Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel
Yes that's fine - until you go around 'preaching' that non existence, at which point you're putting forward a theological argument in the same way religions do.
I agree athiesm in it's self isn't a 'religious' belief system, but that doesn't mean that people wont use it in a religious manner.
|
No, theology is as far removed from atheism as it could ever get, theology is based on the will of god; atheism is dismissing this entirely. I can’t even begin to understand why you think atheism is a theological argument? Theology is an answer based on nothing, atheism is a question based on fact.
Atheists do not preach in any manner. To preach would be to put already formed ideas in to your head which opposes atheism which encourages asking the questions. Atheism doesn’t put forward any arguments that are not proven (where as religion has a whole book of them you may be familiar with
) and seeks rationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel
Ah but that's my point, there is no proof one way or the other. It's bad enough that individual scientists push theories as hard fact, but the general public are doing the same. I don't honestly see in this case, how you could call what people have in these scientists anything other than faith.
|
No, you had the answer there in your post. Scientists post their theories as…theories. The answer to climate control is being sought after by science; by fact; by proof. Faith is belief without proof. This is what makes climate change different from religion.