People are very, very good at lying to themselves. Note the term “cognitive dissonance” - some people get it, and some should get it, but don’t.
Sure. What about your wife? Your kids? What if he tells you he’s going to kill your kids instead of you?
Easier said than done.
As for the other, I also agree that being overly concerned with the soul is not humanism at all. Too often I have seen people concerned with the soul to the exclusion of all else. Forget Christianity for a moment, and let’s look at Hinduism.
In many stripes of Hinduism one of the major concepts is that we are reborn and die in the circle of life, over and over, until we have washed away our sins. I have seen people look at the terrible conditions in their life and assume it’s to do with past sins. Sure, fine, whatever. BUT the problem comes in where they think that since it’s punishment, they can and must do nothing to change their state. So they just continue living in their unhappy lives, even though they could change it, and continue spreading the unhappiness around them, because of this eternal thing called a soul.
We could make heaven right here on earth I think sometimes. But the soul when it supplants the real human life involved doesn’t help one bit.
So you think when she said,
she was being dishonest about where her morality came from?
I was (as I said quite explicitly) talking about those religious people who claim that (unlike atheists) their morality comes from some higher power. I don’t know about the minister in question.
The degree of dishonesty varies. Some have probably never thought about it and while they may be ignorant, they are probably not being actively dishonest. Plenty have had the obvious facts laid out before them in debates in places such as, say, the SDMB, but they just put their hands over their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and carry on regardless.
Precisely how wilful one’s ignorance has to be before continuing to espouse something you incorrectly believe to be true becomes dishonesty is not a very interesting question, since wilful ignorance and dishonesty are pretty much equally jerkish, in my view.
The label may or may not be insulting and this may or may not be intentional - but more than anything (IMO) it’s a label and its purpose is insulation - it allows an argument to be addressed against a group without repeatedly having to examine (and thus being challenged by, or even having to honestly describe or address) any of that group’s ideas.
Gotcha.
And that’s a bad thing? I just don’t see it.
Again, I don’t see what is so horrible about this.
“Klingon gods are dead, ancient warriors killed them a millenium ago, they were more trouble than they were worth.” 
I’ve also heard Secular Progressives, or SPs as Bill O’Reilly likes to call them.