Islam is perhaps the furthest religion in existence from idol worship, bar none. In Christianity, even the Eastern Orthodox church permits icons (2D images are okay, but 3D models are forbidden).
Yes, I know, which is what makes it so ironic that they're killing people over the creation of images. They clearly don't understand the whole idea of not focusing on the image, but on the ideas. They're attacking people specifically because of the image -- hence, they are giving power to the image, rather than the ideas. That's idol worship.
Looking back even just over the past 5 years, we can see Christians responsible for at least two fairly major wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), the associated torture of detainees, amongst other atrocities.
Err, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't attacked specifically because Bush is a Christian. On the other hand, the Muslim zealots are attacking specifically because they are Muslim and don't like some cartoons.
How about the estimated half of the prisoners in Guantanamo who don't seem to have actually done anything?
Some of them are probably innocent, and some of them most likely aren't. The question is how to determine that, which is a difficult decision in a time of war. But they certainly weren't put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts. They were believed, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in terrorism.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
It's called "disturbing the peace". They weren't arrested for having the wrong thoughts, they were arrested for violating the rights of others. You have the right to free speech; you don't have the right to force your speech on others and create a public nuisance.
For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals of American soldiers because those soldiers have been upholding a regime (the Bush Administration) that is soft on "fags" (one of their favorite words) and so on.
I don't see tens of thousands of those people rioting and killing people.
Therefore, by siding religious feelings and historical facts, you're fuelling the arguments or religious zealots willing to enforce their own myth as a state-held truth, and / or justifying racism toward those holding beliefs we don't share because they're holding a supposed "truth" we don't believe in.
I don't think mixing the two is inappropriate. Religious people can believe whatever they want, just as someone can believe in whatever facts they want, as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Right now, the Muslin zealots are violating the free speech of others, just as the government of Vienna is violating the free speech of their citizens. Both are horrific abuses of civil rights.
Just out of curiosity, as a European yourself, why isn't there more outrage over putting someone in jail for THREE YEARS for having the wrong thoughts???
yes, everyone else in the world can not believe you guys voted the bush administration in again either.
Say what you want about Bush, but at least he doesn't put people in jail for having the wrong thoughts. That makes him morally superior to any leader in Europe who doesn't call for immediate sanctions against any country with these sort of laws.
I'm getting pretty tired of society being held hostage by a bunch of ignorant barbarians who basically worship symbols and idols.
I think the entire world should start plastering images of Mohammad everywhere. Drown them in it until they realize they need to practice their religion however they want and leave the rest of the world out of it.
Not that Europe is much better, as my current sig shows. People bitch about the US and Bush, but at least Yahoo is a private corporation making this decision.
This sort of blatant disregard for the English language is simply intolerable.
I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but it actually bothers me less when a new word is invented, versus butchering the existing language and calling that evolution of the language, which is actually simple laziness and ignorance.
IF YOU CAN'T POST AN OPEN, PUBLIC LINK TO THE STORY, THEN DON'T POST IT AT ALL
Screw you. Who the fuck are you to decide that I should only view links that don't require a subscription? If you don't like it, don't look at the story. I'll decide for myself whether I want to view it, thank you.
If you still wish to insist that the Big Bang is a fact, then allow me to ask one further question: from where did this cosmic egg come? "It was the collapsed remains of a previously expanded (and subsequently contracted) universe" is one common argument. Okay, if I cede that, then we are back to some other cosmic egg eons before our present egg. From where did that egg come? And the one preceding it? And the one preceding it? You see, the Big Bang theory provides no answer to origins at all, it just defers the ultimate question further back in time. The ultimate question begs the philosophical...was there ever an uncaused cause?
Actually, that line of reasoning is dangerous for religious people, since it leads to disproving God.:) If intelligence requires a creator, therefore God requires an intelligent creator. And therefore, that creator requires an intelligent creator. And so and so on to infinity. Since that's absurd, it leads to the conclusion that there has to be ultimate physicality that led to the creation of intelligence, either God or us. And since we've now proven that God is not necessary for intelligence, the simplest explanation for intelligence is without the need for a God that has absolutely zero evidence.
