Forgive the following paragraph, its author was writing stream of consciousness.

Actually, now that I state that, I have seen that pattern in many social groups which sees themselves as ‘elite’. In a way, it is part of the exclusionary mindset many elitists fall prey to, where mockery of all other groups is seen as an incentive for members of the other groups to join the ‘elite’ group. It places a subjective value judgement on otherwise objective observations. I suspect that it is connected to a human need to have our positions validated by our peers.

Ok, brain dump done now. Returning to regularly scheduled compliment; great post.

Gays and lesbians did not assert the superiority of their sexual orientation, nor did they try to claim equal rights and equal protection while simultaneously seeking to prove heterosexuals wrong.

I’m not sure if this is sophistry or contrarianism, but didn’t LGBs try to prove that the belief that homosexuality is wrong wrong? As I see it, each out-group is claiming that the beliefs of the majority are wrong.

An argument that says, “Here is a patently absurd religious belief; therefore, all religion is patently absurd,” is simply a bad argument. It is an argument that nobody who loves reason would make.

However, a person can reject this inference and still ridicule the most ridiculous religious beliefs. It is patently absurd to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old (or less). I don’t have to respect it. I don’t have to respect those people who think it is true. It does not imply that all religion is bad. However, the fact that this implication does not hold does not prevent me from saying that those whose religion takes them down this particular path are wrong.

I make the same point about instances where people put up a sign of the World Trade Center with the text “Imagine no religion.” These people are failing to make the distinction between the claim, “A religion did this,” and “Religion does this.” It is the same form of bigotry as pointing to a black man who committed rape and saying “A black man did this,” versus, “Black men do this.”

I typically advcate simple truth and reason. If a belief is absurd, then say it is absurd. If a religion advocates something evil then say that it advocates something evil. There is no need to make generalizations that allegedly report what is true of all religion. In fact, those types of inferences are almost never valid. A reason-loving person should know and respect that fact.

http://danceswithanxiety.blogspot.com/2008/01/humanist-symposium-13-cheesy-holiday.html

You have another post in the same symposium.

Thanks!

-Dale

While I share the humanist values of making the world a better place without magical thinking; I am not shy to be upfront about being an atheist.

As to what Matthew Nisbet is saying, well, of course as atheists we can work with the stewardship Christians on environmental atheists. I disagree with him that atheists shouldn’t talk so much about being atheists for fear of offending him. I think that his attempts to frame it this way are more patronizing than accommodating. They are grownups, they can handle it.