Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-226878-20150710200046/@comment-24891101-20150729221301

Part of the first is the temporal aspect. We account for human rights abuses historically by relativism, because the world was, for a lack of a better term, less civilized. But now, though cultures have different values, those practices are causing real harm, and the global community (at least in the West) views them as abuses. There is indeed some degree of cultural imperialism here, but from a humanistic perspective, it's an obligation to ask them to stop.

As to the second point, that's exactly the opposite of the meaning I intended; it's one of the flaws. While one can be atheistic, for lack of a better term, toward an arbitrary set of deities, the term is generally understood to mean the rejection of all gods, due to philosophy or lack of evidence. Thus, while people can be atheistic toward one god and not toward another, that's merely a property of having a non-henotheistic belief system. Atheism proper, as understood generally, means the rejection of all of them. While everyone is to some extent atheistic by that metric, they'd not be termed atheists, using the common definition of the term.