For many "believers," a primary aspect of their religion is their belief in their own superiority, and their condemnation of others for this and that and the other thing. Most times, you wonder what it is that they do believe, because most of their time and energy seems to be spent condemning others. Perhaps one could say the primary aspect of their faith is xenophobia, the fear of anyone and anything other than themselves. They insist that they have certain knowledge of whatever it is they know, and contend that anything other that what they know for certain, is false.

We see this same kind of thinking expressed in a number of the posts above - except that it comes from people who actively profess that all religious belief is false.

Both sides profess that only they know the truth, and that all others are wrong and need to be suppressed and controlled - even to the point of suggesting that there should be control over what people teach their children and what rituals they celebrate in their own homes.

I can tolerate most things and most people of good will, but I draw the line at the point where people think they have a right to control or condemn what I am and who I am and what I think.

John P gave a list of beliefs-

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

And all I can answer is that I can offer no evidence that he would accept, but that most of these things make sense to me within the context of who I am - although I also must insist that people have vastly different understandings of these beliefs. I can offer no evidence or proof, but yet I have experienced most of these "beliefs" within the context of my life. I wouldn't expect John to believe any of these things because he does not share my faith perspective.


Suibhne says, Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.
Funny thing....that's exactly the same thing I hold, but within my theistic, religious context. If that's what atheism is, then why should atheism have any conflict with me?
But then, Suibhne spoils the unity by talking about folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.
How is he so sure that these things are without worth, that only Reason reigns supreme?

Suibhne says something else: Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire.

I'd agree that there is a very close relationship between religion and folklore. To my mind, much of religion IS folklore, wonderful folklore. The Old Testament stories of Job and Jonah are two of the best examples of folklore in Scripture, as are the creation and flood stories. But I don't see them as "manifestations of human irrationality." Rather, I see them as "manifestations of that which is beyond human rationality."

Pure rationality cannot capture the fullness of what some of us see as the transcendent mysteries of life: love, beauty, life, death, peace, evil, and the reason for existence, for example. If you're in love, you know that no rational explanation can approach the reality of the experience - although the experience is indeed intensely real. Likewise with the beauty of a tree or a sunset - intensely real, but beyond the capabilities of rational explanation.

In about 2005, I worked for about a year as an employee of my Catholic parish, teaching people who wanted to become Catholic. During that year, I was under constant scrutiny by right-wing Catholics. They filed a formal complaint to the bishop, and I had to attend a hearing and go through the process of being exonerated. The pastor told me he had to lay me off "for financial reasons," but last year he finally admitted he terminated me because of pressure from right-wing forces.

I tried to reason with these right-wing ultra-Catholics, but it did no good because we spoke a totally different language. From their religious perspective, they sought Absolute Truth and claimed to possess Absolute Truth; while my religious perspective directs me to explore that which is beyond understanding or definition. I found that if I tried to explain things in their language and their terms, I went places where I did not want to go. When I tried to speak in their terms, I found myself getting defensive and angry and limiting. I found myself closing doors, instead of opening them and exploring what was inside.

I have the same experience when I try to respond to non-believers who seek to force me to defend my beliefs. They, like the ultra-Catholics, want to speak in the language of certainty and argument and combat, while the essence of my being is to drift through life without certain knowledge, exploring the wonders I encounter with an open mind. They place a primary importance on proving others wrong, while all I want to do is explore. How can there ever be any depth of communication between us?

So, I try to be polite to those who insist on certainty, and I try not to rattle their cages.

But it's difficult, especially when they seek to control or limit or suppress or silence me.

-Joe-