Re:Not for military really.. except maybe suppleme
on
Flexible Body Armor
·
· Score: 1
Actually, this stuff may work better than you think. Have you seen the episode of Mythbusters where they shoot high powered rifles into water? Amazingly, the faster the bullet, the more protection you got from the water, since the fluid tended to cause the bullets to disintegrate.
I could imagine stuff like this acting like a fluid and work better than traditional plate armor. It would definitely be an interesting experiment.
Since when is it a fact that the entire known universe started as an miniscule "cosmic egg" that exploded into everything? That is a theory developed on an interpretation of available facts. Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins.
The difference is that the big bang theory uses mathematical models based on measured observations of reality, and the other uses "there's just gotta be a designer, because I don't understand how it could be any other way, and I'm not interested in learning other ways because it contradicts my faith beliefs."
we really need to spend more resources solving the problems of third world nations [...] U.S. citizens spent around $30 billion last year on toys for their kids, if even 10% of that was directed towards this kind of R&D, many of these "simple solutions" could be found and put into action.
If solving these problems was a question of mere money, they would have been solved a long time. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the problem is political and social.
Ironically to your point, spending money on toys (and a lot of other consumables) helps people in the third world probably more than anything else. It creates a lot of jobs in those countries, helping them on the road to self-sufficiency.
Wow! You must really hate Microsoft as a company then too! Who the hell is Bill Gates to tell you what you can or cannot do with the software you bought from him?
Have you noticed that Bill (and Microsoft) has never sued anyone for running software the way the want? They've never sued anyone for running Windows within Wine? They've never sued the Wine developers? They've never sued the Samba people. They've never sued anyone who has reverse engineered their file formats. They've never even TRIED. Microsoft has rarely (if ever) used the lawsuit as a weapon.
In this respect, Microsoft is infinitely morally superior to Apple.
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?
This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
And this is just of the top of my head, after about 15 years of not having looked at it. Paper processing is an ugly, dirty job that sucks up a ton of energy.
Who said it was an easy job? The premise is that recycle processing is an uglier, dirtier job that sucks up more energy.
Oh, and trees are generally not close to the processing plant. Processing plants are huge beasts, and you need only a few per country. There is no such thing as a "local" paper mill.
-shrug- I'll accept your information on that. It doesn't matter anyway. It doesn't speak to the question of whether one is more efficient than the other.
I would think your peers a little dim. "That's just what I believe," is a very bad place to stop. "I'll find out," is better by far.
No, they stop there because that's all that's left of their arguments after we go through the process of systematically destroying their evidence.
But seriously, don't you think the chances are rather slim that atheism will survive the total onslaught from Intelligent Design and friends to remain a respectable religion:) for another 200 years?
Nah, Intelligent Design is actually one of the "signs of the apocolypse" for religion. Science is providing so much more rational and satisfying answers that religion is fighting back through intentional misinformation campaigns. If religion has to resort to lying about science (as the article I linked to clearly shows), then it's in serious trouble.
But I don't even have to do that. Look at history. How much atheism did we have 100 years ago? Almost none. Today? Granted, not too many people admit to atheism in surveys (5-10%, depending on the survey), but practically speaking, a LOT of people are "behavioral" atheists, but just don't admit it. Church attendance is very low compared to historical levels (occasional blips and rises during hard times notwithstanding). Very few people bother to read and study the bible.
In countries where religion is still popular, there is still social pressure against being an atheist, particularly from the older generation. The current generation is much more accepting of the idea (heck, look at Slashdot when this topic comes up). A few more generations and being an atheist will be no big deal.
Most people are religious because it came from their family. You have to be indoctrinated really early in life to have the pattern set that Big Daddy in the Sky is watching everything. If you don't grow up with that, then the driving fear that religion uses is much less effective. Once society is used to not needing it, I think it will simply go away. I mean, there isn't much direct practical benefit to religion, other than the fellowship (which isn't trivial, but you can get that from a lot of things), and the peace of mind of knowing "the answer". But I think science is giving so many other answers that eventually people will be OK with the fact that "the answer" is that there really isn't anything special about us. We're simply machines that are wound up at birth, and wind down at death, and that's OK.
