Bishop attacks 'aggressive atheism’

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

I wonder, where was that 'balanced' approach during the middle ages?

The only reason that religion now calls for 'acceptance' and 'balance' is because it is slowly loosing the battle in modern western societies.
Just a few of centuries ago it would have been unthinkable for people to speak critically about religion without severe repercussions or even death.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others pointing out the shortcomings of religion and shouting it from the proverbial mountain...
That is balance.
Letting religious dogma go unchallenged is not.

Precisely.

The only thing I'd add is that the British clerical higherups have their lingerie disoriented because few pay attention to what they say anymore, and the pews and coffers are nowhere near full.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

Letting religious dogma go unchallenged is not.

what do you think protestantism was about?

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by Pegg

what do you think protestantism was about?

A Catholic Monk criticising moral inconsistencies in his own church, inconsistencies that actually was counter to its own religious dogma, which led to unforeseen consequences.
Luther never intended to create a schism and he never challenged religious dogma while he was a Catholic monk, the most central being 'there is a god'.
If anything, Luther was trying to uphold religious dogma.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

A Catholic Monk criticising moral inconsistencies in his own church, inconsistencies that actually was counter to its own religious dogma, which led to unforeseen consequences.
Luther never intended to create a schism and he never challenged religious dogma while he was a Catholic monk, the most central being 'there is a god'.
If anything, Luther was trying to uphold religious dogma.

protestantism was the beginning of the end of the Catholic churches reign in my opinion.

they lost a good many adherents when protestantism broke forth...yes they fought viciously to stop protestants...or dissenters... they persecuted them and many good people lost their lives. Just think, if it weren't for those religious dissenters, todays world might still be stuck in the dark ages.

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by Pegg

protestantism was the beginning of the end of the Catholic churches reign in my opinion.

they lost a good many adherents when protestantism broke forth...yes they fought viciously to stop protestants...or dissenters... they persecuted them and many good people lost their lives. Just think, if it weren't for those religious dissenters, todays world might still be stuck in the dark ages.

Perhaps, but step by step, Catholicism and Protestantism still agree way more than they disagree.
They do not really challenge each other's central dogma in any meaningful sense.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

Perhaps, but step by step, Catholicism and Protestantism still agree way more than they disagree.
They do not really challenge each other's central dogma in any meaningful sense.

dogma is one thing, but the authority of the church in peoples lives is another.

Protestantism really shook that authority and gave people an alternative to the catholic church. having that alternative was a small step, but it led to people being able to read the bible for themselves...something the catholic church forbade.

So really, it was the beginning of religious freedom and freedom of thought and belief.

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by Pegg

dogma is one thing, but the authority of the church in peoples lives is another.

Protestantism really shook that authority and gave people an alternative to the catholic church. having that alternative was a small step, but it led to people being able to read the bible for themselves...something the catholic church forbade.

So really, it was the beginning of religious freedom and freedom of thought and belief.

Sure, but when atheists are criticised for being 'aggressive', 'strident' or 'militant', they are not attacking the authority of religious leaders and organisations as such.
What they are attacking is the assumption that there is a god in the first place.
I understand that that is somewhat more frightening to some seeing as if that first dogma falls, everything else about their faith is nonsense as well.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

Sure, but when atheists are criticised for being 'aggressive', 'strident' or 'militant', they are not attacking the authority of religious leaders and organisations as such.
What they are attacking is the assumption that there is a god in the first place.
I understand that that is somewhat more frightening to some seeing as if that first dogma falls, everything else about their faith is nonsense as well.

militant athiests are criticized for the same reason militant theists are criticized....for imposing their views on others and demeaning the freedom of choice that we are all entitled to.

two wrongs dont make a right.

[jarofthoughts]

Originally Posted by Pegg

militant athiests are criticized for the same reason militant theists are criticized....for imposing their views on others and demeaning the freedom of choice that we are all entitled to.

two wrongs dont make a right.

Well, you identify as a JW, which means that a LOT of the people belonging to your brand of religion goes door to door imposing their view on other people.
Religion has been imposing its view for centuries and still does on a massive scale, which means that most religious groups are militant, strident and aggressive.

And how is criticising an idea demeaning people's freedom of choice?
Wouldn't someone in favour of the freedom of choice welcome dissenting voices?

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

Well, you identify as a JW, which means that a LOT of the people belonging to your brand of religion goes door to door imposing their view on other people.
Religion has been imposing its view for centuries and still does on a massive scale, which means that most religious groups are militant, strident and aggressive.

we invite others to look at our religion, yes, but we certainly don't force anyone into our religion, nor do we condemn their own beliefs. We respect their right to make whatever choices they want to make regarding beliefs and religion. The reason why we do proselyting is because it is a christian requirement to do so.

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts

And how is criticising an idea demeaning people's freedom of choice?
Wouldn't someone in favour of the freedom of choice welcome dissenting voices?

it depends how the criticizing is carried out. Its perfectly acceptable to question and disagree if its done respectfully... but if its militant, then its no different to groups like the taliban who try to force people to do and think the way they do.

belittling is a form of bullying and we all know that bullying robs people of their freedom of choice because its designed to pull them down and destroy their own willpower. Its incredibly destructive to a persons self worth.