Are you bothered about your carbon footprint

So how would your Cadre of experts explain sin entering the world?

 

I have no such cadre.

 

That is true. It is possible to find differing opinions about anything. I was already aware of that.

 

Human nature.

 

No I can't be bothered by this car is barely even factor in to CO2 emissions. Really the thing people do that emits way more CO2 than any cars is buying things that have to arrive to our country on a ship.

A ship in 2 weeks and it's more CO2 than 5 million cars so over a year.

Also it's kind of like trying to make a sanitary place in a septic tank. With the amount of CO2 coming out of China even if I burnt styrofoam even if I got a car that got 5 gallons to the mile I wouldn't be making any difference.

As far as environmental stuff I despise litter. And thus I don't litter. And that makes the effort to pick up litter if it isn't too far out of my way.

I would prefer not to use plastic if I could but it's increasingly difficult in life today.

So there's not really much you can do the people who have that power manufacturers in companies that make electricity in ship all the little nicknacks you buy across the ocean.

 

So your position is one of religious-like belief and nothing else. I was already aware of that.

 

So you personally don't believe sin exists then?

 

So there's no morality, right. It simply doesn't exist. We were randomly created out of nothing and laws are just arbitrary constructs in a power hungry world.

Therefore, life is merely survival of the fittest. A completely random occurrence in the middle of nowhere against all reasonable odds.

 

Strange. I didn't say any of that. I wrote two words in response to a post. Sheeesh!

 

I'll be darned. I'm not even religious.

 

"Sin" is subjective. It only exists in the mind.

 

"Nuh uh" is not a valid argument. Are you going to back up your position or are you here as an example of why forums have an "ignore" feature?

 

It's just not true that without a higher power, there is no morality. Morality is a completely logical conclusion of living socially with other beings. Without standards for how we behave and treat other people, cooperation and power are stunted. In tribal days, this would lead to our group being destroyed by a more effective group. Not as important as weapons and tactics in the short term, but in the long-term the development of society is highly dependent upon morality. This morality need not involve religion, but it usually does as religion fills the function of making people feel better about the harsh realities of life.

 

But where did the notion of living socially with other human beings come from? Why don't we just eat and procreate and leave the offspring to fend for themselves? The biggest and baddest take all? What drives humans from the beginning to pursue a different path?

 

So Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Manson, etc. really weren't bad people. They were just stronger than everyone else and took what they were entitled to. Right?

 

It appears as though you would like me to accept a sweeping generalization fallacy to define "sin". I enjoyed a 31 year old scotch last night. Do I make your list of sinners?

 

My mate has chickens, I get to eat one now and then, or I could eat oranges and bananas flown in. An awful less resource to eat the chicken, and even less when I've shot a pigeon and rabbit.

 

Ignore away.

 

I can take absolutely no credit for the huge, blue expanse of solar panels in our front field nor did I even know what the four trucks were there for so early that morning.

Once again, my socially aware but more than a little impulsive wife had bought about $50,000- worth of solar panels and they were half way through the installation before I knew what was going on .

So, now I shamelessly take full and absolute credit for being so clever and responsible.

It's the stolen virtue that feels the best.

 

It's not really an apples to apples comparison though, we're talking about big agriculture, not what people do locally. If your argument is for more local food, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that most meat that most people eat consumes far more resources than eating most plants.

 

It's a big part of our species survival strategy. Compared to other animals with similar energy needs (driven in part, by our highly developed brain), we are relatively physically weak (decent endurance) but with an immense capacity to learn and invent just logically means being social and cooperative is more effective. We're not tigers, who access high-density energy sources (meat) by being extremely physically powerful and stealthy. We do better when our tribe taught us how to make tools, work as a team, and specialize.

The limitations to our moral tendencies, e.g. the tendency to dehumanize people outside of our group, also makes sense in the context of tribal competition. There's very little that is surprising in human nature, considering the context in which our evolution occurred.

 

No. You made a sweeping generalization fallacy that said the Biblical version of sin was silly. I'm just wondering what the atheist definition of sin is or even if it exists at all for atheists.

 

You are far from correct. My post was a reply to a forum member unable to defend a position on merit. The only support was that many agreed. Many also agree that we were born sinners because a snake talked a naked lady into eating an apple thousands of years ago.

The point was that the position was based on blind belief, just like religion.

 

Link?

 

My post #48 in this thread is an example. The graph has a source linked.