Argument from ignorance is like this:
We aren't sure of Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation.
Therefore, he was probably homosexual.
Yes, yes it is. It's the 'God of the Gaps' argument, as well.
The least tolerant people I see are the people who claim others need to be more tolerant. You unfortunately, help support this observation.
How? I challenge you to point out where I begged 'tolerance' from anyone. I personally, could do with a lot
less patronising 'tolerance,' and some more actual equality. Tolerance requires a position of strength, and is conferred by the kindest despots upon the weaknesses and follies of their chattels. Tolerance precludes respect - one doesn't 'tolerate' one's respected peers and mentors.
So, no, I don't see how this point is even relevant, or how I personally support your little assumption.
You have the idea that you should see people as individuals and pot a group. Then you lump everyone that doesnt see people as individuals into 1 group, and then not only that, but assert that it is best to avoid communication with these people, and even move so that you dont have to deal with them. Unfortunately tolerance of ignorance is another thing we need to have. If you can not tolerate ignorant people, you cant expect the ignorant people to become any less ignorant, and as famously stated by someone I forget, "If you arent part of the solution, then you're part of the problem".
To some of us, being 'part of the solution' lies in not being afraid to call B.S. when we see it. And yes, I do think it best for
anyone to not take too seriously the outlooks of bigots and fools, when deciding how to conduct oneself in a rational, post-Enlightenment, liberal society. If one's worldview came from KKK pamphlets, I'd say the same, without shame.
Ever known a person who's in a bad relationship, say an emotionally abusive one? I can't speak for you, but my advice would be the same to hir: find a better mate; get away from this one.
At some point, one has to draw lines in the sand, as it were, and say 'regardless of how you feel about it, you're wrong.' Groupthink ignorance is where I draw one of mine. Tolerance of ignorance is not only intellectually dishonest; it has deleterious real-world consequences. There is a reason why, in our justice system (here in Canada, at least, and I'm pretty sure also in the US, and most [all?] Western societies), one hears the phrase 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.'
You know what I do tolerate? Puppies. People, however, deserve more respect than that. Even when they're dead wrong.
To relate to the topic at hand
This is the big problem with people claiming with that others need to be more tolerant of atheism. Its easy to be in a group and say that others need to be more tolerant of it. If you are in a group its easy to see the persecution it receives and be blind to the persecution it causes in an attempt to be "equal" with other groups.
The same persecution that bald men hold up to hairstylists? Ideally, there'd be no call for the concept of tolerance to come up in the first place. If the barbers want to run their shop however they'd like, the bald are unlikely to care. Unfortunately for society, and for my ability to stretch an analogy, the barbers are currently trying to dictate the conditions for the rest of the plaza - and keep the bald out altogether.
So, yeah, I have nothing to say about anyone else's private thoughts on any matter - that's a matter of conscience. But, when ignorance is taken to the public, political sphere, with real-world consequences, then it is not only a right, but a duty, of thinking people everywhere (whether religious or not) to call it out at all turns.
Even if it's intolerant.