If you like opportunities, I suggest you harass your friends until they are forced to search out objective evidence, or join you in disbelief. If they don't have evidence, you'll only be doing them a favour.
Actually, I used to do that a long time ago (not harass, but try and discuss religion with people), before I figured out that it just didn't matter that much. People say they like to discuss deeper subjects, but it's not really true. It always ends with, "well, yeah, I see what you're saying and yes I know it makes no sense, but it's 'just' what I believe."
I found that what people really want is to believe something similar to what the people around them believe, to fit in. And I can actually understand that. Most people around me these days don't even know I'm an atheist, and if pressed about whether I believe in God, I just say "yes". It's easier that way. I simply define God as a naturalistic "that which created the Universe", whatever natural process that was. Of course, that's completely different from their view of the "big father in the sky" view of God, but it makes things easier.
I'm old enough now that I've figured out that it just really doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. If it works for them, then more power to them, as long as they go around trying to legislate the belief or something. It'd be nice if the world could leave our cultural adolescence and use the energy we use on religion for something else, but I think we're a ways away from that. I do think that in 100-200 years from now, religion will be nearly dead. Probably too late for me, but we'll see if medical tech keeps me propped up enough to see it.:)
So, before any facts have been considered, the conclusion is reached, requiring only the initial axioms. An elegant solution, and a notable triumph of reason:)
Who says facts aren't considered? Considering how much religion permeates society, it's difficult to be an atheist without weighing the evidence. At least for me, I had tons of opportunities to be a Christian (having a lot of friends who are), but the complete lack of objective evidence doomed any desire to follow that path for me.
Just the absurdity of God completely hiding his presence at the same time giving us intelligence, while also insisting we believe in him, or suffer eternal damnation is silly enough to kill the whole concept.
you read one "study" claiming something, in spite of um'teen other studies claiming the exact opposite and you choose the believe the loner?
Those aren't studies, those are blanket statement intended to convince people of something. I believe the one study because it was an actual STUDY. It was science. It's not someone trying to sell me something with no evidence.
The problem with all that is that the fault for the deaths lies solely with Saddam Hussein and Terrorist organizations, not George Bush. People die in war. That's simply the way it is.
Since Hitler is all over this thread, let me use a Hitler analogy: should we not have attacked Germany to bring down Hitler because of the innocent German civilian casualties that were caused?
Maybe I'm missing the joke here, but I'd be surprised if most atheists didn't celebrate Christmas. I'm an atheist (with agnostic tendencies), and I celebrate it as a traditional holiday. That it celebrates some dead guy's birth who was actually born in the spring doesn't really worry me that much.:)
Also, true atheists don't "hate" Jesus, they simply don't think he's divine, since there is no God.
Though, I'll admit too many atheists are nut cases who go around hating everything to do with religion. But that's their own personality quirks, it has nothing to do with atheism.
Yes, but what you're missing here is the fact that you have to turn dirty, inky, coated garbage back into nice paper, versus starting with nice, clean trees (from tree farms conveniently located close to the processing plants).
Unfortunately, I can't find the study I saw. It was quite a while ago, but it did end-to-end energy and pollution comparisons. Usually these stats don't take into account the full picture. In fact, it's pretty amusing to do a google on the subject. Some excerpts:
"Making recycled paper instead of new paper uses 64 percent less energy and uses 58 percent less water."
"A paper mill uses 20 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper"
"Producing recycled paper involves between 28 - 70% less energy consumption than virgin paper and uses less water."
