Ignorant Atheists?

[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.