Ignorant Atheists?

[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.