You seem to be suggesting that it is their lack of religion leads to those behaviors. Is that what you're saying?
EDIT: It appears that the Dermis Ambulator beat me to it. 
_________________
iNow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 1740
Location: Montreal
|
| marcusclayman wrote: |
I wonder if religious people go out to eat as much as non religious people
and if religious people tend to have more family dinners than non religious people
you can save resources by cooking for a group, rather than just feeding yourself
also if you are living alone, you are paying for heating/cooling/hot water, just for yourself, wheras if you are living with others you will save some resources than if you each had your own house with heating/cooling/hot water
same goes for telivision, computers, radios, video games and even lighting
if you are sharing a telivision with someone, then you are using half the electricity than if you each had your own telivision, not to mention the materials used to manufacture, and the energy used to transport the telivision to where it was purchased. This same goes for all the things listed above and many more.
Sharing is one of the best ways to lessen one's impact on the world.
So I'm curious as to whether there are any significant differences in the amount that religious vs nonreligious people share, and if there is a significant difference amongst the variety of different religious points of view as well. Since not all religions are the same. |
I don't think that the only option for an atheist lifestyle is hermit living and the high-rolling nonstop restaurant lifestyle. Personally, I think when I make a decision whether to go out and eat, or eat at home, it has more to do with my income and what I can afford at the moment than my theological worldview.
My mother is a devout Anglican but she hasn't cooked a thing in years, I think that draws more from her lifestyle as a well paid accountant than her religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
