Whenever someone claims to be neutral between two opposing views - in this case theism and atheism - I think that they inadvertently are closer to either one or the other extreme on the scale, and perhaps with varying intensity, of course. Belief in religious claims could be an overarching presence in one's life (theistic) or one could say they don't believe at all in religious claims (atheistic), its dichotomous. Then there are more options outside this scale, like being agnostic, but even there one is in reality more inclined to believing in either the supernatural or natural in some degree.
But if, for the sake of argument, one where to be neutral in this debate of ways of thinking, would that be a wise choice? Would it be better to stay safe rather than risking a potential failure? Or does one simply hop onto the bandwagon? Is it right or wrong, good or bad to be neutral?
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis" It is definitely a bad standpoint. It will be completely illogical to enter a debate without a solid standpoint, Nobody enjoys a fair weather person. Even if you made a lot of contributions it would be completely futile. Neutrality can save you from being involved in any arguments but your presence will certainly be insignificant.
You guys have really said it all already, my two cents is that being neutral is the rational position to have until you can get all the information and make a decision. Also if your not an atheist or a theist you could be lots of things, like an agnostic, which is a sensible position to hold about something which can neither be proven nor dis proven, or if it's a dispute which doesn't involve you. Why get involved for the sake of it?
If you are being neutral in a debate then this is certainly a bad standpoint. Part of debating is to launch arguments against your opponent's statements while defending the validity of your own. By taking a neutral standpoint you lack the fuel and initiative to carry out a successful "offensive" against your opponent's points.
However if you are not in a debate and or you are playing devil's advocate then neutral would be most preferable.
If your staying neautral is good, think again. They are the one who do nothing. Who watch you cry and say you’re being sensitive or who just don’t care. Neautral helps no one. I think you just need to realize who you are your morals and you’ll figure it out.
Neutrality is the middle of a road. A person is not leaning towards a single side, so one could say that it is arguably better than being an extremist. This is wrong in my opinion, because being neutral means someone is announcing that they are not making an attempt to solve the problem.
A basic example: Two friends are arguing over what flavor of ice cream is better, one says chocolate and one says vanilla. There is a third friend in the picture as well, and can pick a side or be neutral. They either argue for a flavor they like, only adding onto the problem, or attempt to say both are good, trying to close the question before it even gets answered. That third person isn't helping things here, and this is what people don't realize when they take no standpoint.
If someone is involved in a discussion, it is their duty to exercise their opinion, to offer their own perspective on the question posed, rather than standing back and metaphorically running away. Being neutral is lacking any concern at all for a given situation, and this can be viewed as "dehumanizing".
When in a situation like the group above, try to argue for a side by offering valid points for both. The only way to act neutral is to deliberately spark debate by offering only the facts, and even then you should still have an opinion
Yes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yesyes yes yes
The only time when neutrality is problematic is when there is not the option however in philosophy and theology at large being neutral is not only wise it is effectively the only way to truly experience any religion whatsoever. People who are biased do not experience miracles but instead they experience coincidences while people who are objective and neutral but faithful experience miracles rather than coincidences.
If you are neutral as to whether or not life exists on other planets, then I suppose there's not much, if anything, to fear with regards to consequences. If French, and you were neutral towards Nazi Germany's aggression towards Poland, well...You got a rude awakening. But if a man is neutral towards whether or not there be a creator, it is of no value to him, for if a creator exists, the neutral man has made no efforts while alive to appease the god and gain his favor. Like an athlete who stands on the sidelines watching, but never enters the contest, he has no hope of gaining any victory or prize for his efforts, because he made none.
No idea what those are? Exactly why to remain neutral. Or how about you have no idea which will turn out better, since both have? There's not much of a difference, so why choose? Why put your signature on something you don't want? If choosing not to choose is an option, feel free to use it. Why choose global communism/socialism why you can let the areas figure out what they want themselves?
If the person does not know enough about a topic to form an opinion, then remaining neutral is a good thing. I am sure all of us have had talked to someone that knows little to nothing on a topic yet jump right in to claim it is right or wrong. If they had stayed neutral and said nothing, they may learn something form both sides.
One group that that claims to be neutral I am not a fan of, are the agnostics. They think that because they sit on the fence that they are immune to criticism because, so how, they agree with both sides. About the only reasons a person would be agnostic is either they are mentally unable to form an opinion, or they fear criticism. It is not like there isn't enough information available.
If you don't know, it's always better just to say "I don't know", rather than try to choose between two sides you aren't sure about. I hate when people feel like they have to pick a side and the thought never occurs to them that perhaps neither side is right, or even, as it is sometimes, that there may be no good answer in the first place. Don't be a fool!
There is nothing wrong with being neutral, in fact, it is often the best position. If you lack knowledge, making a claim one way or the other will put you in a tenuous position. In contrast, withholding judgment, saying, " I don't know," allows you to collect more data in order to make a more informed decision.
They are standing up for both sides. They get protection from one side and something else from another side. Sometimes being a neutralist can avoid arguements. For example, two friends are going out to buy clothes. They each saw one clothes that catches their attetion. Then they argue which clothes is more pretty. If they said that both of them were pretty, then there won't be an agruement. This is why being neutral is a good standpoint.
Being neutral can help you to figure if you fit a certain group or community in real life and on internet. It also help to get close to weird peoples, generally, if you are neutral with a wierdo, he'll go away by himself for getting bored. In that way, the neutral position is used to take the "temperature" in some conversation.
Lol look at this, m8 cant even destroy this comment, its tooo real for scream fallen and shox. Love me to lolol but you cant stop them juan deag and one taps noob. Ggwp noob just die you noob. Im always coorect yes yes yes im correct. I love you.
Nah nothin to say, I dont know, why? And ask yourself when? And what can be done to not do somethin to save a planet like Earth. Get me?. Anyway alwasy know yourself before attacking a person's organs that have blood. Do not commit to be the noob in your party. Do not ber afraid to eat wood when ther is diner in the hotel room which is your house mr richkid. Good game well played.
Being neutral is the best situated side in any conflict orargument, because no radical arguments are expressed, which may offend one or other opposing side. A good example is Switzerland, which managed to get through the 2nd World War with least damage done overall in Europe, because Nazi Germany found a great place, a neutral haven for storaging all gold and money in it. It was helpful for both sides.
And that concludes my mini-argument on stance of being neutral.
People often search for validation in extremes. They see neutrality as inaction or apathy giving way to their adversaries. They fail to realize that a person with a neutral standpoint will call an athiest and theist on their behavior or beliefs when if seems off. A person who is neutral is often a truth seeker, asking questions and rarely taking anything at one person's word. I honestly feel that seeing all sides of a story, and all sides of the truth before making a choice that could impact others is wisdom.
Of course there are things that have no neutral platform. Mass genocide, pedophilia, nuclear war, ect. Things that are too extreme to have a middle ground. But even then being able to look at all sides allows the usually neutral to take an informed stand rather than a rash one.