Printable View
Your intention probably wasn't to start a whole splinter discussion, but my thought on this is that if human intervention poses the threat, then human intervention should provide the solution. No one should sit idly while tigers are poached into extinction for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Perhaps I misspoke and science is more of how while ethics is the why. I was thinking in terms of "why does this happen" but "how does this happen" is probably more appropriate.
But that isn't a science question. The whys aren't for hard science to answer.
Damn it, Mech.
There are two major definitions of what atheism really is. Most scientists, if you forced them to say one way or another, would probably say, yes, depending on what you mean by 'advanced', there might be/probably is a species more advanced than us. But so what?
I'm hoping that was a typo and that you meant there are two definitions of what a deity is. Atheism is pretty obvious it's A(nti)-theism or the belief that no deities exist, period.
Don't worry. Benghazi will be back soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
No I meant people interpret 'atheism' differently.
Do you not believe there is a God?
Do you believe there is no God?
No, some people just don't concern themselves with it. It's not even a belief at that point, it's an irrelevant matter.
That's not atheism; it is being agnostic. If someone "interprets" (read: misuses) atheism differently, they are wrong, as anyone who knows anything about Latin would tell you.
Which is what you will find most scientists truly are. But then you have the hard right go apeshit and call them atheists because they are totally butthurt. So that is why the term is messed up.