Why dont theist apologists educate themselves?

[DanieltheDragon]

In another thread Abiogensis a theist apologist readily admitted to not knowing the science and then randomly ascribed a straw man argument about bacteria forming from rocks. Yet the apologist is not alone. this seems to be a common tactic deployed in debate. where ignorance of a subject is displayed as a valid position to have. Much of the debate ends up trying to set the record straight and educate the apologist on what the subject is about.

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional? Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

I think your missing the point here. Let me make an analogy perhaps that will help put things in perspective.

Debate topic:

In Jewish culture the blue thread represents medicinal expertise

Blue and green in hospitals often represent medicine vs surgery. This is burrowed from the blue and green threads in Jewish culture.



Now I know this is wrong because you explained to me what the blue thread means. However, let's just assume that you never did and I decided to debate the meaning of the blue thread without doing any cursory research about it. Would that not be counterproductive?

[marco]

So, we are confronted with two questions. Is simply claiming expertise sufficient to make a point, or is this just an appeal to authority? Is one debater justified in saying that those who disagree with his viewpoint need to educate themselves, or is this just Ad Hominem?

Obviously if someone erroneously claims knowledge, the sensible thing to do is challenge the error. If it is a ploy to baffle people with "science" then it will work if people stay baffled. The little boy was right to call the emperor naked.

If we disagree with someone's point then if we have no rejoinder, we should educate ourselves so that we do have an answer. It is sensible advice to tell people to educate themselves so as to challenge, but it is a discourtesy to voice it.

I think the OP made a generalisation from a particular case.

[H.sapiens]

On the other hand, I don't claim to know anything about the field you claim to be an expert in. I didn't spend any of my precious time taking studying stuff about fish and plankton. If you would like to ask me a question about a field that I actually claim expertise in (economics, mathematical finance, analysis and topology, statistics) then I'd be more than happy to verify my knowledge. I promise that I won't fail and copy and paste, I am actually confident enough to write my own explanation.

I asked: "What would be the best way to analyze this data? Would Markov processes be superior to other approaches, especially an ANNNI model or a nearest-neighbor chain algorithm. Would you recommend using a jackknife? Which is more likely to minimize your error term, a forward inclusion or reverse exclusion approach?"

That is a statistics question.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

I think your missing the point here. Let me make an analogy perhaps that will help put things in perspective.

Debate topic:

In Jewish culture the blue thread represents medicinal expertise

Blue and green in hospitals often represent medicine vs surgery. This is burrowed from the blue and green threads in Jewish culture.



Now I know this is wrong because you explained to me what the blue thread means. However, let's just assume that you never did and I decided to debate the meaning of the blue thread without doing any cursory research about it. Would that not be counterproductive?

Yes, but would you excuse a Christian for making that error, because it is minutia, or would you drive home the point that the Christian does not know the Scriptures? Now, you might. You are not as aggressive as some. However, theists are roundly criticized by some posters in these parts for not having a grasp details in the Scriptures. However, in the exchange between WinePusher and H.sapien, marco believes H.sepien should be given a break if he does not have as much of a grasp of mathematics as WinePusher believes he should. I would think, given the premise of the OP, WinePusher should be lauded for encouraging H.sepien to educate himself on those matters. No judgement on any of those posters. It is just that it is a perfect example of how one side can excuse itself, while holding the other side to a high standard. In short, theists are not the only ones who argue a point without adequate knowledge.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

The whole wine pusher et all seems more about egos than the actual topic so I won't comment there. However if the topic was specific to the areas of math he was bringing up, I would say it would be prudent to be knowledgable in that area.

If I am going to debate the bible, I am going to learn what it says. If I am going to debate a science topic I am going to learn about that topic. I don't think people need to be experts, to have an opinion.

Everyone doesn't need to be held to a high standard, we just need to be speaking the same language. How can we debate evolution if one side isn't even talking about TOE but just some make believe version of what they think TOE is? It just becomes 40 pages of people talking past each other.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

theists are not the only ones who argue a point without adequate knowledge.

Yes your 100% right. I am not trying to pick on theists here. Just a specific type of apologetics that thrives on not having adequate knowledge. This class of apology relies specifically on misrepresenting information as a straw man and wears ignorance as a virtue.

Examples:

Bacteria from rocks
ducks giving birth to crocodiles
Chimpanzees still exist so we can't evolve from chimpanzees
It's snowing outside therefore global warming isn't real.(an actual congressman said something like this)

[rikuoamero]

.
Moderator Zzyzx removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[For_The_Kingdom]

In another thread Abiogensis a theist apologist readily admitted to not knowing the science and then randomly ascribed a straw man argument about bacteria forming from rocks. Yet the apologist is not alone. this seems to be a common tactic deployed in debate. where ignorance of a subject is displayed as a valid position to have. Much of the debate ends up trying to set the record straight and educate the apologist on what the subject is about.

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional? Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

This post is just a play on the faulty narrative coming from the atheist side that apologists/believers are so dumb, naive, stupid, brainwashed, etc...and that naturalists/atheists are so smart, educated, informed, rational.

This happens not only on internet forums, but in scholarly and academic circles as well. As if the atheist is so smart, and the apologist have no clue.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

[help3434]

Many atheists/non-theists brag about being science know it alls, but are then reduced to copying and pasting basic science high school facts off of wikipedia all the time. Many atheists come on this forum and pretend to be science experts but, in reality, their science knowledge just comes from quick google searches.

I am no science expert and I don't claim to be, but when creationists get the basics of natural selection wrong or strawman evolution to mean the animals give birth to completely different types of animals in one generation (which happens often in this subforum), it doesn't take more than a quick google search of high school level facts to refute that.

[rikuoamero]

Many atheists/non-theists brag about being science know it alls, but are then reduced to copying and pasting basic science high school facts off of wikipedia all the time. Many atheists come on this forum and pretend to be science experts but, in reality, their science knowledge just comes from quick google searches.

I am no science expert and I don't claim to be, but when creationists get the basics of natural selection wrong or strawman evolution to mean the animals give birth to completely different types of animals in one generation (which happens often in this subforum), it doesn't take more than a quick google search of high school level facts to refute that.

I'd actually like to know where, on this site at least, such atheists/non-theists brag about being scientific know it alls. I for one have never made the claim. I've never once pretended to have even attended college for one.
Has anyone else?