Atheists... why the heck are you on RELIGIOUS forums?!

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe atheists visit religious forums for a place to vent their anger towards God! ...

Well, no, I doubt it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Maybe atheists visit religious forums for a place to vent their anger towards God! ...

Yes, one can be angry about a non-existent character in a work of fiction. Shylock, for example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, one can be angry about a non-existent character in a work of fiction. Shylock, for example.

The people who do harm to the world in the name of religion are very real.

 

[shunyadragon]

Orthodoxy is not a concept that applies only to religious doctrine or scripture.

I did not say it was.

]quote] And while not all beliefs are based on orthodox thought or practice, unless you are using an unorthodox definition of logic and reason, it’s safe to assume that in this case, they are.[/QUOTE]

Atheism and agnosticism do not have orthodox beliefs or doctrines. Therefore there is no such thing as unorthodoxy atheism nor agnosticism.

 

[syo]

They are secretly theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is really very simple.

Atheism does not imply either a lack of religiosity, nor of religious adherence, nor of a legitimate interest in religion, nor of a right to manifest criticism of religion and pseudo-religion.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is deeply deluded, lying, or both.

That those people include people presumed to have religious authority is an issue for those interested in the quality and validity of religious claims to deal with, and of particular significance for proponents of the validity of theistic, exclusivist creeds such as Christianity and Islam.

Atheists can hardly be expected to carry that responsibility. If anything, we have the right to demand theists to deal with it before coming talk to us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is really very simple.

Atheism does not imply either a lack of religiosity, nor of religious adherence, nor of a legitimate interest in religion, nor of a right to manifest criticism of religion and pseudo-religion.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is deeply deluded, lying, or both.

That those people include people presumed to have religious authority is an issue for those interested in the quality and validity of religious claims to deal with, and of particular significance for proponents of the validity of theistic, exclusivist creeds such as Christianity and Islam.

Atheists can hardly be expected to carry that responsibility. If anything, we have the right to demand theists to deal with it before coming talk to us.

That is authoritative. Can you back that up? And yes, I am an atheist, but I don't like it, that you speak on my behalf. Who gave you that right?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheism and agnosticism do not have orthodox beliefs or doctrines. Therefore there is no such thing as unorthodoxy atheism nor agnosticism.

I am a strong atheist following what is written in RigVeda (reference around 3,000 year old) and Mandukya Upanishad (around 2,000 year old). Is that not old enough to be counted as Orthodox? Therefore I am an orthodox advaitist atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is authoritative. Can you back that up? And yes, I am an atheist, but I don't like it, that you speak on my behalf. Who gave you that right?

What part of my post do you find authoritative? And where am I talking on your behalf?

Maybe you are using some form of understanding of religion that I do not personally adhere to? I really don't know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is really very simple.

Hey, Luis, you are back. Very happy. I searched you all over, FB, Linkedin, etc., even went to Brazil to your city (computer visit). I did find a few Luis Dantas, but they were not you. Where have you been all this time? And how are things going?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey, Luis, you are back. Very happy. I searched you all over, even went to Brazil to your city. Where have you been all this time? And how are things going?

Nice to meet you again, Aup!

Hope you are well.

Not planning on truly returning yet, if ever. It just happened that this thread caught my eye beyond the point which I could resist.

You have been in Curitiba? That is quite the surprise. A shame that I did not know in due time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, I edited my post (as you will see. It was a computer visit.

Liked this:

 

[Sheldon]

Of course reason is a doctrine, as is logic.

I'm not sure it is, what group, church or political part teach logic as a belief?

That you assume their primacy is beyond question, is evidence of how ingrained they are in some cultures.

Beyond question? Straw man alert, which cultures are logic ingrained in? I usually find people are woefully unaware of even common logical fallacies, and we all tend to instinctively reason irrationally. If anything logic is counterintuitive, which makes sense, otherwise we'd hardly need a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation if we were all reasoning that way all the time. It's efficacy is not based on (faith based) belief either, so the word belief here is a little disingenuous of you. I believe the world is not flat, is that a comparable to belief in astrology or religion?

you should know that your values, methods and perceptions are founded on belief in a particular orthodoxy.

