Let's be careful to respect people who believe in God. This quote is different from "God gave us bananas so we could eat them" (which to me sounds equally silly but is much more benign) because this coal fellow is using the religious angle to serve a non-religious purpose. He's insinuating that we don't even need to reduce fossil fuel usage.

The absurdity is the stretched connection between "God's bounty" and "let's pollute." We should ridicule the connection, not accept the connection and attack both at once.

David, I'm sure you see it this way, but I want to get that out there because being a liberal I know how we often think about religion.

Didn't Palmer ever come to the conclusion that God  must have also wanted us to actually 'think' about consequences since He gave us the brains to figure out the connections?

Des Emery

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Slide 1: Countries that burn more coal have more electricity.

Slide 2: Countries that have more electricity have better health care.

Slide 3: Countries with better health care have a longer life expectancy.

Slide 4: Burning coal makes you live longer.

Go on, if you see him, shout out "You are a twat!".

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Secondly, one of the most hideously disgraceful legacies of biblical religion is that self-serving prejudices can be "defended," or so it might seem, by quoting certain choice biblical verses, e.g. sexism, racism, speciesism, slavery, carnivory and homophobia.  Frank Palmer, whom the Peabody PR presentation described by DevilsTower indicates to be nothing more than a charlatan and trickster, is unfortunately not very different in that regard from many an ordained Christian preacher.

But I certainly cannot call a "third problem" with biblical religion, or with any religion for that matter, what Karsten refers to, by way of reducing religion to no more than "believing without evidence."  Indeed, inasmuch as there is no evidence for the belief that the total contents of the universe of being and meta-being can only include objects for which there is evidence of the sort that Karsten would recognize, that belief itself looks irrational, rather crazy and sad.

The great American religious philosopher and proto-environmentalist Henry David Thoreau, thinking especially about his late-Calvinist Protestant-ethic-following neighbors in Concord and Boston, who had given themselves over to a de facto materialism, famously wrote in the first chapter of his masterpiece "Walden," "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."  How can that fail to be the case, when lively and liberating religious and philosophical creativity is lazily allowed to lapse into a coffin-like materialism?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"I believe the Creator has put
ores and oil on this earth
to give us a breathing spell.
As we exhaust them,
we must be prepared to fall back on our farms,
which is God's true storehouse
and can never be exhausted.
For we can learn to synthesize materials
for every human need from the things that grow."

For more information, go to...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

Many somebody should ask him if god put all those tall cliffs around the world so he would drop off one or all those buses so he would jump in front of one.

"Indeed, inasmuch as there is no evidence for the belief that the total contents of the universe of being and meta-being can only include objects for which there is evidence of the sort that Karsten would recognize, that belief itself looks irrational, rather crazy and sad."

Even though I did not even say the above, I am wondering if you could explain to me how thinking this would be irrational or cracy? Wouldn't believing that something exists without it being  measurable by anyone or at least more probable than alternative explanations be significantly more crazy or irrational? Of course what is sane is defined by society, but not what is rational.

I trust (not believe) what can be measured or observed repeatedly by anyone (not by me alone, silly!). That is current reality. It may change based on observations or measurements. At least we will have something to discuss. If you acknowledge that things exist for which there is no evidence you will have to recognize a lot of things on this planet, most of which you will not be able to accept because they may contradict or appear not to fit your believe system. You end up not having a reasonable method to deny it being real or valid. What makes you think you know what is real or right or better or sustainable or "green"? Just what you want it to be?

I am not saying that all there is has been found. That would be very boring. I am saying that religion and spiritualism RELY on the fact that it cannot be proven as support for the firm and unquestioned believe that it is there. That is no reasonable way to argue. Please explain to me how you see this differently in a way that can be followed by someone who does not trust hear-say. Not trusting hear-say may make me a person with sad values in your opinion but I cannot follow how those values are irrational.

The environmental debate needs to stay rational otherwise it will not go where it needs to go. It is hard enough to convince people what needs to be done; it will be impossible if you support them in believing whatever they like to be right.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

To understand Rio and what is behind it, then, you have to
understand the powerful political force that modern day
American environmentalism represents and how American environmentalists
approach energy issues. The Rio Treaty is based on
a vision that rejects the developed world's industrialized past and
the industrial evolution of mankind. Rio is based on a vision of
apocalypse, scarcity, drought, famine and pestilence. Rio is
designed to limit the material progress of the human community
based on a moral view of the present and future that by definition
rejects the pro-human vision of all of the world's great religions.
The Rio Treaty is based on a vision put forth by American environmentalists
that seeks to separate the human condition from
conditions on Earth. That is, because environmentalists exalt an
undisturbed Earth above all other values, the footprint of human
activity on Earth must be minimal.

Coal and oil, the use of which are most threatened by the Rio
Treaty, are among God's greatest gifts to the human community.
Formed over eons, these fuels have laid in wait for development by
humans as they carry out the Old Testament command. In
Genesis, it is written:

God said, Let us make humankind in our own
image according to our likeness! Let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the
heavens, animals, all the Earth, and all crawling
things that crawl upon the Earth!

Bear fruit and be many and fill the Earth and
subdue it! Have dominion over the of the sea,
the fowl of the heavens and all living things that
crawl upon the Earth!

And, of course, humans have done just that....One reason for human
success is the Earth's abundance of fossil fuels particularly coal and
oil. It is easy to conclude that, under a preordained plan, coal and oil lay in wait for
exploitation by humans to permit our creation of an environment on Earth conducive
to the spectacular success of our species.