I fear you are just taking the technicality instead of seeing the principles I am trying to bring to the forefront. . . . sab
I felt the same thing . . . but the other way round. False belief is not something anybody feels grateful for when it is revealed . . . regardless of how big or damaging the organisation is. Seldom do we even recognise the price until pay-up time (as in WT). I have no problem with personal belief, and I'm sure the holder feels it is on solid ground. But when it is displayed through a public medium it is simply being recommended by preaching. Scrutiny under those circumstances is right and proper.
The issue is not believer/non-believer . . . but behaviour. The same rules for debate apply regardless of the subject . . . and scrutiny is the dominant feature of it. Attack the message not the messenger. Not complicated.
See . . . you and I have had an exchange of ideas. I'm not cold. I feel emotion just as you do. But the exchange can still take place . . . and hopefully, through being respectful, we each have the opportunity to disagree and present our point of view . . . even for the purpose of vigorous scrutiny. Hopefully we both get to learn something new. Little would be achieved otherwise. We're simply not all playing in the same orchestra.