(August 14, 2015 at 9:47 am)Faith No More Wrote: I'm perfectly fine with Neil's position. He's clearly an atheist by the terms we go by around here, but I think his not identifying as atheist is more of a political move. Like it or not, in America, the word atheist does come with baggage, and like Alex said, by identifying as agnostic, he can reach people more easily my not having to jump over certain hurdles that he would have to as and out and out atheist.It's not just the baggage of being immoral and evil but the baggage of being associated with "angry" atheists who bring headlines saying religion needs a cure,etc - Neil said that he really can't judge people for not having enough knowledge and therefore being ignorant if it's not their fault - He said it is disrespectful to mock people if they are ignorant due to outside circumstances. I think he is mostly focused on teaching science, astronomy and getting people to think and takes a mode moderate stance compared to other atheists like Dawkins, and that's why it sounds weird but many atheists would take a similar position. Most of all, he does seem to be little fond of organized atheism like Dawkins and his followers because he thinks the word shouldn't even be used in the first place kinda like agolfism doesn't exist, he just doesn't want to be associated with something he is not which is itself a very reasonable position.
He's heavily inspired by Carl Sagan(who also refused to identify as atheist), so he sees his role as an ambassador of science. That role is easier to fill by identifying as an agnostic.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you