"If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them."

If it's about what they purport to believe and suggest that the belief should not be criticized then I agree. To not allow discussion based on hurt feelings is not productive.


Ed T the suggestions are laudable. I applaud. Irenic would suggest eschewing destructive and judgmental invectives or recriminations.

Honesty is often "in the eye of the beholder"
but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements.

As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists. But they can't be bullied into changing, they must be shown credible evidence by science or logic and not from some holy book.

Being polite is often a matter of interpretation. Being rude is a judgement given by those who are often rude themselves. Any controversial opinion expressed can be characterized by those who don't agree with it as "being rude." I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator".
Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude.