My favorite humanist argument is when they try to tell me my morality is wrong or inferior to their morality. (They call it “ethics”).
“So, you, a random collection of stardust, are going to try to tell me, another random collection of stardust, that I’m somehow morally “wrong” in my belief system?”
The fallacy in this statement is that "you" and "me" are random collections of stardust.
If what were true, your "humanist" might have a leg to stand on.
But your humanist cannot either test, let alone prove his statement. Thus it can only be his "opinion." And as such, is fundamentally meaningless.
For how can anything be "meaningful" if everything is "random?"
Thanks so much, MrB, for your astute insight here!