Usefullness of Religion (Whether or Not It's True): the Christmas Tree

[Stone Island]

Does having a Christmas Tree reduce or increase your carbon footprint? Are you helping or harming the environment? Would AlGore approve?

I would think that any excuse to get people to plant millions of trees every year, i.e., Christmas Tree farms, would be a net benefit to the environment. People are very happy to do it on their own without any need to curtail individual liberty, raise taxes, or the like.

I would think that as long as the trees aren't burned after the end of the Christmas season that they would "lock-in" their carbon.

Christmas trees are recyclable.

Any other considerations?

BTW, since motives, justly or not, given that a lot of you pretend to be open-minded skeptics, are such a hot topic around here, I bought a live tree and plan on re-potting it, using it again next year, and then planting it in my yard. Of course, I have a yard and I have determined that the tree would be appropriate for my situation. As Umbra points out, not necessarily useful advice for others. (http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2004/12/08/umbra-tree/)

[tsg]

given that a lot of you pretend to be open-minded skeptics

You have just negated any credibility you may have had.

[Sefarst]

I have to say, 10 points for originality. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone argue in favor of Christianity and Christmas for the sake of environmentalism.

[Stone Island]

You have just negated any credibility you may have had.


Your ad hominem reply is ad hominem. Not so good for your credibility.

[tsg]

Your ad hominem reply is ad hominem. Not so good for your credibility.

You might want to look up what ad hominem actually is.

I didn't attack you, I attacked your snide comment which indicates you have pretty much no intention of having an intelligent discussion.

[Stone Island]

You might want to look up what ad hominem actually is.

I didn't attack you, I attacked your snide comment which indicates you have pretty much no intention of having an intelligent discussion.

No, you should look up what ad hominem actually is, because snide comments or no, personal credibility has nothing to do with whether Christmas trees are good or bad for the environment. Your off-topic troll reflect poorly on your credibility.

In addition, someone would have eventually questioned my motives or intentions, as you just did, though a skeptic should recognize the pointlessness of any such inquiry, and I thought I would get it out in the open.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Your ad hominem reply is ad hominem. Not so good for your credibility.

No, you should look up what ad hominem actually is,
Believe it or not, debating tactics have evolved past the elementary school playground. Perhaps you should look into them.

I know, I know, perhaps I should look into them...

[Irony]

Since when have Christmas trees been a religious symbol?

At any rate they're certainly not a Christian symbol. In fact, they're denounced in the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JER%2010:1-10;&version=31;).

[Stone Island]

Since when have Christmas trees been a religious symbol?

At any rate they're certainly not a Christian symbol. In fact, they're denounced in the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JER%2010:1-10;&version=31;).

Saint Boniface seemed to think they were religious.

Does the Old Testament apply?

Of course, the question was, good or bad for the environment (whether or not it's true)?

[tsg]

No, you should look up what ad hominem actually is, because snide comments or no, personal credibility has nothing to do with whether Christmas trees are good or bad for the environment.

For your edification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), take it or leave it, I care not which. I didn't mention your claim at all, let alone whether or not any personal characteristics of yours affected its validity. I indicated that your snide comment showed you had no intention of discussing it seriously.

In addition, someone would have eventually questioned my motives or intentions, as you just did, though a skeptic should recognize the pointlessness of any such inquiry, and I thought I would get it out in the open.

You could have done so without taking an unprovoked swipe at other people.

[Irony]

Saint Boniface seemed to think they were religious. Does Saint Boniface overrule the Bible?

Does the Old Testament apply?
Yes.

Of course, the question was, good or bad for the environment (whether or not it's true)?
No, the question is about the usefulness of religion. The fact that the Christmas tree is a secular symbol defeats your argument. Not that it was a very good argument in the first place.

Oh, and some of us actually do care about "(whether or not it's true)".

[Michael Redman]

First, as pointed out, whatever the origin, Christmas tree purchases today are not the result of religion. The title of the thread is "Usefullness of Religion". It's perfectly expected that the relationship between Christmas tree use and religion should be questioned.

