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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Evidence that is a flaw and that they have a responsibility.
You claim two things: That is a flaw and their responsibility, Thus you have burden of proof.

 

[Ella S.]

I am here because I'm interested in discussing religion.

Isn't that why most of us signed up?

 

[LuisDantas]

Evidence that is a flaw and that they have a responsibility.
You claim two things: That is a flaw and their responsibility, Thus you have burden of proof.

Proof is too strong a word to use here.

I am just pointing out a self-imposed contradiction of those doctrines. Either they are universally applicable or they are just beliefs and therefore dismissable with no need for any justification.

For some reason many fail to see that contradiction, but it is right there all the same.

I can also use a slightly different perspective here: if everyone is somehow supposed to be a theist, then it falls for the proponents of that claim to explain why not everyone is.

The burden of justification and evidence is not ours to resolve, no matter how troubled some theists may feel about our existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Proof is too strong a word to use here.

I am just pointing out a self-imposed contradiction of those doctrines. Either they are universally applicable or they are just beliefs and therefore dismissable with no need for any justification.

For some reason many fail to see that contradiction, but it is right there all the same.

I can also use a slightly different perspective here: if everyone is somehow supposed to be a theist, then it falls for the proponents of that claim to explain why not everyone is.

The burden of justification and evidence is not ours to resolve, no matter how troubled some theists may feel about our existence.

You didn't answer, because you have a hidden evaluation, which is not a fact.
It is wrong to have a contradiction in a belief system. The problem is that this is not a fact, it is norm that evaluates.

So here it is in another version as a fact and your evaluation.
It is a fact, that theists have no evidence. They ought to have that. The latter is not a fact.
Thus as it is not their responsibility just because you say so. It is not a fact, that is their responsibility, just because you say so. It is an evaluation in your brain.

If you want to use fact, then learn when you are not doing that and stop claiming it as facts.

 

[LuisDantas]

You didn't answer, because you have a hidden evaluation, which is not a fact.

Don't know why you say such a thing. Don't care either. I was clear enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't know why you say such a thing. Don't care either. I was clear enough.

That you don't care, is not a fact. That is the point. We are doing 2 things; Facts and what matters. The latter has never been able to be turned into a fact. Not with science, not with reason/logic nor with religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

"Delhi metro at rush time" - Google Search
Many images are at times when snags occur (not frequent).

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.

We have a whole philosophy of logic (Nyaya) as you would know. That is theist. All philosophies have to explain their logic in minute details.

 

[LuisDantas]

That you don't care, is not a fact. That is the point. We are doing 2 things; Facts and what matters. The latter has never been able to be turned into a fact. Not with science, not with reason/logic nor with religion.

Again: I see no reason to care that you are not satisfied. It is just too esoteric and unconnected to anything that matters to me.

Best of luck.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again: I see no reason to care that you are not satisfied. It is just too esoteric and unconnected to anything that matters to me.

Best of luck.

But you are not all humans and what matters to you, might not matter to me. See it now? Do you get it? You use a subjective standard of what matters to you. Just as some theists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is a fact, that theists have no evidence. They ought to have that. The latter is not a fact.

True. It is their right to believe even if there is no evidence. We (atheists) too do not have the exact answer, but ours is a bit more rational (What best available evidence says).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

As a theist, I am rather glad that there are atheists here to discuss the various topics. I see no reason I cannot learn from them just as I can from folks representing the various religions. I have learned from them.

 

[Kfox]

So, atheist, why the heck are you here?

I love talking, debating, and learning from those who think differently than I do

What draws you to a religious site?

The same thing that draws me to all the other sites I am a part of.

Are there no adequate atheist forums?.

Of course there are; but there are adequate religious forms as well, so I join them also.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm here cuz it's far broader than religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Maybe?!?!?! The actual evidence demonstrates that it is theists that mostly vent their anger over their insecurity and uncertainty that God(s) exist. Most often they are reluctant to enter into a constructive rational dialogue on the existence of God(s), and resort to aggressive stereotyping atheism as in this post, anf of course outdated invalide apologetic arguments for the existence of God..

I rarely see atheists 'venting anger' against theists concerning the question of the 'existence of God.'

 

[shunyadragon]

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

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.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Delhi metro at rush time" - Google Search
Many images are at times when snags occur (not frequent).We have a whole philosophy of logic (Nyaya) as you would know. That is theist. All philosophies have to explain their logic in minute details.

Yes most religions have a philosophy of logic that is used to explain and justify their beliefs (apologetics) whether general or minute detail, but that is the point of my previous post, The systems of logic shared by most religions and even non-religious institutions is not orthodoxy in and of itself.

See my previous post on the definition of 'orthodox.'

 

[Aupmanyav]

See my previous post on the definition of 'orthodox.'

I equate 'orthodox' with 'old beliefs'. Hindu atheism is probably the oldest - RigVeda, Charvak, Mandukya, etc.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

I have not noticed this tbh, quite the opposite. A lot of apologists seems to use known logical fallacies, some of them relentlessly. This is not to imply all theists do this of course, as that is not the case. I have also on occasion met atheists who made demonstrably irrational claims, and were entirely unaware of it.

 

[Sheldon]

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 don't know what you mean by "the lens through which a person views the world", as either something adheres to the principles of logic, or it does not, if it does not then it is irrational - by definition, how should one view irrational claims beliefs or arguments other than flawed? What lens is going to make me think irrational claims, beliefs or arguments are not flawed, and why?

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.

Straw man alert again, logic is simply a method of reasoning, if something adheres to it's principles it is logical, if not it is illogical or irrational, by definition. You seem to be implying that something can be ringfenced from the principles of logic, this is simply describing things that are irrational. I have no idea why you keep describing logic as doctrinal, but maybe you could offer specific evidence for this claim, who is teaching logic and to whom, and to what end?

Evidence of indoctrination is provided when adherents of a doctrine accept it's tenets without question.

I'll just let the irony subside for a minute, now what you're describing isn't logic is it? It's efficacy is not nor was it ever assumed unquestioningly.

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?

I don't care what people anticipated, and logic has nothing to do with secularism. I shall take a moment to appreciate the irony of you decrying messianic doomsday cults, then move on as your subjective antipathy doesn't towards secularism or logic doesn't seem to have any relevance I can see?
Straw man,

*See Aldous Huxley.

Oh I've read Huxley, but I think you will need to do your leg work, and present a specific point, if you have one, and support it with evidence. Do you accept that the method of logic has some efficacy? Do accept that what does not adhere to the principles of logic is by definition irrational? Now you are of course free to believe that unevidenced superstitious beliefs should be ringfenced from those principles, but I am going to need something way more credible in argument, than half baked conspiracy theories involving unevidenced secularist doctrines that seem so far to have all the hallmarks of paranoid conspiracy.

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..

Fitting you should end with such an obviously illogical straw man fallacy, as I implied no such thing.

 

[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 Christiianity.

Example: 3. Arguments for the existence of God - Very Short Introductions

I believe they are invalid and circular, because they make assumptions that God or something like God exists..For a logical argument to be valid the assumptions must be accepted. In Christian apologetic arguments only those that believe in God will accept the assumptions.