And here's me thinking the A in AGW stood for Anthropogenic rather than Athiest Global Warming...

I particularly liked the 'no-true Scotsman'-style hectoring of "Christians who claim that dominion over the earth means we can rape and destroy it have misunderstood and misapplied this stewardship." because those Christians certainly do not think they have misunderstood anything.

All in all I prefer my satire funnier and when questioned as to its wit? Able to respond with "more", not "less".

God would be ashamed that his non-existance has been so thoroughly misrepresented.

A surprising number of atheists DO believe in anthropogenic global warming. I say 'surprising' because many of the arguments advanced for AGW are substantially the same as the arguments advanced in favour of religion, and just about as effective. The 'precautionary principle', for instance, is a dead ringer for Pascal's Wager. Not that there are any arguments for AGW in this article, other than the tired old anecdotal: "Hasn't it been hot lately?"

But it's nice that the author has been able to bring together in this way the two groups that he obviously loathes. It makes the process of tarring with the same brush ever so much easier.

Considering the practical implications of worldviews is something that sadly people often don’t give enough consideration, so well done Rob Martin for giving it a crack.

An obvious criticism of this article has already been made above. In fact, it has been repeated many times. But, as so often happens with comments on forums like this, it’s a tangent that is unworthy of our time.

“Atheism is not a worldview”. Well, yes, technically that’s correct. Atheism is technically denying the existence of God and doesn’t technically oblige an atheist to any other views. But what is, in fact, the view of the world taken by 99% of atheists in the Western world today? That of naturalism. “Nature is all that exists”, or as Sagan said “The cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be”. And what are the implications of this view for someone considering the need to make personal sacrifice without any personal gain? This is the underlying issue that Martin is really fleshing out here, within the specific context of the need for some kind of action on climate change. If we live, and then die, and go back to the dust we’re from, and our lives contain no purpose other than the purposes we give them ourselves, does this provide a compelling reason to act on climate change?

It appears to me that this article has validity; Martin’s points have genuine force if you look at the substance rather than focusing superficially on his description of atheism. Perhaps he should’ve titled his article “The view of the world taken by 99% of atheists and which appears most compelling once God is rejected impedes climate change action”. More accurate? Yes. But far less interesting!

(to be continued

Martin says that “The consistent message of atheism is to maximise our lives, our potential and opportunities now because this is the only life we get and we need to fill it with as much as possible” and that “The future in an atheist world is very short – to the end of our life”. This actually sounds A LOT like what Richard Dawkins has been telling us all for years! “There’s Probably no God- now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. Sound familiar?

If enjoying our lives is the main game in town and our lives are short, why sacrifice for no personal gain? It’s a good question. It’s a pity non of the responses from the atheists here have thus far provided any serious food for thought in response.

Have to agree with Mac!
Both John Howard and Tony Abbott are committed Christians, allegedly.
Mr Howard was very much a latter day convert to climate change, and Mr Abbott once described it as Male bovine manure, or words to that effect.
As others have stated, christian history is littered with bloodthirsty butchery and debauchery, and we won't mention the centuries long slavery/child sex and other abuse.
I mean, Christians once excused/justified slavery, as their bible allegedly informed them the the negro had the mark of Cain on him, or was no better than the beasts in the field.
And how many pedophile priests escaped justice, (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) because so called Christians covered up for them; or forgave them, in God's name!
If god could speak to them now, he would likely ask of them, who gave you the right to speak or act in my name?
They butchered six million Muslims, on the grounds they wouldn't swear allegiance to the christian bible, (the endlessly revised and edited, but sole work of human scholars!)
They burned seers at the stake and accused them of witchcraft, even Joan of Arc!
And even today, they try mightily to prevent population control by banning the pill, condoms and the morning after pill, even in cases of rape!
Green credentials? Really?
One would suggest that the Author remove his head from whatever warm and comfortable place he has inserted it; straighten up, and take a good long look around at the real world; and then the mirror!
Rhrosty.

Trav,

There is no “message of atheism” to begin with, so there is nowhere further to go - no more “food for thought” beyond pointing this out. It’s just a strawman from the author. What someone wants to deduce from the absence of an afterlife is up to them - atheism has nothing to say about it.

Now, if you want to ask “Why sacrifice for no personal gain?” then that’s a different question. To which I would reply, “What kind of a psychopath gains pleasure from destroying things for their own gain, and to the detriment of others, in the first place?” It’s not in our nature, and those for whom it is, are usually removed from society.

Why should our restraint rely on pleasing or obeying a god? And why would doing that be more important, or more moral, than simply sacrificing any perceived benefits for altruistic reasons and concerns for future generations?

Now they’re better questions!

Our lives would become pretty shallow and meaningless if we didn’t care about leaving something for future generations. There is no bigger motivation to leave behind a positive legacy than having such brief and finite lives. After all, what better substitute for eternal life could there possibly be?