Ignorant Atheists?

[leo-rcc]

Which example is that?

---

It is in my opinion, and some others, that a good person who tolerates extreme evil violence and cruelty. May be a good person at heart. But not in practice.

Well we are in disagreement right there. That person is a good person at heart, period. He or she is not the police, the military, or any other form of law enforcement so you cannot blame him/her for not acting against cruelty and violence.

Evil is the enemy of good.

What is your definition of good and evil?

You can't allow evil to go about poisoning everything. As Leonardo said: "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done."

I'm sure he did, does that make it a valid point?

At heart a good person could be good. But if he tolerated extreme evil then at least in practice he isn't.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

So since faith and superstition is the enemy and perhaps even the reverse of the scientific method - and scientific thinking. For the same reason as the above paragraph, perhaps you could say that someone who is a scientist but tolerates faith and superstition can be a scientist at heart but he isn't in practice?

And for the very same reason I stated, is disagree there as well. Sure the scientist will have to compartmentalize, but to say it is a bad scientist because he has a very human character flaw called faith he is no less qualified to do his job.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well we are in disagreement right there. That person is a good person at heart, period. He or she is not the police, the military, or any other form of law enforcement so you cannot blame him/her for not acting against cruelty and violence.

Yes. A good person at heart. But I mean if he/she thinks its good to tolerate murderers for instance. Is that he/she is practicing being a good person? That's all I mean by tolerating evil

What is your definition of good and evil?

Basically moral and immoral. And you can be a moral person (a good person) but practice bad things or beliefs. And tolerate evil. I agree with Steven Weinberg when he said "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I'm sure he did, does that make it a valid point?

No, all I mean by this is that I'm pretty sure that this is what I think. I would say I agree with Leonardo here. I'm not talking about physical punishment. I'm talking about more of the "conversational intolerance" that Sam Harris promotes. I do not think its good to tolerate the evil people or actions in the world. I think you should at least honestly express or at least do something about your feelings towards people that shouldn't be tolerated for their actions and evil influence.

At heart a good person could be good. But if he tolerated extreme evil then at least in practice he isn't.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Do you know what I mean by this? I mean he/she is a moral person but he/she is in practice is tolerating immoral behavior. So in practice he/she is immoral because he/she is tolerating and giving power to immorality.

And for the very same reason I stated, is disagree there as well. Sure the scientist will have to compartmentalize, but to say it is a bad scientist because he has a very human character flaw called faith he is no less qualified to do his job.

And similar to above all I mean is this: I mean he/she is a scientific person but he/she is in practice tolerating faith-based thinking. Especially considering that he/she thinks like that him/herself. So in practice he/she is unscientific because he/she is tolerating and giving power to religion and/or faith-based thinking. So he/she is not a full scientist. Because he she is in practice tolerating faith-based thinking. The direct opposition and in fact you could probably say enemy to science.
Once again I do not mean by violence or force. And not even necessarily in action. I mean at least in conversation. There is a big contradiction between the two that needs to be addressed.

[leo-rcc]

[quote='leo-rcc' pid='4885' dateline='1228321280']
Well we are in disagreement right there. That person is a good person at heart, period. He or she is not the police, the military, or any other form of law enforcement so you cannot blame him/her for not acting against cruelty and violence.

Yes. A good person at heart. But I mean if he/she thinks its good to tolerate murderers for instance. Is that he/she is practicing being a good person? That's all I mean by tolerating evil
[/quote]

Why would you even consider that a good person thinks it is good to tolerate murder? That makes no sense.

What is your definition of good and evil?

Basically moral and immoral. And you can be a moral person (a good person) but practice bad things or beliefs.

Such as?

I agree with Steven Weinberg when he said "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

You really love to quote others don't you. And I sometimes doublepark my car, does that make me a bad person?

I'm sure he did, does that make it a valid point?

No, all I mean by this is that I'm pretty sure that this is what I think. I would say I agree with Leonardo here. I'm not talking about physical punishment. I'm talking about more of the "conversational intolerance" that Sam Harris promotes.

So exactly what does Sam Harris promote?

I do not think its good to tolerate the evil people or actions in the world. I think you should at least honestly express or at least do something about your feelings towards people that shouldn't be tolerated for their actions and evil influence.

i fail to see how you could achieve such a thing.

At heart a good person could be good. But if he tolerated extreme evil then at least in practice he isn't.

How would a good person tolerate extreme evil?

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Do you know what I mean by this? I mean he/she is a moral person but he/she is in practice is tolerating immoral behavior. So in practice he/she is immoral because he/she is tolerating and giving power to immorality.

Again, how so?

And for the very same reason I stated, is disagree there as well. Sure the scientist will have to compartmentalize, but to say it is a bad scientist because he has a very human character flaw called faith he is no less qualified to do his job.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='4886' dateline='1228322752']
And similar to above all I mean is this: I mean he/she is a scientific person but he/she is in practice tolerating faith-based thinking.

