Literally nobody. This is confusing atheism with agnosticism.
Or, if I’m being charitable, they’re confusing the starting position and the conclusion. If you start from a position of neutrality and follow evidence-based reasoning, the conclusion is either atheism or agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. The first refers to belief and the second one refers to knowledge. It’s perfectly possible not to believe in the existence a given god (belief) and at the same time not know with certainty whether it exists (knowledge).
I’ve always understood the colloquial meanings in practice today to be that atheism is active disbelief where agnosticism is essentially choosing not to choose (for lack of information).
I understand your point, linguistically and philosophically, but I don’t really think that’s how most people - even atheists and agnostics - use the terms today.
Through not choosing, agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism is just a subcategory of atheism, and since it derives from the binary of knowing or not knowing, the only other alternative is gnostic atheism.
Which itself is pretty irrelevant since it implies knowledge of the nonexistence of divinity, which implies it’s possible to empirically disprove divinity, and since it’s not possible to actually prove a negative, gnostic atheism is impossible. Therefore all atheists are agnostic (and all agnostics are atheists).
Whether you identify as atheist or agnostic is irrelevant then, since both are shorthands for “agnostic atheist”
If you start from a position of neutrality and follow evidence-based reasoning, the conclusion is either atheism or agnosticism.
I’m sure you can find some Ontological Arguments to the contrary. Regardless, its weird to suggest atheists - who have clearly staked out a philosophical position - are “neutral” on the subject of religious belief. It reeks of the terminally online conservatives who would scream “Not An Argument” at anyone they disagreed with, to shut them up.
It’s a theist’s articulation of an agnostic atheist’s explanation of their view. The real issue here is that they’re conflating gnostic atheists with agnostic atheists.
I would interpret neutrality as not being “for or against” anything. I’d say most religious, nonreligious and atheist people are not preaching their religion or opposing others. So actually I would say most people are “neutral”.
For any group, there will be a subset of evangelicals who are “for” their stance in actively trying to convert others to their ideology. A further subset of this, is those who are “against” any other ideology and actively campaign others. I would say all in these categories are no longer “neutral”.
So every group will have a majority of neutrals and subsets who aren’t. I agree, I don’t see how anyone can argue that atheism = neutrality. This comic is a deliberate effort to categorise atheists as: all being anti-religion. This strikes me as something a religious anti-atheism aunt would share on Facebook.
I’d say most religious, nonreligious and atheist people are not preaching their religion or opposing others
Most successful religious movements are explicitly evangelical. And it isn’t as though religious debate is uncommon in society.
The number of hard core missionaries and zealots are in the minority, but their success is predicated on a large financial and political base back home.
So every group will have a majority of neutrals and subsets who aren’t.
For any group, you’re going to have a “standard” view which will be the baseline. And you’ll have deviation from that baseline by degrees of orthodoxy or heresy.
But standard doesn’t mean neutral. You can have a predominantly Catholic or Hindu or Taoist community with very staunch beliefs and taboos. You can also have a very segregated religious environment, where Pakistani Muslims and Chinese Buddhists or Afghan Muslims and Soviet Atheists or Chinese Falun Gong and Chinese Confuscians both hold to their views rigidly, while feuding over public policy as a result.
The majority doesn’t have to be neutral. There may not even be a majority, in a significantly pluralist community.
This comic is a deliberate effort to categorise atheists as: all being anti-religion.
A lot of the staumcher atheists I know are people who were raised and then rejected a family/community faith. I don’t think that’s an unfair conclusion, but it ignores the cause (social structures that produce a hard divide between these cohorts).
We’re not all neutral. There’s a lot of intense feeling around religion
Who is saying this?
Literally nobody. This is confusing atheism with agnosticism.
Or, if I’m being charitable, they’re confusing the starting position and the conclusion. If you start from a position of neutrality and follow evidence-based reasoning, the conclusion is either atheism or agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. The first refers to belief and the second one refers to knowledge. It’s perfectly possible not to believe in the existence a given god (belief) and at the same time not know with certainty whether it exists (knowledge).
I’ve always understood the colloquial meanings in practice today to be that atheism is active disbelief where agnosticism is essentially choosing not to choose (for lack of information).
I understand your point, linguistically and philosophically, but I don’t really think that’s how most people - even atheists and agnostics - use the terms today.
Maybe. It’s worth defining terms before you discuss. I always try to make it clear I view myself as an agnostic atheist.
Through not choosing, agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism is just a subcategory of atheism, and since it derives from the binary of knowing or not knowing, the only other alternative is gnostic atheism.
Which itself is pretty irrelevant since it implies knowledge of the nonexistence of divinity, which implies it’s possible to empirically disprove divinity, and since it’s not possible to actually prove a negative, gnostic atheism is impossible. Therefore all atheists are agnostic (and all agnostics are atheists).
Whether you identify as atheist or agnostic is irrelevant then, since both are shorthands for “agnostic atheist”
Nah there are a lot of agnostic theists. It’s even relatively mainstream.
I’m sure you can find some Ontological Arguments to the contrary. Regardless, its weird to suggest atheists - who have clearly staked out a philosophical position - are “neutral” on the subject of religious belief. It reeks of the terminally online conservatives who would scream “Not An Argument” at anyone they disagreed with, to shut them up.
It’s a theist’s articulation of an agnostic atheist’s explanation of their view. The real issue here is that they’re conflating gnostic atheists with agnostic atheists.
Evangelical atheism is a subset of atheism that gives the whole bunch a bad name.
Sure, fine, whatever. But what does this have to do with “neutrality”? Is he confusing atheists and agnostics?
I’m not saying you’re wrong.
I would interpret neutrality as not being “for or against” anything. I’d say most religious, nonreligious and atheist people are not preaching their religion or opposing others. So actually I would say most people are “neutral”.
For any group, there will be a subset of evangelicals who are “for” their stance in actively trying to convert others to their ideology. A further subset of this, is those who are “against” any other ideology and actively campaign others. I would say all in these categories are no longer “neutral”.
So every group will have a majority of neutrals and subsets who aren’t. I agree, I don’t see how anyone can argue that atheism = neutrality. This comic is a deliberate effort to categorise atheists as: all being anti-religion. This strikes me as something a religious anti-atheism aunt would share on Facebook.
Most successful religious movements are explicitly evangelical. And it isn’t as though religious debate is uncommon in society.
The number of hard core missionaries and zealots are in the minority, but their success is predicated on a large financial and political base back home.
For any group, you’re going to have a “standard” view which will be the baseline. And you’ll have deviation from that baseline by degrees of orthodoxy or heresy.
But standard doesn’t mean neutral. You can have a predominantly Catholic or Hindu or Taoist community with very staunch beliefs and taboos. You can also have a very segregated religious environment, where Pakistani Muslims and Chinese Buddhists or Afghan Muslims and Soviet Atheists or Chinese Falun Gong and Chinese Confuscians both hold to their views rigidly, while feuding over public policy as a result.
The majority doesn’t have to be neutral. There may not even be a majority, in a significantly pluralist community.
A lot of the staumcher atheists I know are people who were raised and then rejected a family/community faith. I don’t think that’s an unfair conclusion, but it ignores the cause (social structures that produce a hard divide between these cohorts).
We’re not all neutral. There’s a lot of intense feeling around religion
Buddhists in SriLanka vs Buddhists in Thailand.
There is a big difference between “neutral”. And it varies based on beliefs.