There's that word again, not all beliefs are equal, so again this is a pretty disingenuous assertion. Like creationists who proudly proclaim species evolution is just a belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What part of my post do you find authoritative? And where am I talking on your behalf?

Maybe you are using some form of understanding of religion that I do not personally adhere to? I really don't know.

...

Atheists can hardly be expected to carry that responsibility. If anything, we have the right to demand theists to deal with it before coming talk to us.

So can you give evidence for rights, demands and responsibilities? And evidence that you as an atheist speak for me as an atheist?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not sure it is, what group, church or political part teach logic as a belief?



Beyond question? Straw man alert, which cultures are logic ingrained in? I usually find people are woefully unaware of even common logical fallacies, and we all tend to instinctively reason irrationally. If anything logic is counterintuitive, which makes sense, otherwise we'd hardly need a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation if we were all reasoning that way all the time. It's efficacy is not based on (faith based) belief either, so the word belief here is a little disingenuous of you. I believe the world is not flat, is that a comparable to belief in astrology or religion?


There's that word again, not all beliefs are equal, so again this is a pretty disingenuous assertion. Like creationists who proudly proclaim species evolution is just a belief.

When logic and reason are used to solve intellectual problems, they are tools. When they become the lens through which a person views the world, they are doctrines. I didn't say they were false doctrines; but doctrines they certainly are, particularly when the assumption is made that all other perspectives are inferior. Evidence of indoctrination is provided when adherents of a doctrine accept it's tenets without question.

The Age of Enlightenment is hundreds of years old Sheldon. The application of those strict principles or reason to every aspect of human thought, action and experience, leading to a Brave New World* was widely anticipated in the 18th Century, 19th and early 20th Centuries. It's beginning to look like the secular equivalent of a Messianic doomsday cult. Same time next year, chaps?

*See Aldous Huxley.

Lastly, indeed not all beliefs are equal. You might want to bear that in mind, when disingenuously implying all religious people are flat-earthers and creationists..

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I edited my post (as you will see. It was a computer visit.

Liked this:

That hotel to the right, in bright green, used to host my favorite vegetarian restaurant until last March!

I use that exact tube station very often, and in fact used to live and work about a quarter mile away from it.

 

[LuisDantas]

So can you give evidence for rights, demands and responsibilities? And evidence that you as an atheist speak for me as an atheist?

Actually, I am speaking about the rights and duties of theistic creeds there. And pointing out that the idea that we atheists should somehow feel a duty to explain how come those creeds don't understand us is weird.

It is a particularly weird trait for doctrines such as Christianity and Islam that claim both to be universally applicable while also demanding the belief in the literal existence of their conceptions of deity. That is a self-inflicted flaw, theirs to take responsibility for.

 

[Colt]

I’ve seen a few religious people on this site complain about the general presence of atheists on RF.
I mean, it’s called RELIGIOUS forums. So they say.
Do atheists have a place on this site? I feel like the answer is obvious, but maybe it could be addressed.
The obvious answer is yes.
So, atheist, why the heck are you here? What draws you to a religious site? Are there no adequate atheist forums?
I have this thread in the debate forum, rather than the Q&A, because, if you feel like irreligious people don’t have a place on this site, I’m interested in why. I’ve seen it said on this site, so let’s hear why you think there should only be religious people on RF.

Some Atheist seem to have a concept of God that they contrast with the beliefs held by religious people. If there is a God then he should be this and that, do thus and so on. And atheists do get a lot of attention being on a religious forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am a strong atheist following what is written in RigVeda (reference around 3,000 year old) and Mandukya Upanishad (around 2,000 year old). Is that not old enough to be counted as Orthodox? Therefore I am an orthodox advaitist atheist.

The question as to whether you are orthodox or unorthodox is a question of your religious belif ;as writtrn in the RigVeda, and not whether you are and atheist. The question of orthodoxy has nothing to with how old scripture is 'claimed' to be.

Some people are theists of various versions following what is written in RigVeda

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure it is, what group, church or political part teach logic as a belief?

Logic is not taught as a belief, but in Christianity and Islam logic is an important part of apologetic arguments for the existence of God and justification of belief.