Second, I don't know about the recycling. If such small trees are recycled, it's probably as mulch or some other form that would degrade pretty quickly, releasing the carbon. It's not like we can make furniture or build houses out of Christmas trees. I guess the best thing would be to landfill them.

The adoption of a different sort of tree, or, especially, the use of a live tree in the house, later replanted outside, might be better as far as carbon goes. I doubt the standard Christmas tree ends up pulling enough carbon out of the air for a long enough time to be worth the fuel used to grow, transport, and dispose of it.

[Stone Island]

For your edification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), take it or leave it, I care not which. I didn't mention your claim at all, let alone whether or not any personal characteristics of yours affected its validity. I indicated that your snide comment showed you had no intention of discussing it seriously.



You could have done so without taking an unprovoked swipe at other people.

The swipe wasn't unprovoked.

As for your link, thanks for proving my point that you led with an ad hominem attack. That was awful big of you.

[Irony]

The swipe wasn't unprovoked.

As for your link, thanks for proving my point that you led with an ad hominem attack. That was awful big of you.

"You're wrong because you're an idiot." - Ad hominem
"You're an idiot." - Insult, not ad hominem
"You're wrong because of X,Y,Z and you're an idiot." - Refutation + insult, also not ad hominem

Learn the difference.

[Stone Island]

You have just negated any credibility you may have had.

and,

I didn't attack you

Isn't credibility a characteristic of me when it is me who has no credibility according to you?

Abuse is ad hominem too.

So, once again, thanks for proving my point. I accept your (implicit) apology because while you denied your actions in word, you proved them in deed. That was awful big of you.

Also, re: serious discussion, Redman's point about transportation is a good one. What is the carbon absorption rate of trees used for (apparently non-religious) Christmas celebrations, how quickly does it release carbon when it is composted, and are all those gains washed out by the pollution necessary for their collection?

[Sefarst]

Back to the more important topic of Christmas/Christian environmentalism.

As a counter argument, I would contend that, because Jesus was a carpenter, Christianity is in favor of the cutting down of trees. The Old Testament reinforces the need to INCREASE our carbon footprint through such examples as the burning bush and God's desire for burnt offerings. Finally, Evangelicals believe the world is going to end soon by fire, so surely God isn't too concerned about the levels of carbon in the environment.

[Stone Island]

Back to the more important topic of Christmas/Christian environmentalism.

As a counter argument, I would contend that, because Jesus was a carpenter, Christianity is in favor of the cutting down of trees. The Old Testament reinforces the need to INCREASE our carbon footprint through such examples as the burning bush and God's desire for burnt offerings. Finally, Evangelicals believe the world is going to end soon by fire, so surely God isn't too concerned about the levels of carbon in the environment.

Jesus also sowed seeds. Some were eaten up and some blossomed. Also, the bush burned, but was not consumed, and since it wasn't consumed, did it really produce carbon?

Of course, you have to plant enough trees to have enough wood to carpenter and to burn offerings.

[Ladewig]

The swipe wasn't unprovoked.



I haven't read any of your other threads. Can you tell me why the swipe was not unprovoked?

[Sefarst]

Jesus also sowed seeds. Some were eaten up and some blossomed. Also, the bush burned, but was not consumed, and since it wasn't consumed, did it really produce carbon?

Of course, you have to plant enough trees to have enough wood to carpenter and to burn offerings.
When was Jesus playing Johnny Appleseed? He used seeds as a metaphor on occasion, but I don't recall him ever actually doing any gardening. The fact of the matter is, as a carpenter, his business was creating a market for the destruction of forests.

Furthermore, if the bush was not producing carbon, then what was it using as a fuel source? And you didn't address the burning of animals or the Lake of Burning Sulfur. I highly doubt the ancient Israelites had tree farms for the purpose of having fuel for their burnt offerings. Let's also not forget the plague of locusts that destroyed a great number of plants in Egypt.

