In the meantime, some Christians demonstrate their peaceful minds

I wonder if it is not so much a person's beliefs that people have difficulty in separating from the person (and I agree, by the way, that a person's beliefs will affect a person's outlook on life and their approach to it), but the fact that to a person of faith, the faith (whatever it is), or the possession of faith is very important to them, precious even, so that when they think someone is attacking precepts of that faith the person feels, as it were, wounded. I can understand that.

But I still think all beliefs, whether faith-based or not, are or should be equally open to criticism, including, of course, what atheists believe. Otherwise certain things become taboo and all kinds of nonsense and silliness can arise out of taboo. And, although I can understand the preciousness of someone's faith, I still think one can and should regard beliefs as separate issues from people, as a matter of principle as well as of logic.

As for RD's "needling", well, why shouldn't he? Religions needle him, clearly. What's the difference? He is only seeking truth. It is not wrong to seek truth even in ways that needle some people. He's not doing it to needle anyone; he's doing it because he thinks it matters and he thinks what he's doing is for the good, just as missionaries think what they do is for good.

But he provokes them with his needling.
By the way I listened to some of your link and it sounded like soundbytes of messages from trolls.

A fair question- but in this thread we are discussing 'so-called' Christians insulting and threatening, with death and worse, those who disagree with them. Something RD has never done, as far as I know.

To go back to my earlier posts, why the need for atheists like Dawkins, moreso Hitchens, to interrogate or attack believers, trying to expose weaknesses in their arguments?
Are they proselytising? Or just exposing their own uncertainties?
What is the point?

Can you separate Bags from Bags' argument?

I presume it gives comfort to those who arrange for the funerals to be conducted at the christian places?

I have never heard of a church owned by the council, so I dont know if it could be rented for a secular celebration.

I've only just got back to this thread after my posting 'sophistry'.

To clarify, I meant 'specious or over subtle reasoning'.

In fact, I could equally well have said specious, meaning 'superficially genuine or correct but in reality wrong or false (of an argument)'

That is what I think about the argument that insulting a person's (deeply held) belief is entirely different to insulting the person.

Or to put it another way, it might make logical sense but in reality it's not true for most people.

Bags my comment was not aimed at you personally, just the argument.

I was interested in what you said about your Mormon friend. Have you ever tried telling her in no uncertain terms just what you think of her beliefs?

Just thinking- as our lovely Church is next to our house, and is owned by the council, not the Church- if they could rent the Church for a secular celebration. It's used for lots of concerts, and totay a big crowd for the ecumenical service, celebrated by both Vicar and Priest, for both Catholics and Protestants (hurrah and well done).

Soontobe I had a Catholic funeral for dad, and a protestant one for mum- as they were believers, although not Church goers, as they suffered so much when they got married in the 40s, dad a Catholic and mum a (divorced!) protestant. The behaviour of the respective Churches and even worse, the congregations, was just shameful.

Ma family have strict instructions not to have a Christian Funeral for me- and I know they will respect my feelings on the matter. How can it be of comfort to say things one does not believe in- at all. Like the I shall not fear in the valley of death, etc? When I attend funerals and hear those things, knowing full well the person who died would themselves not believe a word of it- it does not give comfort, but makes me, and others like me, very uncomfortable.

There are several secular 'celebrants' in the area, and I've left a list with them- should they wish to have a funeral. As far as I am concerned, as I won't be there, it does not matter if they do or not- as long as no hypocrisy is involved (I know, I wouldn't be there to see that either, but ... ).

thatbags. That is what I didnt understand on that thread about satire.
You do believe in loving and respecting and being polite to your friend who is a mormon. So why not muslims, or those of other beliefs.
Is it just a case of you dont know those other people?
Or is it because of , weel I am not sure exactly.

granjura. I dont know what other christians think.
But I am glad that people want their relatives to have christian funerals, even if they dont believe themselves. They presumably find some sort of comfortfrom being there, and I like that.

Some of the most interesting and pleasant conversations I have or had, are with friends who are profoundly Christian of many denominations, Muslim or Hindu, and a few Buddhists too. Currently, I meet the local vicars very regularly through volunteering work with the elderly in the community. Most vicars I've known, as a teenager and young woman, and now- hugely respect my wish not to be a'cultural' Christian, otherwise known as a 'hypocrit'.

For a sincere believer, to have to marry and bury, etc, those who clearly want the services of the Church, but clearly and plainly do not believe, and boldly tell them 'keep the God bit to a minimum- or don't even bother mentioning it- we are only here for the beautiful setting' kind of thing- is very hard and soul breaking even (and those people also refuse to pay towards their 'membership' of the Church and its running and maintenance cost).

They totally respect the fact I work alongside them in my own way, respectful of them and their beliefs- and respect the fact I am not a believer.

So, what would you say makes up a person then Bags?

Btw, when did you meet him? What was the conversation about? Was it some sort of atheists gathering? Not being rude - just interested.

But... the big BUT...

Separating ideas and beliefs from a person and talking about the ideas and beliefs while still respecting the person and their right to believe what they choose is not fallacious or specious. So the label is wrong too.

Insisting that you can't separate an idea or belief (a philosophical stance, or a political one, or a religious one) from the people who believe it is simply not true. People even change their ideas about what they believe to be true. I know I have. That doesn't mean I'm not me now or I wasn't me when I believed something that I don't believe now.

So, my previous post up thread was simply a correction of a factual error.

I understand that some people don't understand the point and just like to apply labels. So be it. Doesn't make the point factually incorrect.

If any of you met RD and had a conversation with him, you would find him polite. Being polite is showing respect towards a person. You can be polite and still disagree, even profoundly, with everything that person says. Call it whatever you like, the difference is real to me, otherwise how could one of my oldest and best friends be a Mormon? I despise Mormon beliefs. I think Mormon beliefs are bullshit and that Mormons are misguided to believe them, but I love, and respect, my friend. She must think so too or she'd have dropped me long ago.

If that's sophistry, then fine, I'm a sophist, and proud to be so.

My iPad is out of charge

rarefied

I agree we have to be very careful how we phrase posts Absent

If, for example, I was to respond 'Balderdash!' to your post then that could be taken as a light-hearted response or simply rude, and could lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.

Whereas if I was talking directly to you you could tell by my facial expression exactly how I meant to come across. Difficult, isn't it!

What a rarified world you must live in, absent.

Do you mean that as in “Illiterati lumen fidei' Ana?

Anya Yes, in response to ana's post of 23:10:26 because I thought the definition she quoted from an unnamed source was inadequate so I double checked with the OED.

Truly, it never occurred to me that a number of Gransnetters didn't know the meaning of sophistry. It is not an uncommon word, after all. I thought jingl was joking about googling it. I still think it is much ruder directly to accuse someone specific of sophistry than to make an untargeted, non-specific and, dare I say it, light-hearted response about googling a well-known word. I apologise to those who were offended.

Only to try and prove her point. Not like us illiterati...

Ah ha! So you did look it up too Absent

What a strange thing to say Absent - or did you truly not realise how rude you sounded?

Of course you beg to differ, Ana.

Well, if we're going to bandy dictionaries again, the first definition in the Shorter OED is: "Specious but fallacious reasoning; employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive".