EPTBurning wood, dangerous? - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
| ||
|
wwJd)El_Mojjo
Sweden173 Posts
I think most of us are not as rational as we'd like to believe. For example, I've heard a lot of people using a phrase such as "and if God DOES exist I wouldn't want to believe in him anyway" because their image of God is one that he must be a douche bag if he really exists in the way he has been described to them. Harris is considering the cultural influences that relates to our desire to find comfort in life. I on the other hand find that a lot of people channel for example feelings such as their anger about something in their lives as a way of strengthening what they believe to be true. So if an argument should arise that might indicate that something in their worldview (atheist in this example) is debatable then they instinctively defend themselves, not with facts, but rather with feelings such as "well, if he exists, I don't like him anyway". I think what Harris seems to be analyzing in the light of "how do believers react to facts?" is really just a part of how the mindset of all humans relate to the conflict of existing values with new ones and the tiresome process of changing them (and in the extension also changing the way of life). | ||
|
Meteora.GB
Canada2479 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
The family gathered around an open fireplace working crafts in the winter. There was no chimney as we know it now. Only an outlet at the top. Many died of smokelung anyway so no one though of smoking a pipe as dangerous. Later last century housing improved. The last frarmer who lived that way died in the 1950ties. Supposedly he had a stroke and fell into his fireplace. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
On February 03 2012 18:55 HotShizz wrote: yeah, this guy is a bit of an ass, a very self-righteous ass at that. I understand that burning wood isn't healthy. I choose to do it on occasion anyway. I am sorry, but a bit of smoke will not end the world and my neighbors will be fine (most houses in this tiny village have fire places anyway). What he says is fine until he starts preaching his mighty word of it is only ethical to make it illegal, even though we may be against nanny states we have to force ourselves into your lives and make recreational burning illegal!! Get off your fucking high horse, and live a little. I don't know how many more times one could argue moderation. Find moderation, do nothing to excess, but enjoy life and stop shitting in everyone's cheerios. This is the kind of reaction I find interesting =) Because I also have a strong innate resistance against the state nanny'ing etc, we're accepting that it's doing so for smoking cigarettes, there are bonusses/penalties for cleaner cars or having an un-ecofriendly one, but the idea of having a same sort of law or regulation for something that is apparantly more air-polluting and "dangerous" causes you to (seemingly) become quite aggressive against him ^^ It's the thing that I found interesting in the first place, altho I was mildly surprised at how unhealthy smoke from wood-fires is (I didnt know it to be that bad, altho I had ofcourse reasoned that sitting next to something burning might not be the best thing ever) I was mostly surprised at, which he also describes, the immediate feeling of resistance that built up in me when I read the lines wood-smoke bad for you. For some reason it's something "sacred" to have a nice fire going, and the idea that this might not be good just went against me for some reason. This is the interesting part, the whole OH MY GOD some things we do arent the best for us - bit wasnt. Edit: About the "live a little" comment, I believe he's living just fine. Here's an also quite interesting piece from him about drug use: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On February 03 2012 20:59 Klesky wrote: I redact my previous acceptance of the article being a failure. I think it's a greater success than he actually intended. Not only has Harris inspired a religious mindset and style of thinking in order to 'put the shoe on the other foot.' But he has also achieved a counter-splinter group forming, that back up their assertions with anecdotal evidence. This is exactly how things happen in the real world; a true microcosm of organised religion right before us, not really... his point about religion - i couldn't care less about it. i think all religion is dumb, but if people want to comfort themselves by having faith, then what would i be if i tried to take away that comfort? his analogy which outlines the extent of the harmful effects of burning wood was the only 'shocking' point in the article and therefore the only thing worth discussing... i mean, what's our reaction supposed to be? "omg he's totally right, these religious types are dumb! Lol"... no sh*t, i've known that since i was like 9-10 years old when i first started to question the religious brainwashing crap you have to endure in early school. my religion is that life is meaningless unless you can be happy (without cheating yourself by abusing alcohol or other mind altering drugs, because technically you're not 'living' if you spend a lot of hours in a state of stupor). if smoking a cigarette or sitting infront of a wood fire makes you happy - then that's what you should do. even if statistics show that you die a few years younger, at least you were happier which is the only thing that matters in the end. i believe my religion is better than any science. science is cold and depressing. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On February 03 2012 20:50 wwJd)El_Mojjo wrote: Since it seems like most people don't even get that it's an analogy in the first place, I'd say it's a bit of a fail though. Regardless of how good the analogy in itself might be. He outright said it was an analogy. How do you fuck up comprehension that bad? | ||
|
RoberP
United Kingdom101 Posts
 "How do believers react to facts?" is very interesting - for instance I obstinately claimed Sc2 would be dull until trying it ^^. People being made more conscious of this tendency is a valiant effort, I certainly try to approach everyday things with a more evidence based mindset a lot more than 2 years ago. | ||
|
wwJd)El_Mojjo
Sweden173 Posts
