In the meantime, some Christians demonstrate their peaceful minds

'A method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading', which is the definition I read (although there are of course others!) doesn't imply deliberate deception or falsity.

I'm not sure you can separate the person from the person's beliefs. What are we if we are not that which we believe in?

I beg to differ, absent.

Not so rude as accusing another poster of sophistry, though, Ana.

I didn't know what sophistry meant either and had to look it up.

Yes, how very rude of you absent. I googled it too - not a word I use in everyday conversation, but I'll certainly bear it in mind for future use on here...

I think that could be sophistry. In an un-sophisticated way.

Yeah well. There's illiterate. And then there's illiterate.

Oh dear it appears I'm illiterate

Only the illiterate ones jingl.

It's a word you don't hear very often. Sounds biblical.

Has everyone googled sophistry yet?

I don't think bags is deliberately trying to deceive you petallus and where is the falsity in what she has posted?

Sophistry!

You can say that about RD, actually. He respects people. He doesn't respect certain types of belief. People are not beliefs. Beliefs are not people.

Although my post about fundamentalist atheist was a bit tongue in cheek, I've met many atheists and they're mostly tolerant and respectful to believers.
Can't say that about RD, and I've come across some of his supporters on other forums who are also very offensive.

Are we just being too subtle Ana?

I had already made the same point, but obviously not in a way that was understandable.

granjura thank you for taking the time to re-read my post and posting that you understood the point I was making.

I agree granjura.

Hence the use of the word 'some' Eloethan.

The point I am trying to make here, is that generalisations about Christians are as unfair and pointless as generalities about Muslims- which I have heard by the bucketload recently.

Although I agree Richard Dawkins can be a little strident and sometimes "opens mouth before engaging brain" (as my Dad used to say), the definition of "fundamentalist" is: "a form of religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict literal interpretation of scripture". Since Richard Dawkins is not religious and therefore doesn't base his views on any scripture, I don't see how he or any other atheist can be described as a fundamentalist.

I actually have no problem with Jehovah's Witnesses - I usually find them very pleasant and I understand that they feel they are doing a good thing in trying to "save" me. But I'm not sure how much they'd appreciate me knocking at their door to talk about atheism - similarly the people who stand in our town square at the weekend and shout about the devil, hell and such things.

Having said that, I do think that the people who write such letters to Richard Dawkins, or anybody that they feel is being irreligious, have either a mild learning disability or are mentally unstable and I'm not sure it's fair to imply that they represent the views of mainstream Christianity. Apart from those who are obviously disturbed, I think that anybody who never questions their own beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs) can, I think, be a dangerous person.

I dont think of other people as black and white wrong.
I think of most of them, if not all of them, as potential christians one day. Potential brothers and sisters.

Well, there you are - you have an answer that you know is right? QED

Jesus judges at the end. Just as well it is. He sees all. Humans dont.