Ok, I'll respond.
I'm not really sure what you meant by the non sequitur statements. Whereas in my op I offered a legitimate premise, one that makes logical sense and offers concrete examples, in your response you simply say this is what it is, and no reason why. That's fine and I'm not mad at you, but I don't carry the same assumptions as you so you have to lay out your assumptions and premise behind statements like "you imply heroism is better than nonheroism." I'm not going to split hairs over the semantics and definitions of terms, because what I try and do is start out using common, widespread, and acceptable definitions of things such as "heroism is good. Our society values people who do the right thing and are selfless in helping people out, some in need or some in whatever scenario."
The only way I see your thread title relating to the first post in any way is if you assume that masculinity is associated in some way, with heroism, or selfless sacrifice, or whatever. I don't really agree with this; in fact, I would argue that a masculine society, what I linked to earlier, would be less likely to engage in such behavior. This is the kind of thing I mean. What I noted down are assumptions important to your argument that I don't believe are reasonable to hold. I realize they are somewhat redundant, but hey. It won't kill anyone to read the same thing twice.
For example, the one you specifically mentioned, that heroism is inherently better than non-heroism. To be entirely honest, I would rather have preferred it if all those early Christians had been eaten by the Roman lions and the Roman Empire had remained pagan. So while in many (even most) cases heroism is better than non-heroic, you will have to explain, in specific cases, why. Because I'm assuming that your argument is under the assumption (in my list, I believe) that masculinity is good and femininity is bad.
#4: making false generalizations about atheists. Where in my OP did I make a false generalization of atheists? I didn't. I asked a fair question hoping to elicit some responses, and I cited a real example of atheism as I have seen it in the media, which was: an atheist who complained because their child had to recite the pledge of allegiance with the phrase "under God." That's not a blanket statement.
Two separate claims here: that atheists under the label of atheism (as compared to atheists individually) are generally similar to what is portrayed in popular media; and that there is something wrong with complaining about the pledge of allegiance because it has the phrase "under God".
As to the first: I can't see a way this holds water. Atheists are portrayed in public media, through various polls, and anecdotal stories such as the one you reference, as being BAD. Atheists are the group least likely to be voted for as President of the United States, least likely to be allowed to marry into an American's family, etc. We vie for bottom place with homosexuals and scientologits. However, atheists as a group are more educated, more moral, more productive, and more tolerant than their Christian counterparts. I don't know about the Christians out there, but these are important factors (obviously not the only ones) in deciding whether someone is trustworthy. Moreover, this translates in practice in more secular areas of all sizes performing better politically, socially, and economically better than their more religious counterparts. This correlation can be found between different countries, between different states in the United States, and even different regions within a particular state.
For the second, this is, I believe, an individual issue. I don't live in the United States, and I don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Personally, I don't feel comfortable swearing an oath with which I don't agree, and I feel it is the small end of the wedge to force religious preference into government policy.
#5: You said I'm making generalizations and inaccuracies about atheism, but it's ok for you to do the same about religion? You are a pot, calling a kettle black. You gloss over the benefits of belief and faith, at least I acknowledged the counter side of rhe argument.
Those benefits aren't exclusive to religion, though. Any society which offers support, community, and charity facilitates most of the positive benefit of contemporary religion. I acknowledge that religions now do not have the same power and negative influence that they once did, while their positive influence has increased if anything, but there are, as I said, ways to get the good without the bad. 'All' that's required is for people to give up their god. Easier said than done.
Edgell P, Gerteis J, Hartman D. Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. Am Sociol Rev. 2006 Apr;71(2)221-24
Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists [Internet] About.com. Available from
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
Zuckerman P. Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass. 2009 Dec;3(6)949-71