Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bioethics

2009-07-01T04:22:24Z

ClaireB: New page

Bioethics is the study of ethical dilemmas that arise from the use of new [[technology]] and [[medicine]] in regards to human and nonhuman [[life]]. It is a multiple discipline fields that uses ideas from secular [[philosophy]], [[theology]], medical practice and knowledge and to some extent [[environmentalism]]. Bioethicists are those people who practise bioethics, some examples of the issues they deal with include;
*[[Abortion]]
*[[Euthanasia]]
*[[Animal Rights]]
*[[IVF Treatment]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Disability]]
*[[Infanticide]]
*[[Medical Experiments]]
*[[Stem cell use]]

Bioethics can be both [[secular]] and [[religious]]. There are [[Christian]] bioethicists, [[Jewish]] bioethicists and [[Muslim]] bioethicists.

Due to the nature of the field it is something highly controversial as in the case with Australian bioethicists [[Peter Singer]].

User talk:ClaireB

2009-07-01T04:04:26Z

ClaireB:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:01, 1 July 2009 (EDT)}}

== Question ==
Who, living in your house, is Sam? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:01, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Sorry? What do you mean?--[[User:ClaireB|ClaireB]] 00:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

User talk:ClaireB

2009-07-01T04:04:14Z

ClaireB:

User:ClaireB

2009-07-01T04:03:23Z

ClaireB:

I'm new to Conservapedia and a bit nervous-I'm not too sure how to work a lot of it so be gentle to me.

I am a Christian who resides in Australia. I'm studying philosophy, politics and geography at univesity. I've been browsing Conservapedia for a while and only just started editing recently. My main interests in the project will be envionmentalism, philosophy and so others I find needing improvement.

More about me to come soon!

User:ClaireB

2009-07-01T04:00:42Z

ClaireB: Created page with 'I'm new to Conservapedia and a bit nervous-I'm not too sure how to work a lot of it so be gentle to me. I am a Christian who resided in Australia. More about me to come soon!'

I'm new to Conservapedia and a bit nervous-I'm not too sure how to work a lot of it so be gentle to me.

I am a Christian who resided in Australia. More about me to come soon!

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-07-01T03:58:54Z

ClaireB:

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that [[liberals]] get a thrill out of [[deceit]] for its own sake alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA] have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=604724&oldid=604696 brother] also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::: What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they '''inferred''' them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.
::::: Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::::"What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted them, they "inferred " them." Only two problems with that statement: i) The staggering ignorance you have shown about the work carried out in the detection of singularity objects (are you even aware of how such objects are spotted? No, didn't think so); and ii) I assume that when you see a dog you only infer that it is a dog because you haven't carried out a full genetic check of the animal and the wealth of other evidence provided isn't good enough for you (oh, and if you are having trouble equating point ii with the discussion at hand - it's called a metaphor and is used as a teaching aid). As for the point about brothers is it your contention that RSchlafly is too dense, ignorant, dumb and stupid to study the evidence and come to his own conclusions? Are you saying that he blindly follows whatever somebody tells him to do or think? Is that how you have at the beliefs or knowledge you have? Are you saying that RSchlafly's knowledge of physics isn't good enough for him to independently study the evidence, despite the impressive depth of knowledge he has already shown about such matters on this site? Why do you equate the discovery of black holes with 'evil'? Do they threaten your beliefs in some way? If it does then why? No scientific discovery has ever threatened my belief and faith. Papal astronomers are perfectly happy with the fact that black holes exist and have been spotted, are you now claming to know more about science and faith than those who serve the church that is the foundation of your particular religion (assuming you are a christian)? Are you even aware that papal astronomers and the Holy See have stated that the possibility of alien life existing ''" does not clash with christian belief"''?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See [http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)

:: No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Regarding "[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)": Cody, are you "editing from the future" as a comment on your belief in black holes? It won't convince people here.
:::I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the [[Black Hole]] page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: The existence of black holes has been shown mathematically possible (and necessary under certain conditions) and matter has been observed falling into them. As for the way science works, if future observations disprove the existence of black holes (which is considered to be unlikely) then the idea of black holes will be thrown out as erroneous and new ideas will be generated to explain the data. That is the beauty of science: it is not afraid to find its own errors and fix them. And by the way, NASA gets its money from the government. If it was allowed to make money and sell magazines, we'd have had manned missions to Mars by now. However, the potential conflict of interest you pointed out is exactly why that's not allowed.

:::: As for the actual article "Atheistic Styles," allow me to make my statements on the issue as an agnostic and friend of several atheists: 1: If democracy was first practiced in pre-Christian Greece, how does democracy rely on Christianity? Also, Israel is a Jewish state with a functioning democratic system.

