• cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Evangelical atheism is a subset of atheism that gives the whole bunch a bad name.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Evangelical atheism is a subset of atheism

      Sure, fine, whatever. But what does this have to do with “neutrality”? Is he confusing atheists and agnostics?

      • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

          • maniii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Buddhists in SriLanka vs Buddhists in Thailand.

            There is a big difference between “neutral”. And it varies based on beliefs.