I'm a secular humanist; I say this first.
I am, however, interested in religious discussion and dialogue, but my bias tends (for obvious reasons) towards the free-thinking reasoned response.
My views openly conflict with the majority of the users. So; is there a role for a non-believer voice on a site such as this? Or is it the intention that every answer should derive from scripture, doctrine and dogma?
Should I just leave the site well alone?
Revised to address your edited question...
If you drop the evangelism idea, that removes a lot of my misgivings. Still, there's a time and a place: if I'm trying to make sense of some thorny philosophical issue, then bringing in an outsider's viewpoint can be helpful...
But... No one likes the guy who goes around quoting the C++ FQA on questions from folks who are just trying to solve a problem without abandoning their platform. In the case of the example answer you linked to on lonesomeday's answer, no one was asking about regional legal issues, historical origins of gender roles, or your personal opinion - the question was specifically, explicitly asking for Biblical sources. While you may have had the knowledge to contribute there, your personal point of view likely prevented you from doing so.
My views openly conflict with the majority of the users.
There's a really good chance that, for the majority of users, their views will conflict to some extent with the views of... the majority of users. 'Tis the nature of the topic. If this is gonna work, it'll be by respecting the views of other users even while disagreeing with them, and avoiding the trap of turning every question into a sectarian battlefield.
If you can do the same, and stick to contributing where your knowledge is applicable and on-topic, I don't see any reason why you couldn't survive here.
No, don't go anywhere! I think a non-religious perspective will actually be frequently very useful.
You ask
Or is it the intention that every answer should derive from scripture, doctrine and dogma?
As far as I am concerned, these are not the only way to religious truth. For me (a high church Anglican) human reason is God-given and therefore its use in pursuing religious truth is not only possible but mandatory. The classic Anglican image is that of the three-legged stool -- scripture, reason and tradition -- none of which can stand without the other two. If you are going to contribute something based on human reason -- especially if it challenges a blind recital of scriptural texts -- I for one would be delighted to see it.
If you're here to convert, however, I think you're doing the wrong thing. This is a Q&A site, not Speakers' Corner.
I think religious sites are a bit of a honeypot for this, and it's understandable for someone who isn't Christian to want to participate and try to make sure the "non-Christian" perspective is represented, but I would personally hope that you would leave well enough alone, at least when it came to providing answers.
Let's try to abstract the behavior to something less charged: would answers from a person who hates games and thinks people who game are misguided be welcome on Gaming.SE? Would answers from a person who finds off-the-cuff truthiness valid be welcome on Skeptics.SE? Would answers from a person who thinks math is just the wrong way to approach a problem be welcome on Math.SE?
I think there's more than enough room on the internet for Christians and non-Christians to go at it in a constructive manner, but if I'm trying to find answers to questions about Christianity, the last thing I want is someone trying to dispute the premise of the question, or arguing in the comments about the robustness of an answer that quoted dogma or the Bible.
I think there are a lot of ways to alienate potential experts on a site like this without adding "you're going to have to defend everything you say against people who don't believe" to the mix. It just doesn't seem like a particularly constructive use of one's time.
But by all means, if you have questions and are looking for the Christian perspective, you should ask them. I don't think this site will get very far if we only accept questions from "true believers".
I'm a secular humanist
Thanks for recognizing what that means and announcing your stance, it makes dialogue way easier.
I am, however, interested in religious discussion and dialogue...
SE sites tend to steer clear of discussions and dialogue and focus on Questions and Answers. Given that starting point, I do not see any reason why you would not be welcome to ask questions or give answers.
When asking questions, ask things about Christianity and expect to be answered from a Christian perspective.
My views openly conflict with the majority of the users.
The site is less about espousing your views and more about succinctly representing views in general. It is perfectly value for me (as a Protestant) to answer a question about something specifically Catholic if I have the knowledge needed to make a statement. Voting should help clear up whether my answer correctly represented that view.
I welcome you.
The truth is objective and able to take care of itself. We don't need to help the truth by keeping inconvenient views out.
I'm hoping for the site to become a place where we can at different times:
If this happens, you and me, a humanist and a Christian, can easily fit on the same site. If it does not, I fear we'll both be leaving.
If you've come with constructive questions or you have experise and can provide answers - you're most welcome to participate.
Simply because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that you don't know about that something nor that you can't ask intelligent questions about it. I don't believe that hobbits are real (heretic that I am), but I could still answer questions regarding the hairiness or otherwise of their feet, and can ask perfectly valid questions regarding their stature in comparison to goblins.
This site is built on mutual respect and an interst in Christianity. As long as we have these, this site will benefit from our participation.
Christianity is diverse, and I suspect many of the best answers on this site will be summaries of a number of opposing views:
Roman Catholics believe X for Y reason. Meanwhile, Luther taught Z, basing his reasoning on Q. Most Protestant denominations follow Luther in this instance, but there's an iteresting exception with denomination K, which believes J for reason R.
Answers of this kind do not depend on the beliefs of the person writing them. And since secular humanists and other atheists often know far more about religion than many religious believers do, we may be best positioned to provide such answers.
I (ex-JW atheist) certainly intend to contribute to this site.
You should answer the question that the person asking the question intends to ask, not use answers to express your personal viewpoints or preach your opinions. So you should first find out what is the question, and if it is not clear you can ask the OP to clarify the question.
I would say welcome because not every question on this site has to spring from personal faith. Certainly, there could be some historical questions which have more concrete issues. For example, when was Jesus Christ born? We do not know the exact year, however scholars can narrow it down to a specific year range and present evidence for their point of view. There are similar situations with people and movements. For example, I think we all agree the Reformation happened and was a historical event. I personally would not like to see this necessarily as an evangelization site per se, but it still can accommodate a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds.
