I traced this argument to one James Rachels (in other words, Stenger is not even original). My take is that, whether you believe in God or not, it is a good thing to cast doubt on your ability to be an autonomous moral agent. Holding yourself morally sovereign is plain silly.
areomagazine.com
They do know you can make Thanksgiving completely secular, right? Because you can; the only big thing you leave out is the prayer at the beginning and it now becomes a good way to have family you don't see too often come and feast with you.
One could get the idea that atheist would eat babies which would no doubt miss whatever point an atheist would make. Then again, all this could do is end up as something to validate some crazy fundie in thinking atheist must be baby flesh eating monsters.
Not to mention, one could still be thankful on Thanksgiving without bringing in God or Jesus alongside having a good way to see family members that try to come over and pay a visit for nice meal.
Euphorics are just as devout as the religious they look down on.
As a dog returns to its vomit...
Not much of an atheist if you still talk about God as if he was there.
Narrowly true, but so what? That's the bunny slope right alongside "disproving homeopathy."
I mean I do, but I'm not an atheist. I'm a devout follower of Angra Mainyu.