On February 03 2012 21:50 Romantic wrote: He outright said it was an analogy. How do you fuck up comprehension that bad? To be fair, the thread title is somewhat misleading. I'm guessing a lot of people don't read the actual article and just respond after just reading a bit of the OP. It's a bit sad, but we're all lazy... that's not exactly news I think. ^^ | ||
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Germany171 Posts
On February 03 2012 18:40 Elzar wrote: Now wait a second! Are you telling me inhaling smoke from burned materials isn't healthy? My god! ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qeh4k.gif) Oh my god I can't even breath. To the OP and to posts like this, isn't is common sense enough that smoke is bad for you, no matter where it comes from. As a matter of fact, if I recall my ages ago lesson in chemistry, any biproduct of combustion is bad for health. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
On February 03 2012 21:49 shizna wrote: not really... his point about religion - i couldn't care less about it. i think all religion is dumb, but if people want to comfort themselves by having faith, then what would i be if i tried to take away that comfort? his analogy which outlines the extent of the harmful effects of burning wood was the only 'shocking' point in the article and therefore the only thing worth discussing... i mean, what's our reaction supposed to be? "omg he's totally right, these religious types are dumb! Lol"... no sh*t, i've known that since i was like 9-10 years old when i first started to question the religious brainwashing crap you have to endure in early school. my religion is that life is meaningless unless you can be happy (without cheating yourself by abusing alcohol or other mind altering drugs, because technically you're not 'living' if you spend a lot of hours in a state of stupor). if smoking a cigarette or sitting infront of a wood fire makes you happy - then that's what you should do. even if statistics show that you die a few years younger, at least you were happier which is the only thing that matters in the end. i believe my religion is better than any science. science is cold and depressing. No, I believe his point to be that while atheists/rationalists/sceptics are often baffled by the resistance religious people put up to simple scientific facts, there is a same sort of innate resistance in (as it appears almost) all of us on other (perhaps less meaningfull) issues. He (I think) does this to create some understanding for the stance of others in debates, thus aiming to make the debates better and easyer, which I'd say is a noble cause. And if nothing else, for me at least it was interesting to notice the resistance I immediatly had when reading the article. The statement: "Science is cold and depressing" is one that flows out of the bad PR science has gotten when the new-age scene had to make a niche for themselves and couldnt do it based on any facts, evidence or science. Here's a brilliant translation of my thoughts on the matter: Edit: To the poster above me: please read my post carefully. I wasn't expressing my mind-blowing amazement at the fact wood-smoke's bad, but at the reaction I had to it, which is also what the main article's point is. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
On February 03 2012 20:41 Paroxysm wrote: PLEASE NOTE: I may have interpreted this in the completely wrong way. I think the majority of people that read this thread have completely overlooked the foremost underpinning ideologies in the opening post - The beliefs and counteracting beliefs of the various religious cultures that operate around the world - which have been included in the text through the use of an analogy. If you read though the post thoroughly, you may notice that it is an analogy for the treatment of the members of different religions, namely Atheism (if you could call it a religion). By using the analogy of a fire burning, and describing the scientific effects it would have on your body, the author has effectively shown an alternate viewpoint towards heating. This has ultimately questioned the beliefs of the general public, the majority of which believe that fireplaces are beneficial to you, heating your body and not having dangerous side effects. Transfer this view to religion and Atheism, and the author is actually attempted to question the different stances towards religion and atheism and how people feel when their religious beliefs are challenged. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the way that I interpreted the text rather than as a scientific paper, particularly due to the fact that the author is an Atheist that often writes about his views towards religion. This pretty much hit's the nail on the head btw =) | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On February 03 2012 21:30 Flyingdutchman wrote: Then you are overreacting a bit. Chimney are mostly on top of roofs and such, and therefore release the smoke fairly high up. Smoke is warm and would not travel downwards, so I think the adverse effects on neighbours would be rather minimal at best. Many components of smoke are heavier than air. They will tend to sink even when they are still slightly warmer than the air they sink through. They also cool rapidly. We put filters on industrial chimneys because even though the smoke is hot, and the chimneys are tall, the smoke still travels downwards. Doing the same to a domestic chimney is not a great leap. From the article: Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings. | ||
|
CuLane
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
| ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
On February 03 2012 22:11 Promises wrote: This pretty much hit's the nail on the head btw =) And he did what he intended to do as you can now read across 5 pages of TL posts | ||
|
netherh
United Kingdom333 Posts
On February 03 2012 20:03 Sated wrote: There's no reason to burn wood in a fire now that we have central heating, gas fires and numerous other ways to heat our homes that are both more efficient and better for the environment. This is another good argument against using wood fires, but it shouldn't really be something that needs debating. Burning wood is cheaper and better for the environment... It's certainly more efficient than electric heating too (not sure about gas). | ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
DanceOnCreep
Germany22 Posts
| ||
| ||
