What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
If making my views heard is being a jerk, I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.
Interestingly, Dawkins is not an ill-manered jerk. He mostly says some incredibly silly prejudiced things,
Vargas always manage to say some incredibly silly and funny things to show us just how ill conceived most of his thoughts really are. I can’t think of many people having such considered opinions as Dawkins – and he has written several books laying them out.
Of course Vargas have to characterize his troll focus as making “prejudiced” statements. But the rest of us hear the echo.
“I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.” Oh, and I forgot to add: And this is a start.
Not being a jerk doesn’t mean never disagreeing with anyone.
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Larsson, I am truly sorry that you are incapable of distinguishing silliness when Dawkins talks.
Strawman. I didn’t claim he hadn’t said silly things. I objected to your characterizing his thoughts as prejudiced.
Further you seem not to be able to distinguish between academia and best-seller paperback writing.
Another strawman. I wasn’t discussing his science – I was discussing his opinions.
And as several has noted, in his writings about religion he is targeting the religious, not the theologists. The Courtiers Response is becoming tedious. And false. And prejudiced.
It is not less true for that, so I will point it out anyway.
But since the post was about no “not-being-a-jerk-about-it” requirement for atheists, your opinions about his academic status and silliness of his claims are both besides the point, and boring to boot.
You would be better off joining the original discussion instead.
They merely disagree on what the beliefs are.
Certainly, as they should.
Stating beliefs and even arguing in favor of those beliefs is not the same as “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
It could be annoying, but it is still just an opinion, or possibly a justified claim.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
Because it isn’t a belief. It’s a *behavior*.
Presenting beliefs or opinions or justified claims, one time or many, is a behavior all right. What is your point here?
I’m not saying that people who disagree with me are either unintelligent or immoral.
Stating that people are unintelligent or immoral is an opinion, in the absence of measures. You have not proposed any measure to distinguish this opinion from other such. I get the impression that this is important for you – is it hard, and if it is why do you think it so?
And again, you have not yet explained how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument. I repeat this since it is IMO the main problem with your view on free speech and how it should be valued.
Sometimes those are good descriptors. I read a happy story for a change this morning: it’s…
I had known that JÃ©rÃ´me Lejeune was the fellow who had discovered that Down Syndrome was…
I don’t say this lightly, but Saletan is one of the more dishonest pundits out there…