It is not clear whether you consider yourself a scientist or a scientific thinker, but your dismissal of the mythical miner does indicate that you are neither. What an incredible leap of logic to assume that ignorance of what you consider to be basic knowledge is proof of inbreeding and illiteracy; it only shows ignorance, of which we are all guilty (what do you know of coal mining?).

Ron (or ron) was right in pointing out the similarity between your thinking (“sterilise the stupid”) with eugenics; perhaps you do not know what the term “eugenics” means?

Then you state that you have some affinity with komodo dragons, without explaining what, other than its unpleasantness. Is it bad breath?

Until you have something constructive to add to the debate, maybe it would be a good idea to keep quiet.

“When I tell people of faith that I don’t believe in a divine Creator, I think they feel sorry for me. ”

I can’t think of a clearer definition of a clearer declaration of atheism. I know since I am one too and would say the same thing. So not sure why Laden is so adamant to argue otherwise?

I think that raises serious questions about his sincerity and motivations. 😉

Are her points, P1 and P2 correct?
P1: Is any climate change harmful? Or is it only anthropogenic climate change that is harmful? Which way is harmful – global warming or global cooling? Is the present climate change anthropogenic – i.e. without humans it would never occur? (History tells us that this is not necessarily the case, or are the historical climate change events irrelevant?)
P2: Is it wrong to harm the future? As it is the future, how are we to know that we are harming it? We may be destroying what we know and love in our present, but is it necessarily harming the future?

She stands there, in front of a microphone largely comprised of hydrocarbon-based materials, in her hydrocarbon-based clothes, in front of a hydrocarbon-based presentation screen, in a room heated (directly or indirectly) by hydrocarbon fuel, to an audience similarly clad and supported, having arrived there in transport incorporating many hydrocarbon-based features and propelled by hydrocarbon fuel, and berates “Big Oil”; she advocates the murder of people with whose philosophy she is in disagreement (ironic, for a philosopher). Does she not feel just a little hypocritical?

How about you? You might roundly applaud her, and pour your bile upon “Big Oil”. However, look around you; I doubt there is much that you can see that is not there because of “Big Oil”; not even the computer you are reading this on, nor even the electricity that is powering it. “Ah, but,” you may smugly say, “my electricity comes from wind-turbines.” Okay; then look to see what wind-turbines are made of (clue: much of it is hydrocarbon-based) – even the rare earth metals (REM) that comprise the magnets of the generator are not particularly easily and cleanly obtained (every tonne of REM gained produces 1 tonne of radio-active waste). Oh, and don’t hide behind your use of solar cells – they, too, are made of REM.

As an educated philosopher, it should be self evident to Ms. Moore that without an objective moral standard that resides outside herself, her call to morality rings hollow. That her crass joke about drowning entities or their leaders runs against the cultural standard of morality regarding life, further undermining her position.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. While I don’t desire this conversation to be about me, but rather Ms. Moore and her worldview, I am happy to dispel misunderstanding.

The point is that Ms. Moore’s crass joke about “mother nature” eliminating enemies demonstrates that something as moral as life and death can be rationalized away if there is a “greater good” to the masses. When people can value anything they want as greater than anything else, you can’t call people to be more moral. The definition of morality is ever shifting in this worldview.

Conversely, people get upset when pointed towards an objective moral standard bearer and told that while none are going to achieve that standard, we can forgive one another for some of our shortcomings/offenses (others deserve punishment), in love, as we all strive to get closer to that unchanging standard.