> Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist?

No, neither factual belief in climate change (in general, or more specifically anthropogenic climate change) nor ideological belief in environmentalism is eschatology ("the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind") to start with, and even if they have a weak correlation with atheism, there is no essential connection between them and atheism (they may sometimes have a common cause, in that both atheism and factual belief in climate change can be grounded in scientific rationalism.)

> And they do proselytize quite a bit.

Proselytizing atheists are disproportionately visible, because people that aren't trying to shove their beliefs down your throat are a lot less noticeable. So, sure, if you aren't an atheists, the people whose atheism you notice will be very disproportionately those who are proselytizers. That doesn't mean atheists in general are proseltyizers, and atheism has no unifying belief in the value of proselytization the way, say, mainstream Christianity does.

Now you're just repeating definitions. I'll ask you this, why would any one give a damn about "anthropogenic climate change" if they did not have some theory in their heads about "the final destiny of humankind"?

Cause I hope they do have a theory that connects to their personal values, otherwise they are just following blindly.

PS. did you just make up "factual belief"? I mean it is a tautology on many levels. But let's take it as qualified belief. Isn't that the root of religion? It's okay, we humans need to believe in something

> I'll ask you this, why would any one give a damn about "anthropogenic climate change" if they did not have some theory in their heads about "the final destiny of humankind"?

Because they have some concern about the quality of life people experience in the future, independent of any concept of the final destiny of humankind.

> Cause I hope they do have a theory that connects to their personal values, otherwise they are just following blindly

I'm not sure what your point is, unless you are unable to separate the idea of having values from eschatological theory. While certainly these can (and often are) ties together in religion, values can exist without any eschatology.

> did you just make up "factual belief"?

No.

> I mean it is a tautology on many levels.

It can't be a tautology because it's not a proposition, much less one that is true by definition. You might mean to say it's redundant, but it's not that. A factual belief is a belief on a question of fact, as opposed, e.g., to a question of values.

I have no idea about “the final destiny of humankind”, but I’m pretty sure anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomena.

Climate change can be extrapolated, through science, to a potentially very challenging future environment. Eschatology is about religious constructs like judgment by deities, prophecies, life after death, "end times", and the like. Believe in the latter if you like, but the former is about evidence, statistics, logic, and reasoning.

Perhaps in the US, but I don't think this is the case in say China. Communism is atheist but not known for environmentalism. Atheism does not imply scientism or rationality either.

People seem to have a really hard time grasping that atheism does not imply any particular world view or ideology beside believing in zero gods.

No more than climate denial is the eschatology of Christianity.

At least we are getting somewhere now :)

It might be, for many (not for me, for example), but it certainly isn't a defining or necessary feature. Future atheists, for example, with entirely different concerns (and eschatology) would still properly call themselves atheists if they're without belief in some deity.

The average liberal might like their caffè latte, but neither classical nor progressive liberalism contains a commitment to certain beverages.