“A thing is what it is, whether it’s called pluralistic or not. If the organizers of the conference wanted to include atheism in their wide tent, they should have found another word to use in place of ‘religious.’”

Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that you agreed with him when you said:

I don’t see why an atheist would be interested in interfaith dialogue or religious pluralism, surely those terms only useful if they’re for excluding atheists

That’s what I meant about requiring an organization to change its name before inviting an atheist to speak.

You know, sometimes a simple, non-confrontational “That’s not what I meant,” might be more productive than “you’re making shit up.”

This is what you said:

Katya said:

Just as most atheists don’t want to all be seen as die hard anti-religious zealots…

And you replied:

And who are these zealots?

Challenging Katya to enumerate these zealots, which can only mean that you believed that Katya believed there were really-existing anti-religious zealots, instead of perception of same.

Get it?

How does my comments imply any of that? Apparantly you can make this shit up.

Just as most atheists don’t want to all be seen as die hard anti-religious zealots

at face value? Why does saying “X group does not want to be seen as characterization Y” mean that the speaker lends credence to characterization Y?

Insisting that an Interfaith group needs to change their name in order to invite an atheist to speak is like saying the NAACP needs to change its name before inviting white or Native American person to speak on a subject of common interest.

I’ll point out that even if Dawkins had never proved what a jerk he was by signing the thing, plenty of other atheists did sign it, an atheist sponsored it. And a lot of atheists agreed with it. That alone would make what you said untrue. Not that it will stop you from lying again.

As for your assertions about my being dishonest, I’ve seldom been more reassured about my honesty in recent times. Thank you.