::::2: Many atheists credit the faith of Newton, Galileo, etc. for inspiring them to devote their lives to studying the beauty of the universe.

::::3: I do not know of any atheists who disbelieve in the concepts of love, honor, and beauty. Indeed, many substitute faith in the universe's beauty for faith in a church.

::::4: Whether a person chooses atheism or faith is considered a matter of upbrining at least as much as intelligence. There are stupid atheists and devout geniuses, and this is fine (it is true, however, that many atheists consider intelligence and reason to be the best things about being human).

::::5: Atheists don't think humans have been getting smarter, per se, rather than having more time to study and accumulate data. More data leads to better conclusions, and thus to a more accurate picture of the world.

::::6: Regardless of how much is out there to learn, we sure know a lot more than Isaac Newton. Both eras may well be right. Also, "most" is relative. There are enough mysteries out there to last us all a long time.

::::7: Relativism, yes. Materialism, no.

::::8: Goodness no! All the atheists I know regard life as fun, interesting, and generally a good thing. Atheists who happen to be scientists are characterized by the scientist's typical love of discovery and fascination with the world. When one is paid to probe the mysteries of the universe, this isn't surprising.

::::9: Scientists don't have "unshakable faith" in any of these concepts. If evidence comes along that disproves the existence of any of them, that concept will be thrown out and replaced by one that is consistent with all observable data. So far, however, all the evidence we have supports these things as existing.

::::10: This isn't true. Atheists, like everyone else, respect the accomplishments of the best and brightest and give them awards and praise.

::::11: There is no known correlation between atheism and any of these traits.

::::12: Being forced to pray to a god that isn't yours is offensive. A Christian being told by his teacher to pray to Vishnu would offend Christians, and a Muslim being told to pray to Jesus would offend Muslims. Ditto for an atheist being forced to pray to anybody. As for censorship, any student can pray any time s/he likes as long as it doesn't distract his/her classmates.

::::13: I do hope that humanity is moving towards a utopia. I also hope that science's contributions (medicine, renewable energy, spaceflight, etc.) and the contributions of other religions will be recognized for their usefulness in this effort. Also, what are Christianity's contributions to human progress, other than inspiring scientists to work for the benefit of mankind? Please don't say discrimination against homosexuals; I like my utopias egalitarian with a side of tolerance.

:::: If nobody else objects, I would like to rewrite this article for clarity, accuracy, and non-offensiveness. As this article was apparently written by a parodist, and he wants it down too, I doubt anyone will mind, but I don't want to be overhasty. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 11:35, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

BlueMoon do you really want to contribute or are you just here to cause trouble?--[[User:ClaireB|ClaireB]] 23:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

*Evidently they are here only to troll, ClaireB. Especially since they accuse the site owner of parody. If it is parody, they are very poor at it, because I don't find much that is funny. Join me in wishing a hearty "Godspeed!" to Blue, will you? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:56, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I would have thought if that if they did want to contribute constructively they would have edited the article themselves. Instead they have just sort to degrade it in the talk section. I do wish them a hearty Godspeed with you TK!--[[User:ClaireB|ClaireB]] 23:58, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-07-01T03:49:55Z

ClaireB:

Environmentalist

2009-07-01T03:47:24Z

ClaireB: added deep ecology and wilderness

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Environmentalist | Previous Breaking News: Environmentalist]]
|}

'''Environmentalists''' are concerned with "protecting" the environment instead of letting human beings take dominion over it. Going way beyond [[conservationism]], they seek legal limitations on human use of the Earth's natural environment and resources. Media reporting usually blurs the distinction between "no-use" environmentalism and "wise-use" conservation.

[[David Gelernter]] wrote:
*Passionate environmentalists reject the proposition that love of nature is ennobling because loving nature is good for human dignity and happiness. They flirt instead with a worldview in which human beings are a species on a par with every other, and nature is to be protected not because you damage other people’s happiness when you destroy it wantonly but because nature itself has rights to assert against man. The Smithsonian, for example, posted a label in its Museum of Natural History apologizing for a display in which “humans are treated as more important than other mammals.” [http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_the_immorality.html]

==Forest fires and "saving" trees==

In June 2007 residents of Lake Tahoe California were furious at environmentalists and the grip they hold on government regulators who refused to allow the clearing of dead trees. 1,300 homes sustained damage, and the newly homeless victims blamed the special interest environmentalists for their woes.

