Mic,

You reminded me of a joke: “Your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins.”

People misunderstand each other all the time. Especially when people use humor.

For example, I’m a little confused about your question. Inquisitions and witch hunts are historically what Christians do to find people who they can persecute for their subversive beliefs, or blame them for society‘s ills. In your tough-crowd example, I don’t think it would be possible for their to be any type of witch hunt because the person doing the sing-song would be the witch.

I do think that I (and most atheists) could get up in front of a group of Christians and explain our beliefs without intentionally trying to cause offense or proselytize.

Anytime you’re public speaking you have to know your audience and choose words and arguments that they’ll respond to.

Second, just because you don’t think someone’s beliefs are based on sound reasoning doesn’t mean your intolerant. If you were to punch, spit on, or make a law against someone for their beliefs, that would be intolerant.

If you watched the presidential debates, you saw two guys pretty much lie about and slander each other for an hour-and-a-half. You can disrespect the beliefs of republicans or democrats all day and no one will cry foul. Some religions claim that anyone who disagrees with them are intolerant: I doesn’t make it true.

Lastly, what I think would benefit you is irrelevant. I’m not responsible for making your decisions, and I’m not responsible for the consequences of your decisions. Nor are you responsible for any of mine.

You’re right in saying that many people are not able to differentiate between criticism of their beliefs and personal ad-hominem criticism, but quite frankly, such people need to learn about the difference. Freedom of speech and the free market of ideas is not only a good thing, but absolutely essential for a free society. Do you think that after last night’s debate, either Obama or McCain is going to start accusing the other of intolerance because he opposes ideas that the other holds dear? No, that’s ridiculous, and it’s the reason why libel and slander are specifically defined in our legislation and do not include criticism of ideas.

You also raised an ethical question. It’s often been said that my rights end where yours begin, and basic principles of human interaction like this are solid philosophic bases for developing a robust moral system of ethics that can also be applied to law. If you’re interested in this subject, read some of the comments on this previous thread/entry: http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2008/09/08/secular-morality/

“Humor is a powerful way to break down social barriers and open up discussion.” I wonder if you were to sing your song in front of a group of Christians if the doors of communication would be open. Or perhaps they might be wondering if the inquisitions and witch-hunting might come next. There are people in this world for whom this concern is real. This view and type of humor in the minds of the wrong people does not promote or protect individual human welfare.

“There is a huge difference between disrespecting a real person or group of people and disrespecting a system of beliefs.” That is an opinion that not all people hold. Many people in the world do not separate their system of beliefs from who they are as people. I am wondering if in your opinion disrespecting a person’s beliefs does not come under the definition of intolerance. (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=intolerance)

“Humanism relies on personal ethics, which is the ability to analyze right and wrong and make choices that benefit yourself and others.” I am wondering how you would determine who is right if what you think would benefit me and what I think would benefit you were in conflict with each other.

It’s hard to respond to you because I don’t know specifically what type of proof you’re looking for. As mikhailovich already stated, secular humanism emphasizes evidence and the individual.

In my opinion (which is all I can offer because humanism doesn’t have dogma), secular humanists do not make decisions based on faith. They evaluate the evidence available to them and then try to use their own sense of reason to make a conclusion.

That’s why we often pick on the bible; it makes unsupportable claims (Noah’s Arc, the Genesis story, etc.) that are clearly false when you consider a tiny bit of scientific evidence.

Because Humanists openly question their own beliefs as well as the claims of others, they place value on different things than people of faith.

Humanists generally reject the concept of an afterlife because there is no evidence for it. So what you do in this life is given all emphasis because it’s a certainty.

Religion tends to focus on morality, which in my view is an authoritarian code of approved behavior. Humanism relies on personal ethics, which is your ability to analyze right and wrong and make choices that benefit yourself and others. (If you’re looking for ten-commandment style rules; sorry there are none.)

In a crisis humanists will rely on themselves and other people for help; not god. Humanists don’t believe there is a personal god who cares for them. Therefore, it’s a waste of time to pray to one. You’re much better off trying to accomplish things yourself and with the help of others.

Is that what you were looking for? I’d love to continue this discussion with the help of your feedback.

Thanks for commenting. Brandon and I were just remarking tonight that we’d much rather people comment with questions or criticisms and get a discussion going.

I admit that I’ve focused mainly on Christianity in my entries, but that’s simply because it’s what I’m most familiar with, and Christians comprise the main group in our country that value faith over reason/reality. We’re hoping to talk more about different unsubstantiated paranormal claims in the future instead of just focusing on religion.

I’m also arguing more for a rejection of unsubstantiated beliefs than telling people what they proactively should believe. Secular humanism is defined differently by different people, but one of the folks in our group offers up this definition: “Secular Humanism is that moral philosophy that teaches that the goal of all political and moral action should be the protection and promotion of individual human welfare.”

One of the reasons I align myself with secular humanism is that I value individual human life, liberty, freedom, and equality; I oppose religion not only because it interferes with human freedom, life, and dignity, but also because its claims are patently false. As long as people believe that stuff, it’s a worthwhile battle to spend time exposing it and counteracting the effects (in some small way) of harmful actions based on irrational beliefs. If you’ve been reading the blog for a while, I’m sure you know what some of this is about….

Hopefully that helps answer your question. Feel free to respond or write back if not. If you’d like, perhaps we can devote some future entries to some of the more general tenets of secular humanism, which perhaps have been more latent/implicit up until this point.

A serious question is something like, “Why do people get sick?” Nobody is mocking a question like that! What deserves to be mocked, however, is a silly answer like, “you sinned so God created viruses to make your life suck.” If you’re going to give an answer like that, you better have some damn good proof to back up your assertion! If you don’t…ridicule is certainly in order.

I don’t want to pile on too much, but I’d like to respond to a few things you’ve written.

”Have the decency to respect your opponents instead of mocking and deriding them.”

No.

Why? Because your argument has no grounds.

For example:

”That is the very thing God is expecting of us, to use the minds we have to put an end to all the maladies we can.”

Really? How do you know what god expects from us? Did you have a phone call with him before you decided to post?

Can you really expect me to have a “serious, respectful interchange about Jesus,” with someone who claims they know what god expects from us?

Second, when we use satire to point out how absurd the idea of a loving, omnipotent god is in the face of evidence like AIDS, smallpox, birth defects don’t pretend that were making light of pain and suffering. We’re not; we’re making fun of god and belief that he has anything to do with suffering.

Basing an argument on a misunderstanding of the satirical purpose of the song is ignorant. Making an argument based on the claim that you know god’s expectations is arrogant.

I’m sorry but your claims of moral high-ground are silly, and like god they’re deserving of ridicule.