These dudes @TheHarrisSultan and @kushal_mehra are missing some elementary matters in this conversation Firstly there is a hopeless representation of Hindu perspective which is dishonest. But beyond that, here's what they miss:

1. They miss what is in-faced and what is out-faced. Atheism and scientism are abrahamic, unlike genuine agnosticism. Abrahamisms of all flavors are out-faced: they tell that the non-practitioner is inferior in some matter to the practitioner and exhort conversion.

2. The atheist just like Islamist is not reacting to others crossing a line, but crossing the lines others draw for themselves is doctrinal in atheism. Atheist might think of himself as rational but he is not. He is just as much of an exclusivist as an Islamist.

3. Pagan traditions are in-faced. They are not telling anything to the non-practitioner or about the non-practitioner. They are about their own knowledge, meant for the practitioner. So any line you cross with them is positively aggression.

4. See more here https://skandaveera.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/corollaries-of-cliche-s-tolerance-and-diversity/

5. When Hindus react by abusing someone's mother when Kali or any other devata is misportrayed, you do not need to understand why Kali should be treated as mother. Hindus do not come to you asking for "believing" anything. You invaded the Hindu space.

6. Kali is not a universal symbol. Atheists do not get this. Kali is a symbol the Shaktas have developed and revered, and knowledge of that symbol is with them. What is appropriate or inappropriate when that symbol is represented, is for them and it is no one else's business.

7. That the symbol is conveying knowledge that can be impersonal and universal does not make that symbol universal. A charvaka has no business with Astika texts like Shruti or Ramayana or Agama or Tantra. He is an outsider.

8. Debating has certain norms. You do not debate what you have not taken as knowledge. If you accept that Shruti or Ramayana is valid knowledge, then its epistemic structure has to be honored. If you reject it as valid knowledge, you have no business with it.

9. Can I read Peano's axioms out of context and show exceptions? Yes. Is it valid? No math guy does it. So it is meaningless to tell what Kali is without you debating within the epistemic framework of tradition. None of the rational frameworks is going to stand a breach of that.

10. Yes, you can debate whether within a framework something needs to be accepted as axiomatic or not. You cannot debate the axiom. If it is not an axiom for you, then you are an outsider and cannot debate that matter.

11. No Vaidikas tried to prove why Veda is axiomatic, a premise that many reject. But the moment you do reject it, its content is not debatable for you. This is an ethic of debate that is followed all through by all non-Vedic schools.

12. The basic problem statement they failed to articulate: when you have ideas I think are weird, how do we coexist, what needs to be the commonly accepted line. That line is not just physical harm, it is keeping your ideas to yourself. Be in-faced.

13. I should have no cost for rejecting your ideas other than the opportunity cost of not having the benefit of your ideas. This is the LCD for harmonious coexistence between disagreeing people (i.e. all people).

14. Hindu society had this LCD as an operating principle, and that is the reason we had an ecosystem where mutually hostile and incompatible ideas coexisted without violence. This LCD is neither honored by Islamists nor Atheists. Atheism hence is exclusivist.