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

[RestlessSoul]

I believe a definition of 'orthodox' id meaningful in this discussion.

1.of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3.customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
4. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
Orthodox,

1. of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.
2. of, relating to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.

Atheism does not even have an organised institution of any sort that standardizing 'doctrines' or beliefs that could possibly be considered 'orthodox.'

Atheists rarely if ever attack or openly believe their atheism is the only 'orthodox form of atheism. Their beliefs are not organized and range from 'strict materialist beliefs to various forms of atheism that believe in other spiritual worlds but no gods.

Allow me to venture an alternative definition of intellectual orthodoxy. You may be uncomfortable with metaphor, but please bear with me.

An orthodox thinker is like a carpenter who, trusting neither his hand nor his eye, places undue reliance on the ruler and the set square. A true carpenter will use all the tools at his disposal, and will certainly take measurements when needed; but it’s faith in his own hand and eye which distinguishes the best from the ordinary.

Similarly, a thinker who places all his reliance on logic and reason, not trusting in intuition, inspiration, or creativity, limits himself unnecessarily; thus he condemns himself to orthodoxy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Allow me to venture an alternative definition of intellectual orthodoxy. You may be uncomfortable with metaphor, but please bear with me.

An orthodox thinker is like a carpenter who, trusting neither his hand nor his eye, places undue reliance on the ruler and the set square. A true carpenter will use all the tools at his disposal, and will certainly take measurements when needed; but it’s faith in his own hand and eye which distinguishes the best from the ordinary.

Similarly, a thinker who places all his reliance on logic and reason, not trusting in intuition, inspiration, or creativity, limits himself unnecessarily; thus he condemns himself to orthodoxy.

You can offer an alternative 'personal' interpretive definition, but no, as orthodox' is defined in the English language there is no such thing as 'orthodoxy' in terms of atheism and agnosticism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have not noticed this tbh, quite the opposite. Most apologetics seems to use known logical fallacies, some of them relentlessly.

This is true, but I never said that their use of logic in apologetics is valid use of logic, nonetheless throughout the history of Christianity formal and informal logic is the main stay of apologetics in Christinaity

 

[RestlessSoul]

You can offer an alternative 'personal' interpretive definition, but no, as orthodox' is defined in the English language there is no such thing as 'orthodoxy' in terms of atheism and agnosticism.

Language is as fluid, mutable, and given to nuance, as the ever shifting world it attempts to describe, my friend. What is important is how well or how poorly it functions as a means of communication. It’s proper function, I would argue, is to create bridges between people, not walls. As it appears that the use of the word ‘orthodox’ is causing us problems here, let’s leave it aside. The English language allows us to do that.

So, it is my contention that every personal or societal philosophy, be it atheist, agnostic, religious or spiritual in character, is based on a range of assumptions, premises and prejudices which the individual exponent is unlikely even to be conscious of. And that the more tightly an individual clings to a particular world view, the more carefully rehearsed arguments he or she trots out to support it, and the more rigidly intolerant he or she may be towards any dissenting opinion, the more dogmatic and doctrinaire this person’s philosophy has become.

Atheists are by no means immune to this tendency towards received wisdom and inflexible thinking; indeed, many threads on this forum bear testimony to that.

 

[RabbiO]

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’ve been missed. If nothing else, do stop in and say hello every now and again.

 

[shunyadragon]

Language is as fluid, mutable, and given to nuance, as the ever shifting world it attempts to describe, my friend. What is important is how well or how poorly it functions as a means of communication. It’s proper function, I would argue, is to create bridges between people, not walls. As it appears that the use of the word ‘orthodox’ is causing us problems here, let’s leave it aside. The English language allows us to do that.

So, it is my contention that every personal or societal philosophy, be it atheist, agnostic, religious or spiritual in character, is based on a range of assumptions, premises and prejudices which the individual exponent is unlikely even to be conscious of. And that the more tightly an individual clings to a particular world view, the more carefully rehearsed arguments he or she trots out to support it, and the more rigidly intolerant he or she may be towards any dissenting opinion, the more dogmatic and doctrinaire this person’s philosophy has become.

Atheists are by no means immune to this tendency towards received wisdom and inflexible thinking; indeed, many threads on this forum bear testimony to that.

Long winded, but OK from your 'personal perspective, but nonetheless atheism and agnosticism does not have anything resembling 'orthodoxy' as defined in plain English language.

If you make language fluid 'with anything goes' to the point we do not communicate we end up with what Cool Hand Luke said before he was blown away: 'What we have here is a failure to.' communicate.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Language is as fluid, mutable, and given to nuance, as the ever shifting world it attempts to describe, my friend. What is important is how well or how poorly it functions as a means of communication. It’s proper function, I would argue, is to create bridges between people, not walls. As it appears that the use of the word ‘orthodox’ is causing us problems here, let’s leave it aside. The English language allows us to do that.

So, it is my contention that every personal or societal philosophy, be it atheist, agnostic, religious or spiritual in character, is based on a range of assumptions, premises and prejudices which the individual exponent is unlikely even to be conscious of. And that the more tightly an individual clings to a particular world view, the more carefully rehearsed arguments he or she trots out to support it, and the more rigidly intolerant he or she may be towards any dissenting opinion, the more dogmatic and doctrinaire this person’s philosophy has become.

Atheists are by no means immune to this tendency towards received wisdom and inflexible thinking; indeed, many threads on this forum bear testimony to that.

Other than a variable belief that ranges from the beleif that absolutely no God(s) exist to the more common belief simply that their is no reason to believe in God(s), and including various spiritualists that believe in other spiritual worlds, but no God(s) there is not even a standardized belief in atheism. Agnosticism has a similar problem ranging from an indifferent view concerning God(s) to a deeper philosophical belief in one does not know whether God(s) exit or not.

One religion or church that some atheists and agnostics affiliate with is the Unitarian Universalists, which is a predominantly humanist religion that does not have any doctrine concerning whether God(s) exist or not. I am very familiar with UU over the years, and the members include atheists, agnostics, Deists, spiritualists, theists, believers in primal religions, and various others of diverse beliefs. No orthodoxy here,

Some believers in Buddhism particularly Zen and other Vedic religions include atheists and agnostics, bu doctrine here concerning atheism nor agnosticism.