"Production of recycled paper uses 80% less water, 65% less energy"
"There can be no definitive statement on which uses more energy because each forest, producer, vehicle, mill and so on will have its own way of working, and the different types of energy-use also have different environmental impacts. Broadly the reprocessed fibre in recycled grades is more efficient in energy terms." (at least this one tries to be honest, even though it spins it the way they want to)
"Producing recycled paper uses much less total energy than producing virgin paper. Depending on the grade, producing recycled paper may use more or less purchased energy (a subset of total energy), in the form of fossil fuels and purchased electricity. Virgin freesheet grades require slightly less purchased energy to produce than recycled ones, because some of their energy needs are met by burning wood-derived process waste. Virgin groundwood papers, by contrast, require more purchased energy to produce than do recycled groundwood papers." (this one at least admits that more fossil fuels are used by recycling)
"Recycling paper saves trees and uses 70% less energy, 60% less water and creates 50% less pollution than making paper from trees." (Wheee! More numbers pulled out the air!)
"It takes 60 percent less energy to manufacture paper from recycled stock"
"Making recycled paper uses 30 to 55 percent less energy"
Anyway, it should be apparent that these numbers are all over the map, and funny enough, no one ever gives a reference for where they come from. I wish I could find the study I saw, it was really good. I should've kept a link around for when this subject inevitably comes up. To tell you the truth, I don't usually get into it anymore because no one wants to believe it, so it's not a particularly fruitful subject to discuss. But I'm apparently bored enough tonight.:)
Care to explain what you mean, or is reasoning and intelligent discourse not your strong suit?
Actually, reasoning and intelligent discourse is my specialty, but the subject is fairly off-topic, not to mention that I answered someone else's question not too long ago. The bottom line is that the whole "SUVs are evil" concept is just lazy thinking by people who have no idea what the bigger problems are, so they pick on an easy target. It just proves that people would rather believe things that make them feel good (and righteous) than face real truths.
It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper. No one wants to believe that, because it makes them feel good to recycle paper, and environmentalists "feel" that it's the "thought that counts" rather than the reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know, which is what makes it so ironic that they're killing people over the creation of images. They clearly don't understand the whole idea of not focusing on the image, but on the ideas. They're attacking people specifically because of the image -- hence, they are giving power to the image, rather than the ideas. That's idol worship.
Err, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't attacked specifically because Bush is a Christian. On the other hand, the Muslim zealots are attacking specifically because they are Muslim and don't like some cartoons.
Some of them are probably innocent, and some of them most likely aren't. The question is how to determine that, which is a difficult decision in a time of war. But they certainly weren't put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts. They were believed, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in terrorism.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
It's called "disturbing the peace". They weren't arrested for having the wrong thoughts, they were arrested for violating the rights of others. You have the right to free speech; you don't have the right to force your speech on others and create a public nuisance.
For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals of American soldiers because those soldiers have been upholding a regime (the Bush Administration) that is soft on "fags" (one of their favorite words) and so on.
I don't see tens of thousands of those people rioting and killing people.
I don't think mixing the two is inappropriate. Religious people can believe whatever they want, just as someone can believe in whatever facts they want, as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Right now, the Muslin zealots are violating the free speech of others, just as the government of Vienna is violating the free speech of their citizens. Both are horrific abuses of civil rights.
Just out of curiosity, as a European yourself, why isn't there more outrage over putting someone in jail for THREE YEARS for having the wrong thoughts???
Say what you want about Bush, but at least he doesn't put people in jail for having the wrong thoughts. That makes him morally superior to any leader in Europe who doesn't call for immediate sanctions against any country with these sort of laws.
I think the entire world should start plastering images of Mohammad everywhere. Drown them in it until they realize they need to practice their religion however they want and leave the rest of the world out of it.
Not that Europe is much better, as my current sig shows. People bitch about the US and Bush, but at least Yahoo is a private corporation making this decision.
I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but it actually bothers me less when a new word is invented, versus butchering the existing language and calling that evolution of the language, which is actually simple laziness and ignorance.
Screw you. Who the fuck are you to decide that I should only view links that don't require a subscription? If you don't like it, don't look at the story. I'll decide for myself whether I want to view it, thank you.