The moral of the story: If you love Jesus, burn a tree.

[NobbyNobbs]

Does having a Christmas Tree reduce or increase your carbon footprint? Are you helping or harming the environment? Would AlGore approve?

I would think that any excuse to get people to plant millions of trees every year, i.e., Christmas Tree farms, would be a net benefit to the environment. People are very happy to do it on their own without any need to curtail individual liberty, raise taxes, or the like.

I would think that as long as the trees aren't burned after the end of the Christmas season that they would "lock-in" their carbon.

Christmas trees are recyclable.

Any other considerations?

BTW, since motives, justly or not, given that a lot of you pretend to be open-minded skeptics, are such a hot topic around here, I bought a live tree and plan on re-potting it, using it again next year, and then planting it in my yard. Of course, I have a yard and I have determined that the tree would be appropriate for my situation. As Umbra points out, not necessarily useful advice for others. (http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2004/12/08/umbra-tree/)



I have two questions:

1) Since the answer to "which is the more environmentally-friendly tree?" seems to appear in the link you provided, what is the point of the question? It's been answered, by you.

2) After having watched the ad hominum tennis match, I have to ask: What made you feel you had to throw that insult into your post in the first place?

[tsg]

The swipe wasn't unprovoked.

Your comment was the very first post in the thread. How was it provoked?

As for your link, thanks for proving my point that you led with an ad hominem attack. That was awful big of you.

Did you even read it? Then maybe you can explain how it was an ad hominem when I didn't even mention your argument. I mean, you do understand that ad hominem is attempting to discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer, right? What I did was point out that having the argument was pointless if you aren't going to discuss it seriously. So far, you've done nothing to prove me wrong.

Unless you're invoking "I know you are but what am I," in which case I will simply concede. I have no desire to argue with a child.

[fagin]

Personally I'm just sick and tired of being beaten with my 'carbon footprint' all of the time.
Get a life.

[Stone Island]

Did you even read it? Then maybe you can explain how it was an ad hominem when I didn't even mention your argument. I mean, you do understand that ad hominem is attempting to discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer, right? What I did was point out that having the argument was pointless if you aren't going to discuss it seriously. So far, you've done nothing to prove me wrong.

Unless you're invoking "I know you are but what am I," in which case I will simply concede. I have no desire to argue with a child.

Your admission of guilt is very refreshing. I thank you. If I wasn't willing to discuss it seriously then my argument wasn't serious. A characteristic of "I" had some woo effect on the seriousness of my "argument". It's like saying, "Well, you're a Nazi, so I can't seriously discuss the holocaust with you." The format of your reason for not discussing the argument was exactly the same. So you were discrediting me and dismissing my argument because I was discredited.

Oh, and call me a child? What do you think that is?

No, I understand ad hominem. Do you?

In any case, I forgive you. I also accept your apology. You are forgiven.

[Stone Island]

Personally I'm just sick and tired of being beaten with my 'carbon footprint' all of the time.
Get a life.

If you don't pay attention to your carbon footprint Manbearpig will eat your children.

http://gallery.speedguide.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=269&g2_serialNumber=1

[Stone Island]

Since the answer to "which is the more environmentally-friendly tree?" seems to appear in the link you provided, what is the point of the question? It's been answered, by you.


First, because I don't know that what that link says is true. The point above about the transportation and cultivation costs was interesting and wasn't mentioned as a factor in the link.

Second, because it isn't really a question of which is more environmentally friendly, but whether the whole tree thing is good or bad for the environment period.

Third, it's an interesting question because, as the title states, whether a particular religion is true or not, there may be beneficial unintended consequences. Also, the dogmatically atheistic have this hugely amusing tick of denying that any good could ever possibly come from religion or religious practice when it's not necessary to make their argument and it's not particularly true.

[Irony]

Unless you're invoking "I know you are but what am I," in which case I will simply concede. I have no desire to argue with a child.

Your admission of guilt is very refreshing. I thank you.

:dl:

[Silly Green Monkey]

My tree is fake.

