And I don't particularly care if my own style of criticism is considered unpalatable, controversial etc.
I write what I write because I hope that people see the same ridiculous things I do.
I do not believe that it belongs in any of those fields of discourse.
Religions belong to the annuls of history and nothing more. He says that there was a warmth and joviality in the celebration of Christmas, the idea that the warmth and fun of the occasion helped him enjoy the occasion more than he thought.
It simply does not require years and years of study to refute the theological propositions.
Simplistic criticisms are fine; the charge that one has to be a Theologian in order to refute the myths at the core of faith is one which needs kicking into touch.It doesn't work because 'authorities' are wrong about a number of things. This sort of accommodation of religion puts Atheists on the back foot immediately where there is no need to concede ground. these are the only tools required to criticise religion. It is the claims of the pious that require examination.So we can ignore Stedman's plea about not using simplistic tools to berate religion because it's not needed. Do not let people say that you need some sort of specialist knowledge to refute the claims made within the Bible or any other religious book. All methods of interaction will work on some level.A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion. Some practices are religious for one person, but not religious for another person, such as not working on Saturday or on Sunday.
One person may not work on Saturday for religious reasons; another person may not work on Saturday for family reasons.Once people became literate a new way needed to be devised to retain this power structure.