Does it interfere with his research? No
Does it disprove any findings? No
Does the peer review still work whether he is a religious person or not? Yes
Therefore the science is good, and the scientists religious view is irrelevant.

Especially considering that he/she thinks like that him/herself. So in practice he/she is unscientific because he/she is tolerating and giving power to religion and/or faith-based thinking. So he/she is not a full scientist.

No true Scotsman ring a bell?

Sorry I have to disagree, when idiots like Harun Yahya or deluded men like Behe deliberately try to weasel out of the scientific method then yes, I would find that immoral. But when a person like Miller or Collins delivers his papers and goes through the scientific method and can back up his claims, I don't mind if they worships volcanoes in their spare time.

[Tiberius]

Why would you even consider that a good person thinks it is good to tolerate murder? That makes no sense.

Well, I think from one perspective you could argue that supporters of the death penalty might fall into this category. The death penalty is murder, albeit murder by the state. Supporters of the death penalty aren't usually people who are bloodthirsty, they are usually disillusioned into thinking that by killing the criminal you get rid of the problem, and that it acts as a deterrent.

So I disagree that a good person can think it is good to tolerate *all* murder, but they can with specific examples.

[leo-rcc]

Why would you even consider that a good person thinks it is good to tolerate murder? That makes no sense.

Well, I think from one perspective you could argue that supporters of the death penalty might fall into this category. The death penalty is murder, albeit murder by the state. Supporters of the death penalty aren't usually people who are bloodthirsty, they are usually disillusioned into thinking that by killing the criminal you get rid of the problem, and that it acts as a deterrent.

So I disagree that a good person can think it is good to tolerate *all* murder, but they can with specific examples.

That is not what was argued here though. And whether a person is good or not the death penalty has supporters on either side, theists and atheists, so faith doesn't come into question here. I don't support the DP since it is no more than senseless vengeance seeking.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why would you even consider that a good person thinks it is good to tolerate murder? That makes no sense.

Well there are religious fundamentalists who are good AT HEART. But because of their beliefs, and because the bible says you can and SHOULD do certain things that are immoral. And its supposed to be RIGHTEOUS.
Its like Steven Weinberg saying religion can make good people do evil things. So if good people can DO evil things, they can certainly TOLERATE evil things.

Basically moral and immoral. And you can be a moral person (a good person) but practice bad things or beliefs.

Such as?[/quote]
Like I said above. Its like Sam Harris says, about religious fundamentalist Islamic terroists for instance. These people actually believe what they say they believe. They think they are being good people. They think they are righteous. In practice they are evil but at heart they are good. They think they are righteous. Doing good. They think they will go straight to paradise if they do these evil things because its what God wants. There's just an example. Another example would be very dogmatic fundamentalist Christians bombing abortion clinics for example.

You really love to quote others don't you. And I sometimes doublepark my car, does that make me a bad person?

Don't see why it would!

So exactly what does Sam Harris promote?

From the Sam Harris Wikipedia page:
'Harris acknowledges that he advocates a benign, corrective form of intolerance, distinguishing it from historic religious persecution. He promotes a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also argues for the need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of "tolerance."[11]

Harris argues that such conversation and investigation are essential to progress in every other field of knowledge. As one example, he suggests that few would require "respect" for radically differing views on physics or history; instead, he notes, societies expect and demand logical reasons and valid evidence for such claims, while those who fail to provide valid support are quickly marginalized on those topics. Thus, Harris suggests that the routine deference accorded to religious ideologies constitutes a double standard, which, following the events of September 11, 2001 attacks, has become too great a risk.[11]

In the 2007 PBS interview Harris says, "The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine. It's not an argument that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really was born of a virgin or that the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. You can only believe those things or you should be only able to believe those things if you think there are good reasons to believe those things."'

i fail to see how you could achieve such a thing.

Well I simply express my opinions about the evil in the world rather than "loving thy enemy". Thats all I mean. I just do my bit. If I were one of the four horsemen or another brilliant atheist for instance I could do a lot more through my writing. I could more thoroughly acknowledge and oppose the evil in the world. Such as religious fundamentalism.

How would a good person tolerate extreme evil?

The examples I gave about what Sam Harris said about very dogmatic religious fundamentalists above and how these people actually believe what they say they believe. And how they think its righteous.
And I'm talking about at heart. Of course as I have already said - in practice thats extreme evil. But in their hearts they actually believe that its righteous because its IN their holy books.

Again, how so?

The examples I gave above.

Does it interfere with his research? No
Does it disprove any findings? No
Does the peer review still work whether he is a religious person or not? Yes
Therefore the science is good, and the scientists religious view is irrelevant.