[UncaStuart]

Around this time of year I see slow, snaking lines of pickups and SUVs returning from their 30-mile roundtrip to the tree farms on the ridge. Regardless of the religious or secular intent of the drivers, I'd say those trees aren't helping the environment.

[tsg]

Your admission of guilt is very refreshing. I thank you.

You might also want to look up sarcasm while you're at it.

If I wasn't willing to discuss it seriously then my argument wasn't serious. A characteristic of "I" had some woo effect on the seriousness of my "argument". It's like saying, "Well, you're a Nazi, so I can't seriously discuss the holocaust with you." The format of your reason for not discussing the argument was exactly the same. So you were discrediting me and dismissing my argument because I was discredited.

No, I was ignoring your argument because you had no intention of discussing it seriously. It could be the most cogent and reasonable argument for religion ever devised, but I have no interest in discussing it with you because you opened with an unwarranted slam on an entire group of people. Simply put, I am not saying your claim is wrong. I am saying it is pointless to discuss with you.

Oh, and call me a child? What do you think that is?

First, I didn't call you a child, I said I had no interest in arguing with one. If you assumed it applied to you, perhaps you should consider why.

Second, if I had called you a child, it would have been an insult, not ad hominem. There is a difference that you seem unwilling or incapable of understanding and, frankly, I'm tired of explaining.

Unless you're invoking "I know you are but what am I," in which case I will simply concede. I have no desire to argue with a child.

In any case, I forgive you. I also accept your apology. You are forgiven.

Your choice is noted.

[Stone Island]

No, I was ignoring your argument because you had no intention of discussing it seriously. It could be the most cogent and reasonable argument for religion ever devised, but I have no interest in discussing it with you because you opened with an unwarranted slam on an entire group of people. Simply put, I am not saying your claim is wrong. I am saying it is pointless to discuss with you.

First, unless you can read my mind, you can't know my motives. Second, motives have no place in a logical discussion. I don't know why you insist otherwise. It's basic woo, but if that's your thing, who am I to complain?

Is this all meant to prove your skepticism?

:duck:

Your apology doesn't seem as sincere as I had thought. If you want to apologize, but don't feel that you can do it in a public forum, just PM me.

[tsg]

First, unless you can read my mind, you can't know my motives.

Your actions betray your motives.

Second, motives have no place in a logical discussion. I don't know why you insist otherwise.

If your motives are not to have a logical discussion, then they do.

[danielk]

<indignant Chekov-style voice>It was us who invented the Christmas tree!</indignant Chekov-style voice>

Which means you should all become Germans or Manbearbig will eat you.

[tsg]

<indignant Chekov-style voice>It was us who invented the Christmas tree!</indignant Chekov-style voice>

You misspelled "inwented".

[linusrichard]

Jesus Christ. Can we have a "no Courier" rule, please? It makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

Also, what is "AlGore"? Can someone explain this to me, please? I mean, I know it refers to Al Gore, but what point is made by the missing space?

As to the point, yeah, I think having a real tree is probably good for the environment, especially if you repot it afterwards. More trees! I don't see what this has to do with religion. Religious people and secular people have real trees. Religious people and secular people have fake trees. Religious people and secular people have no trees.

[slingblade]

We don't have a christmas tree. It costs money, which is also made from trees.

Given the current trend, I expect to have a negative carbon print, eventually.

[Ladewig]

The swipe wasn't unprovoked.

I haven't read any of your other threads. Can you tell me why the swipe was not unprovoked?

I haven't read any of your other threads. Can you tell me why the swipe was not unprovoked?

[Silentknight]

The consumption of any kind of tree crop, not just evergreen pines for use as Teutonic fertility symbols on the winter solstice, would technically help in this sense by encouraging the planting of more new trees. Therefore I could argue that because it consumes a paper product, sticking the loose end of your roll of toilet paper into the bowl and flushing repeatedly to watch it comically spin around ALSO is helpful to the environment. (Then again, I suppose that does kind of waste water.)