The amount of fuel in the Tahoe Basin reached critical levels after years of discord among environmentalists and government agencies over how to thin forests and reduce the fire threat. And it has led to predictions of a devastating wildfire because the basin is one of the areas with the most fire starts in the Sierra Nevada. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-clearance26jun26,0,2914697.story?coll=la-home-center Crowd aims fury at regional panel], Land use agency is criticized for failing to allow adequate clearing of combustible materials. By Eric Bailey and J. Michael Kennedy, ''Los Angelas Times'', June 26, 2007.</ref>

==Animal rights and vegetarians==

Citing a heretofore unknown connection between the environment, [[animal rights]], and [[vegetarianism]] movements, [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA) requested of [[Democratic]] Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] special treatment in administration of tax laws used to support ecological sustainability. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk alleges, "[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer [[greenhouse-gas]] emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters," and that vegetarians should receive a tax break "just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break."

Asked how would the government certify the special interest tax break would go to vegetarians only, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, "I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/peta-seeks-tax-breaks-for-vegetarians-2007-05-31.html PETA seeks tax breaks for vegetarians], By Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', May 31, 2007.</ref>

==Worship of Gaia==
The environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban [[Atheism|atheists]] and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:
{{Cquote|The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. <ref>[[Michael Crichton]], [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html Environmentalism as Religion]," Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003. </ref>}}

Former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]] sees a "spiritual crisis" in [[global warming]]. <ref>[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050607.01B.gore.35aecd4.html Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming], Anton Caputo, ''San Antonio Express News'', 05/05/2007. </ref> He also believes that [[goddess]] worship is a better and more legitimate spiritual belief than [[Christianity]] and that the life of human beings is comparable to that of trees.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45581</ref> British biologist James Lovelock <ref>*James Lovelock, [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1738945,00.html ''Revenge of Gaia''], Publisher: Allen Lane, 02/02/2006. ISBN13: 9780713999143 </ref> first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism. <ref>[http://www.tcrnews2.com/gennewage.html Eco-spirituality, eco-feminism, global spirituality, ecological theology, creation spirituality, the new cosmology] </ref> Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion. <ref>Cliff Kincaid, [http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html ''Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia''], (1999). </ref>

[[Reid Bryson|Dr. Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and is known as the father of scientific climatology says of global warming:
{{Cquote|It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts. <ref>[http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613 Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey], Samara Kalk Derby, ''The Capital Times'', 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

==The Bible and Environmentalism==
{{Cquote|And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28}}

Many Christians have looked to this passage to justify their use of the gifts God has left us in and on the Earth. [[Farming]], [[fishing]], [[mining]], [[oil drilling]], [[hunting]], [[industry]], and the like are all examples of human beings making the most of our dominion, converting it into glorious products that help our fellow man. Products like [[medicine]], [[shelter]], and [[food]] satisfy the basic needs of mankind, while other products make a life serving God easier and more effective.

However, other Christians interpret this as [[stewardship]], the belief that human beings are "caretakers" of the Earth.

== Deep Ecology ==
Deep ecology is an environmental movement that rejects [[modern]] culture and seeks to include non-human life in the moral circle. They find the cause of the current ecological crisis in the modern attitude towards the environment. The theory can be defined as the following principles;
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

Issues that arise from the practise of this theory is where one life form needs another life form as food. Such an example may include humans needing to eat a cow, how would a deep ecologist jusitify this?

== Wilderness ==
See [[wilderness]]

==See Also==
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Environmentalist|Examples of Environmentalism from previous "Breaking News" articles]]

==References==

<references/>
For deep ecology see Environmental Ethics; A Guide. Hammerman and Gass 1993
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Peter Singer

2009-07-01T03:38:38Z

ClaireB: Included a mention of Singer's atheism. I feel that this is important since his ideas would be totally different if he was a Christian.

'''Peter Singer'' is an Australian philosopher who has concentrated on such topics as [[abortion]], [[animal rights]], [[euthanasia]] and ending world [[poverty]]. He is an atheist and this in some ways influences his ideas. Singer wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'', which puts [[animals and people]] on the same moral level.<ref>''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote, "The modern [[animal rights]] movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of ''Animal Liberation'' by Australian philosopher Peter Singer."http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572</ref>
Singer is best know for advocating the killing of severely disabled newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. Some have alleged that the conditions that he considers sufficiently acceptable for active infanticide include [[Down syndrome]], [[spina bifida]], and [[hemophilia]].<ref>http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648</ref> However, Singer has directly denied this, claiming that his statements were distorted and taken out of context.<ref>''Writings on an Ethical Life'' pps. 325</ref>

He is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at [[Princeton University]] and Laureate Professor at the [[University of Melbourne]]'s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/</ref>

In his latest book, ''The Life You Can Save'', he advocates donating to Third-World countries, even at the expense of local church groups and other local charities well in need of money.

== See Also ==
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Euthanasia]]
* [[Environmentalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ Peter Singer's Home page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Singer, Peter}}

[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:authors]]

Big Think

2009-07-01T03:36:32Z

ClaireB: New page

Big Think is a [[website]] devoted to the sharing of ideas via the [[internet]]. In doing so it attempts to create a better world. There is commentary from both [[conservative]] and [[liberal people]].