He would be a much better and true scientist if he didn't have such a bad view on one of the most important scientific questions. And it would make science less vulnerable to 'faith' and pseudoscientific 'faith'.
He's not a true or full scientist because he's more committed to his "faith" than his science. Because on the question of a God he ignores science and treats it as a "faith" matter. He's not just committed to science he's commited to anti-science too.
I don't see how a religious scientist can be called a scientist when he places his anti-scientific faith above his science. Maybe thats just me?

No true Scotsman ring a bell?

Sorry I have to disagree, when idiots like Harun Yahya or deluded men like Behe deliberately try to weasel out of the scientific method then yes, I would find that immoral. But when a person like Miller or Collins delivers his papers and goes through the scientific method and can back up his claims, I don't mind if they worships volcanoes in their spare time.

1. True scotsman is about adding true to your previous definition. And I don't believe I did such a thing? I believe I may have early on corrected it to explain that THAT is what I meant. That I wasn't just talking about a P.h.d. But I don't remember repeatedly saying "not a scientist, not a scientist" and then recently changing it to "Not a TRUE scientist". Did I change it? And If so I haven't changed the meaning.
2. What I mean is that immoral is to moral as "faith" is to the scientific method.

[Tiberius]

On the "no true scotsman" thing, you originally said:

So he/she is not a full scientist.

I think that counts as a no true scotsman argument. Your argument fails on the account that there are many secular and religious scientists who do science to explain the world, and do religion to explain the "great questions". I.e. they keep the science separate from the philosophy.

[leo-rcc]

EVF, you are mixing up a couple of issues here.

You claim that good people tolerate murder with the same example as I disagree with Dr. Dawkins on. Good people, theist or not, know full well that murder is not good no matter what. They may not say so when a camera is pushed in their face, but the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with suicide bombers.

Then you assert that scientists who are religious cannot be true/full scientists. That is the part above all I disagree with. The scientific method is in place to safeguard objectivity, and the scientists who are religious are very well capable of keeping their religion from interfering with their work. That is where I claim you make your no true Scotsman argument and I stand by that claim.

Then you also assert that those scientists would do a better job if they were not religious, and I see no evidence to support that.

[Edwardo Piet]

On the "no true scotsman" thing, you originally said:

So he/she is not a full scientist.

I think that counts as a no true scotsman argument. Your argument fails on the account that there are many secular and religious scientists who do science to explain the world, and do religion to explain the "great questions". I.e. they keep the science separate from the philosophy.

But when did I change my definition? Isn't that what it says its about on wikipedia?
Also I never said all murder. If you were suggesting I did.
When did I change my definition? How is it 'no true scotsman'?
I will say that if I changed my definition then it does appear that I am guilty of a 'no true scotsman'. But I haven't changed my opinion, just the words in that case. I'm not trying to cover anything up. I believe if I did I change it to true its because of the confusion between: 1. Being a scientist =ANYONE who practices the scientific method. 2. Anyone who has a P.H.D in science and 3. Anyone who is scientific.
I do understand that if a religious person 'practices the scientific method' he can be called a scientist. But what I mean is that then you might as well call ANYONE a scientist if its just about practicing the scientific method.
If its about being scientific however, a religious scientist really be called a scientist when their faith is so antiscientific? And they ignore one of the most important scientific questions of all? That's very unscientific indeed. Its arguably anti-scientific as far as I'm concerned.
I guess I'm still getting confused about the 'how much of a scientist you have to be to be considered a scientist thing'.
Because I'm not bothered about the P.h.d. I don't think that counts. And if its just simply practicing the scientific method and thinking logically, then to some extent aren't we all scientists?
So the thing is perhaps part of the trouble is deciding how scientific you actually have to be, to be considered a scientist? :S
So I agree with Leo that I am certainly mixing up some issues here. Sorry But I don't think I'm guilty of the 'no true scotsman' for two reasons:
1. When did I change my definition exactly?
2. Even if I did change my definition thats because I'm confused not because I changed it deliberately so my point remains valid. Because when IF I earlier didn't say true, when I earlier said "scientist" I meant exactly the same as I do now by "true scientist" the only reason I would have changed it would be because by "scientist" people thought I meant: "Just anybody with a P.h.d, or ANYONE who practices the scientific method".

So what I'm wondering is how can this be settled until we decide: How scientific you actually have to be to be considered a scientist.
I think that's where the confusion lies. But I certainly don't think its just "anyone with a p.h.d" because you can get complete idiots with p.h.d s who don't deserve to be called a scientist. And then brilliant scientists who don't have a p.h.d who certainly SHOULD be considered scientists.

[Tiberius]

The no true scotsman argument is simply when someone claims that person(s) X is not a true *insert occupation, religion, etc* for whatever reason.

So for example, "He's not a true Christian, true Christians don't murder".

In your case, you said that if a scientist bowed to supernatural beliefs or religion, they weren't a "full" scientist. The problem with this is that the definition of a scientist does not rely on the persons religious beliefs. Indeed many scientists are very religious and yet discover amazing things. You only have to look at Newton to realise that.