The JREF statement has a particular form
The form of the JREF statement involves segregating language.
Segregating language supports discrimination.
The JREF statement supports discrimination.
The refutation some folks have tried to use is that it is not segregation language. The thread title-question used exactly the same form as the question asking about the JREF and atheism and the OP suggests a response using a statement of exactly the same form as the JREF's responding statement, but changed the "target" in both cases from atheists to gays. Suddenly people understood, but when it was revealed I had critiqued the JREF statement by this method, sudden;y everyone didn't understand again. The responses indicated unequivocally, that people recognized not only the segregating content of the statement form and thus of the JREF statement (whether they now want to admit it or not), but also that they recognized the link between segregating language and discrimination (demonstrated by their defensiveness and their attacks on the basis of homophobia). That is the evidence my detractors deliberately turn a blind eye to, although it's not a matter of them being blind actually. It is a matter of them being dishonest. Some skeptics say they will revise their views in the light of evidence. The evidence would seem to suggest I am not among such skeptics here. Rather than actually face the evidence, they turn to ad hominem arguments and straw men or simple irrelevance, bait-and-report troll tactics - anything to avoid the evidence. This is all very Sylvia Browne of you.
Some whine that I tricked them with the OP. Well, you can look at at it that way if you want to, but all you are doing is showing an unwillingness to deal with the subject matter and attacking the arguer, not the argument. The icon you are defending used a near identical method to make a point to a whole nation. So, my method is not without precedent. Given that attempting to explain my position earlier had no effect other than to have apologist people call me names, it is reasonable to adopt a different tactics. In fact, it would be irrational not to adopt a different tactic. The only reason people are bitching about it is that it worked.
Now,some have been so ridiculous as to claim there is no bias against atheists in American or North American societies. This claim is so patently absurd it rivals claiming water is not wet. From written retaliations to bus ads, to vandalism of atheist signs, to laws against atheists running for public office (and law suits when they do), to laws that express special privilege for religious people, to reductions of sentences for religious people (if you disagree, tell it to Kara Neumann - look it up!) including legal defenses relying on religiosity, right down to an idiotic general understanding of atheists as being inherently immoral ... the list is endless. There I am, pointing at the evidence again. Bad habit amongst those who refuse to look at evidence. My response to you is exactly the same as Dawkin's answer to that idiot woman in the nw famous interview he cites in "The Greatest Show on Earth." There is evidence. There it is. I am pointing at it. Look! Let's see who tries to rationalize it away. And that is very Jenny McCarthy of you.
Now, some folks pretend to not understand the relationship between segregating language and discrimination. others do. This thread is evidence of that. And the various movements against discrimination, from gay rights, to racial equality, to women's rights movements. they all recognize the relationship between segregation language and discrimination. Everyone recognizes it really. It's just that this time, we are talking about atheists. So, in the minds of some, it's okay, you know, because it's atheists. Just as likely, however, is that these people think their skeptical hero is being attacked and will say and do anything, anything at all, to repel the perceived attack, whether it is an attack or not and whether it is a justified critique or not. Where did this ability to adapt to evidence go? Out the window. It was replaced by poor reasoning, irrelevancy and attacks against the person.
My point still stands because no one has refuted the point (mostly because they cannot focus long enough to do so). It actually takes effort to understand the point, but the evidence is unequivocal. Jeff Wagg recently posted something in Facebook about admitting being wrong - as a definition of being a skeptic. I am waiting for people to represent this high ideal here. it only took you - how many months? - to stop frothing at the mouth long enough to realize I was not a homophobe. Do you have any idea how pathetic that is?
In first year logic class the biconditional is presented to the students. On first blush it seems counter-intuitive. It takes an effort to recognize how the biconditional works. You can argue against it, using whatever irrelevant tactics you wish. You can call the professor a homophobe, or tell him he said it badly, or that you are personally offended by the biuconditional. You can insinuate that the professor is irrational (a la Geek Goddess). You can whine because the professor didn't have a suit on, or say that if he didn't wear cardigan, his point might be better received. You cold whine that it was a he (or she) instead of a she (or he) teaching the biconditional, But by using these methods you are only demonstrating your own ridiculousness.
And all the while the professor will just look at you sadly and give you an F for the year for being deliberately oblivious.