Actually, that line of reasoning is dangerous for religious people, since it leads to disproving God. :) If intelligence requires a creator, therefore God requires an intelligent creator. And therefore, that creator requires an intelligent creator. And so and so on to infinity. Since that's absurd, it leads to the conclusion that there has to be ultimate physicality that led to the creation of intelligence, either God or us. And since we've now proven that God is not necessary for intelligence, the simplest explanation for intelligence is without the need for a God that has absolutely zero evidence.
I could imagine stuff like this acting like a fluid and work better than traditional plate armor. It would definitely be an interesting experiment.
The difference is that the big bang theory uses mathematical models based on measured observations of reality, and the other uses "there's just gotta be a designer, because I don't understand how it could be any other way, and I'm not interested in learning other ways because it contradicts my faith beliefs."
If solving these problems was a question of mere money, they would have been solved a long time. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the problem is political and social.
Ironically to your point, spending money on toys (and a lot of other consumables) helps people in the third world probably more than anything else. It creates a lot of jobs in those countries, helping them on the road to self-sufficiency.
"Only"? That's bigger than they are now. And the experiment was hardly given a fair chance.
So who's correct? You or Jobs?
Me. It hasn't exactly hurt Microsoft to sell operating systems, now has it? The reason Apple is so puny is BECAUSE they try and control everything.
Have you noticed that Bill (and Microsoft) has never sued anyone for running software the way the want? They've never sued anyone for running Windows within Wine? They've never sued the Wine developers? They've never sued the Samba people. They've never sued anyone who has reverse engineered their file formats. They've never even TRIED. Microsoft has rarely (if ever) used the lawsuit as a weapon.
In this respect, Microsoft is infinitely morally superior to Apple.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?
This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Who said it was an easy job? The premise is that recycle processing is an uglier, dirtier job that sucks up more energy.
Oh, and trees are generally not close to the processing plant. Processing plants are huge beasts, and you need only a few per country. There is no such thing as a "local" paper mill.
-shrug- I'll accept your information on that. It doesn't matter anyway. It doesn't speak to the question of whether one is more efficient than the other.
No, they stop there because that's all that's left of their arguments after we go through the process of systematically destroying their evidence.
But seriously, don't you think the chances are rather slim that atheism will survive the total onslaught from Intelligent Design and friends to remain a respectable religion :) for another 200 years?
Nah, Intelligent Design is actually one of the "signs of the apocolypse" for religion. Science is providing so much more rational and satisfying answers that religion is fighting back through intentional misinformation campaigns. If religion has to resort to lying about science (as the article I linked to clearly shows), then it's in serious trouble.
But I don't even have to do that. Look at history. How much atheism did we have 100 years ago? Almost none. Today? Granted, not too many people admit to atheism in surveys (5-10%, depending on the survey), but practically speaking, a LOT of people are "behavioral" atheists, but just don't admit it. Church attendance is very low compared to historical levels (occasional blips and rises during hard times notwithstanding). Very few people bother to read and study the bible.
In countries where religion is still popular, there is still social pressure against being an atheist, particularly from the older generation. The current generation is much more accepting of the idea (heck, look at Slashdot when this topic comes up). A few more generations and being an atheist will be no big deal.
Most people are religious because it came from their family. You have to be indoctrinated really early in life to have the pattern set that Big Daddy in the Sky is watching everything. If you don't grow up with that, then the driving fear that religion uses is much less effective. Once society is used to not needing it, I think it will simply go away. I mean, there isn't much direct practical benefit to religion, other than the fellowship (which isn't trivial, but you can get that from a lot of things), and the peace of mind of knowing "the answer". But I think science is giving so many other answers that eventually people will be OK with the fact that "the answer" is that there really isn't anything special about us. We're simply machines that are wound up at birth, and wind down at death, and that's OK.
Actually, I used to do that a long time ago (not harass, but try and discuss religion with people), before I figured out that it just didn't matter that much. People say they like to discuss deeper subjects, but it's not really true. It always ends with, "well, yeah, I see what you're saying and yes I know it makes no sense, but it's 'just' what I believe."
