Making Positive Assertions Or Making Negative Refutations

I found a "Neo-Humanist" manifesto document today where I read some interesting things: Secular Humanism agrees that there are contradictions in religions and also lack of sufficient evidence, and opposes what it sees as possible ills in religion, nonetheless, they assert that it's better to engage in conversation where the goods of Secular Humanism are set forth, rather than the New Atheist tactic of going forth to angrily debunk everything about religion. The fellow in charge of this manifesto was Paul Kurtz, I know very little about him, but apparently he's been a big leader in Secular Humanism this last century, he made this document though in response to what he felt was the improper aggression of New Atheism, including the idea by many New Atheists that Agnostics, Humanists, or even irreligious people are just "cowards" and the idea that they should practically disassociate with religious people and only treat them with contempt, etc.Mr. Kurtz' manifesto says things like these:Quote:Second, Neo-Humanists are skeptical of traditional theism. They may be agnostics, skeptics, atheists, or even dissenting members of a religious tradition. They think that traditional concepts of God are contradictory and unsubstantiated. They do not believe that the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita are divinely revealed or have a special spiritual source. They are skeptical of the ancient creeds in the light of modern scientific and philosophical critiques, especially, the scholarly examination of the sources of the so-called sacred texts. They are critical of the moral absolutes derived from these texts, viewing them as the expressions of premodern civilizations. Nevertheless they recognize that some of their moral principles may be warranted, and in any case deserve to be appreciated if we are to understand their cultural heritages. They consider traditional religion's focus on salvation as a weakening of efforts to improve this life, here and now. They firmly defend the separation of religion and the state and consider freedom of conscience and the right of dissent vital. They deplore the subservience of women to men, the repression of sexuality, the defense of theocracy, and the denial of democratic human rights-often in the name of religion.Neo-Humanists, however, are aware of the dangers of an overly zealous atheism such as emerged in Stalinist Soviet Union and Eastern Europe under totalitarian communism or Maoist China, where totalitarian atheists responded to the conservative Orthodox Church in Russia by closing churches, synagogues, and mosques and persecuting ministers of the cloth. Neo-Humanists believe in freedom of conscience, the right to worship or not, and they abhor any kind of repression whether at the hands of atheists in the name of the state or theological inquisitors in the name of the Bible or Koran.Third, Neo-Humanists are best defined by what they are for, and not by what they are against. They aim to be affirmative. Although they are able and willing to critically examine religious claims that are questionable, their focus is on constructive contributions, not negative debunking. They are turned on by positive possibilities, not negative criticisms.So here's the thing I like about this. They're frank about what they feel are errors in religion. Being frank about that is in their right! But they admit that it's more proper to affirm what they believe they are for, rather than going about with destructive negative debunking and criticisms of religion. They support the moral values that can be found in many religions and among many religious people, and they affirm freedom of conscience and oppose repression of any kind.What do I bring to the table here? Well, I think I've been raised to be kind of like the Theist version of Secular Humanism here, with respect to these things. That is, as I recall being told in Church, we should set up a foundation and a house up for investigators, and invite them to come in, rather than do what other Christians do, which is tear down the house the investigators live in, to force them to feel destitute and thus make them run to the nearest shelter, which the Christians claim they have. We can be frank about where we disagree with fellow Theists or non-Theists, nonetheless we believe in working together with them, giving them freedom of conscience, etc, and where I feel my fellow brethren of the LDS Church sometimes fall short in that, I feel like I can still go the extra mile.What this make me ask, is, what do you guys think about this, both what I said and what Kurtz' manifesto says?Is it more proper to recognize the good in those you disagree with, and merely build up something for them to look at and for you to invite them to? Or is it better to avoid this pragmatism and just go straight for destroying your opponents because you see them as wrong and you don't believe in such pragmatism? What are your thoughts on this, and how would you defend them?Also, Paul Kurtz and the manifesto:http://paulkurtz.net/ (scroll down a bit to read it)