See [http://bigthink.com/]

Peter Singer

2009-07-01T03:33:32Z

ClaireB:

'''Peter Singer'' is an Australian philosopher who has concentrated on such topics as [[aboriton]], [[animal rights]], [[euthanasia]] and ending world [[poverty]]. Singer comes from a strictly secular view. He wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'', which puts [[animals and people]] on the same moral level.<ref>''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote, "The modern [[animal rights]] movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of ''Animal Liberation'' by Australian philosopher Peter Singer."http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572</ref>
Singer is best know for advocating the killing of severely disabled newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. Some have alleged that the conditions that he considers sufficiently acceptable for active infanticide include [[Down syndrome]], [[spina bifida]], and [[hemophilia]].<ref>http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648</ref> However, Singer has directly denied this, claiming that his statements were distorted and taken out of context.<ref>''Writings on an Ethical Life'' pps. 325</ref>

He is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at [[Princeton University]] and Laureate Professor at the [[University of Melbourne]]'s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/</ref>

In his latest book, ''The Life You Can Save'', he advocates donating to Third-World countries, even at the expense of local church groups and other local charities well in need of money.

== See Also ==
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Euthanasia]]
* [[Environmentalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ Peter Singer's Home page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Singer, Peter}}

[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:authors]]

Peter Singer

2009-07-01T03:32:53Z

ClaireB: Changed opening sentence

'''Peter Singer'' is an Australian philosopher who has concentrated on such topics as [[aboriton]], [[animal rights]], [[euthanasia]] and ending world [[poverty]]. He wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'', which puts [[animals and people]] on the same moral level.<ref>''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote, "The modern [[animal rights]] movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of ''Animal Liberation'' by Australian philosopher Peter Singer."http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572</ref>
Singer is best know for advocating the killing of severely disabled newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. Some have alleged that the conditions that he considers sufficiently acceptable for active infanticide include [[Down syndrome]], [[spina bifida]], and [[hemophilia]].<ref>http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648</ref> However, Singer has directly denied this, claiming that his statements were distorted and taken out of context.<ref>''Writings on an Ethical Life'' pps. 325</ref>

He is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at [[Princeton University]] and Laureate Professor at the [[University of Melbourne]]'s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/</ref>

In his latest book, ''The Life You Can Save'', he advocates donating to Third-World countries, even at the expense of local church groups and other local charities well in need of money.

== See Also ==
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Euthanasia]]
* [[Environmentalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ Peter Singer's Home page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Singer, Peter}}

[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:authors]]

Peter Singer

2009-07-01T03:30:28Z

ClaireB: Added see also section

'''Peter Singer''' is a dangerous [[Australian]] [[philosopher]] who wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'', which puts [[animals and people]] on the same moral level.<ref>''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote, "The modern [[animal rights]] movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of ''Animal Liberation'' by Australian philosopher Peter Singer."http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572</ref>
Singer is best know for advocating the killing of severely disabled newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. Some have alleged that the conditions that he considers sufficiently acceptable for active infanticide include [[Down syndrome]], [[spina bifida]], and [[hemophilia]].<ref>http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648</ref> However, Singer has directly denied this, claiming that his statements were distorted and taken out of context.<ref>''Writings on an Ethical Life'' pps. 325</ref>

He is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at [[Princeton University]] and Laureate Professor at the [[University of Melbourne]]'s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/</ref>

In his latest book, ''The Life You Can Save'', he advocates donating to Third-World countries, even at the expense of local church groups and other local charities well in need of money.

== See Also ==
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Euthanasia]]
* [[Environmentalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ Peter Singer's Home page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Singer, Peter}}

[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:authors]]

Wilderness

2009-07-01T03:27:52Z

ClaireB: Can someone please reference this? I'm having difficulties since I am new.

Wilderness plays a profound role in the lives of humans, animals and other forms of life on the planet. It is valued for its spiritual, cultural, aesthitic, recreational and conservational values. The 1964 Wilderness Act defines it as;

'A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.'
<ref>http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct#2</ref>

== References ==

1. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct#2

Wilderness

2009-07-01T03:26:25Z

ClaireB:

Wilderness plays a profound role in the lives of humans, animals and other forms of life on the planet. It is valued for its spiritual, cultural, aesthitic, recreational and conservational values. The 1964 Wilderness Act defines it as;

'A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.'
<ref>http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct#2</ref>

== References ==
<ref>http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct#2</ref>

Wilderness

2009-07-01T03:24:58Z

ClaireB: Created page on wilderness, will add more soon.