Ignorance is knowledge which is as yet, unlearned.
No offense taken and thanks for clearing that up.
We hold everything that falls outside of religion in common with our religious neighbors, and if we wish to find common ground on which to have dialog, that is, it seems to me, where to look. Picking and choosing among specific ideas contained within religious texts so that we can say, well I can agree with that has the problem I outlined above.
I know I run the risk of sounding overly dramatic, but I cannot help but think that religious beliefs and worldviews are possibly the most serious threat to the future of humanity that there is, and doing anything that would help bolster or lend comfort to any worldview based on superstition and rejecting reason and evidence would be both hypocritical and counter to our collective best interests.
On the contrary, I think that religions provided a very important framework that allowed group dynamics to develop beyond the small groups that our ancient ancestors lived in. Because religion postulates an unassailable source of authority, it allowed some individuals within a group to assert that they were acting under cover of an unquestionable and unchallengeable source of knowledge and authority, at least to those who accepted the tenets of the belief.
There have been a number of studies about group dynamics among peoples who are essentially egalitarian with no one person laying claim to some kind of "higher authority" and such groups appear to break down when the group size gets much larger than about 300 people. Interestingly, this happens in egalitarian groups as diverse as amazon tribesmen and mennonite farming communities (as a bit of an aside, mennonite groups are fascinating from an anthropological POV, as they have rejected the idea of any individual having unique access to authority from god while retaining the authority of god as a central tenet. And their groups fission at about the same group size that egalitarian Amazonian groups that believe in hecura spirits and magic do). For groups larger than this it seems that someone within the group must successfully lay claim to authority that others within the group do not possess.
In this sense, I think that the modern world owes its very existence to the rise of organized religions from which a claim of unassailable authority was able to be made, whether that authority was marduk, osiris, or a warlord with a "mandate from heaven". Large groups of people acting cohesively under a framework of authority which they commonly accept are able to overwhelm smaller groups that lack such a framework. And the objective truth of those claims is irrelevant as long as the people in the group accept them. People respect power.
In our world, we have commonly "agreed" to accept authority in the guise of constitutions, bodies of law, and elected officials and their proxies. We no longer need a metaphysical source of authority to keep us from fragmenting into small competing groups.
Any wisdoms contained within the religious tenets of any group were generated by the human beings who held their authority under cover of that religion. The problem is that it was much easier and more successful for those in authority to simply assert that the ideas were valid because "god says so" rather than try to convince people that the ideas had merit because of the nature of the idea itself. Unfortunately "god says so" gives credibility to ideas that do not stand up to rational examination as well.
If we wish to help those who are "on the fence" accept the validity of a worldview based on reason and evidence, then it is that validity we need to engage them on. Rational worldviews work because they are demonstrably more effective in their predictive powers than superstitious worldviews are. Witness the all too common occurrence of people letting their children die of easily curable ailments because they reject modern medicine in favor of prayer and faith. Convince someone that a rational, evidence based worldview works and that it puts forth an internally consistent, coherent and largely accurate understanding of the world in which they live, that such a worldview conflicts fundamentally with mythical explanations, and that is enough to convince most rational people to abandon a superstitious worldview.
An attempt to engage such a person by agreeing that specific parts of their religious belief have validity do not, it seems to me, have much hope of convincing them that the framework surrounding those ideas is not valid. Possibly, getting them to agree that certain points in religious beliefs that are not their own have some validity may help convince them that ideas can have merit in and of themselves without having to be "gods word", and help get them out from under the rule of superstition.
I do not "set myself up in a superior position", nor do I think that an atheist is superior as an individual than a religious person. I am as flawed and limited as any other human being. But I absolutely assert that a worldview based on reason and evidence is superior to one based on superstition and mandates of authority from god.