I found that what people really want is to believe something similar to what the people around them believe, to fit in. And I can actually understand that. Most people around me these days don't even know I'm an atheist, and if pressed about whether I believe in God, I just say "yes". It's easier that way. I simply define God as a naturalistic "that which created the Universe", whatever natural process that was. Of course, that's completely different from their view of the "big father in the sky" view of God, but it makes things easier.
I'm old enough now that I've figured out that it just really doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. If it works for them, then more power to them, as long as they go around trying to legislate the belief or something. It'd be nice if the world could leave our cultural adolescence and use the energy we use on religion for something else, but I think we're a ways away from that. I do think that in 100-200 years from now, religion will be nearly dead. Probably too late for me, but we'll see if medical tech keeps me propped up enough to see it. :)
Who says facts aren't considered? Considering how much religion permeates society, it's difficult to be an atheist without weighing the evidence. At least for me, I had tons of opportunities to be a Christian (having a lot of friends who are), but the complete lack of objective evidence doomed any desire to follow that path for me.
Just the absurdity of God completely hiding his presence at the same time giving us intelligence, while also insisting we believe in him, or suffer eternal damnation is silly enough to kill the whole concept.
Those aren't studies, those are blanket statement intended to convince people of something. I believe the one study because it was an actual STUDY. It was science. It's not someone trying to sell me something with no evidence.
Since Hitler is all over this thread, let me use a Hitler analogy: should we not have attacked Germany to bring down Hitler because of the innocent German civilian casualties that were caused?
Also, true atheists don't "hate" Jesus, they simply don't think he's divine, since there is no God.
Though, I'll admit too many atheists are nut cases who go around hating everything to do with religion. But that's their own personality quirks, it has nothing to do with atheism.
Yes, but what you're missing here is the fact that you have to turn dirty, inky, coated garbage back into nice paper, versus starting with nice, clean trees (from tree farms conveniently located close to the processing plants).
"Making recycled paper instead of new paper uses 64 percent less energy and uses 58 percent less water."
"A paper mill uses 20 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper"
"Producing recycled paper involves between 28 - 70% less energy consumption than virgin paper and uses less water."
"Production of recycled paper uses 80% less water, 65% less energy"
"There can be no definitive statement on which uses more energy because each forest, producer, vehicle, mill and so on will have its own way of working, and the different types of energy-use also have different environmental impacts. Broadly the reprocessed fibre in recycled grades is more efficient in energy terms." (at least this one tries to be honest, even though it spins it the way they want to)
"Producing recycled paper uses much less total energy than producing virgin paper. Depending on the grade, producing recycled paper may use more or less purchased energy (a subset of total energy), in the form of fossil fuels and purchased electricity. Virgin freesheet grades require slightly less purchased energy to produce than recycled ones, because some of their energy needs are met by burning wood-derived process waste. Virgin groundwood papers, by contrast, require more purchased energy to produce than do recycled groundwood papers." (this one at least admits that more fossil fuels are used by recycling)
"Recycling paper saves trees and uses 70% less energy, 60% less water and creates 50% less pollution than making paper from trees." (Wheee! More numbers pulled out the air!)
"It takes 60 percent less energy to manufacture paper from recycled stock"
"Making recycled paper uses 30 to 55 percent less energy"
Anyway, it should be apparent that these numbers are all over the map, and funny enough, no one ever gives a reference for where they come from. I wish I could find the study I saw, it was really good. I should've kept a link around for when this subject inevitably comes up. To tell you the truth, I don't usually get into it anymore because no one wants to believe it, so it's not a particularly fruitful subject to discuss. But I'm apparently bored enough tonight. :)
Actually, reasoning and intelligent discourse is my specialty, but the subject is fairly off-topic, not to mention that I answered someone else's question not too long ago. The bottom line is that the whole "SUVs are evil" concept is just lazy thinking by people who have no idea what the bigger problems are, so they pick on an easy target. It just proves that people would rather believe things that make them feel good (and righteous) than face real truths.
It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper. No one wants to believe that, because it makes them feel good to recycle paper, and environmentalists "feel" that it's the "thought that counts" rather than the reality.