"Pretending to be smart is not the same thing as being educated."

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What is it with this "Atheist (sorry, I mean 'seekers')" routine you have going?
It is a "routine," that calls out fakers in a similar way that Jesus mocked the Pharisees and other religious leaders of his culture.

I have a number of friends who are atheists. They have good reasons for their beliefs. They are fun to engage in philosophical conversations and we are generous with each other's viewpoints careful not to misrepresent them.

My experience at CF is that a lot of "seekers," don't ask any of the questions students and other seekers I have encountered in my evangelistic work have asked over the last 30 years.

Here "seekers," seem to be over-representing skeptics without any seeking behavior common to seekers historically.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Opinions are knowledge claims. They are based on knowledge.
Unsupported beliefs = opinions
Justified true beliefs = knowledge

All claims are beliefs.

What turns beliefs into "knowledge" are

Beliefs are true

Beliefs have reasons (arguments and evidence)

Look up epistemology and you will see these distinctions.
 
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Unsupported beliefs = opinions
Justified true beliefs = knowledge

All claims are beliefs.

What turns beliefs into "knowledge" are

Beliefs are true

Beliefs have reasons (arguments and evidence)

Look up epistemology and you will see these distinctions.
Not all opinions are unsupported. Opinions are true if they are verifiable. If they are verifiable, they are true.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not all opinions are unsupported. Opinions are true if they are verifiable. If they are verifiable, they are true.
You seem to miss the point.

There is a standard definition for knowledge. It is accepted widely by philosophers of knowledge!

I am not going to reinvent new terms that equivocate when the body of knowledge has created a standard held for the last 50+ years.

We could go round and round doing an deep conceptual analysis over the meaning of every term in every sentence for a near-infinite amount of time.

That said, if one hasn't been exposed to epistemology the distinction can be easily lost. Here is a resource that my help.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You seem to miss the point.

There is a standard definition for knowledge. It is accepted widely by philosophers of knowledge!

I am not going to reinvent new terms that equivocate when the body of knowledge has created a standard held for the last 50+ years.

We could go round and round doing an deep conceptual analysis over the meaning of every term in every sentence for a near-infinite amount of time.
Let's not reinvent the wheel. Let's use what we have.
Some opinions are supported, and some are not. No need to cover "the body of knowledge has created a standard held for the last 50+ years."
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,994
19,440
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,901.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
It is a "routine," that calls out fakers in a similar way that Jesus mocked the Pharisees and other religious leaders of his culture.

I have a number of friends who are atheists. They have good reasons for their beliefs. They are fun to engage in philosophical conversations and we are generous with each other's viewpoints careful not to misrepresent them.

My experience at CF is that a lot of "seekers," don't ask any of the questions students and other seekers I have encountered in my evangelistic work have asked over the last 30 years.

Here "seekers," seem to be over-representing skeptics without any seeking behavior common to seekers historically.
There are actually not that many people with the seeker faith icon around, so I'm no sure who you're talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There are actually not that many people with the seeker faith icon around, so I'm no sure who you're talking about.
I gave a method of engraging claims above. You seemed to offer another class of anti knowledge or faking. Namely, obscurantism!

A style characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstrusiveness. E.G. "I'm not sure what your talking about," said in response to any claim. Rinse and repeat.

You sure you are not a "Seeker?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,994
19,440
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,901.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I gave a method of engraging claims above. You seemed to offer another class of anti knowledge or faking. Namely, obscurantism!

A style characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstrusiveness. E.G. "I'm not sure what your talking about," said in response to any claim. Rinse and repeat.

You sure you are not a "Seeker?"
Nope, I'm a discordian.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Some opinions are supported, and some are not. No need to cover "the body of knowledge has created a standard held for the last 50+ years."
Did you get a chance to do some research into my claim to "verify" if it was true and had evidential support? Did you watch the video?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Did you get a chance to do some research into my claim to "verify" if it was true and had evidential support? Did you watch the video?
It's apparent that some opinions are supported. There is no need to watch a video to establish this.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's apparent that some opinions are supported. There is no need to watch a video to establish this.
You have given us a great example of the type of rhetoric that flourishes out here on this forum. No education desired or required. You are now giving a justification for why the last 50 years of epistemology is wrong based on making up stuff. Bringing us to where we began, "Pretending to be smart is not the same thing as education," but for those who reject education as you have perhaps pretense is all that is left. These attitudes were prevalent during Jesus' day especially with religious leaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You have given us a great example of the type of rhetoric that flourishes out here on this forum. No education desired or required. You are now giving a justification for why the last 50 years of epistemology is wrong based on making up stuff. Bringing us to where we began, "Pretending to be smart is not the same thing as education," but for those who reject education as you have perhaps pretense is all that is left. These attitudes were prevalent during Jesus' day especially with religious leaders.
Some opinions are supported. This is evident. Denying this based on "last 50 years of epistemology" (whatever that means) is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,092.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The title above is a Halle Berry line off a movie called, "The Program."

One of my continuing frustrations on most forums these days is running into individuals who pretend to have done their homework but haven't. In fact within a few seconds of reading a post it is clear that they haven't even done a 30-second Google search on the topic of which they are pontificating.

Method for Pretending to Be Smart:

Questioning ad nauseam

Don't do research just repeat back you objector's question and put a "What causes that," in front of it. Trick is you don't have to know anything and can produce an infinite amount of questions pretending to be engaged intellectually (especially effective with complex inferences such as philosophical arguments, or historical sciences). Further you can avoid justifying truth claims by pretending you don't have to justify you own claims. (Young Earth creationist and just about every atheist (sorry I meant to say "seeker") on this forum use this method.

Create and then attack straw men

This method is so simple (pronounced in a thick New Jersey accent). Just misrepresent the particular inference such as "Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence." Next attack the ridiculousness of the statement (remember you must pretend that it actually is a fair representation...not your own absurd definition) for more: read any New Atheist publication.

Anachronistic fallacy (wait what?) (no, wait when!)

Slavery is bad. The bible condones slavery. The Bible is bad.

Here we just pretend that values we hold for the last few decades in the west are ubiquitous across all culture and all times. Again, I have yet to see a New Atheist that doesn't return over and over to this method. Don't worry few people have ever heard of the anachronistic fallacy so you can use it on theists with impunity.

How to avoid pretense and actually learn something.

1 - Research the topic
Use respected sources (not wiki crowd sourced research
which can be at times excellent at at other times complete
propaganda)

Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a
particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed
to "Scientific American"

For philosophical topics try Plato.org or internet
encyclopedia of philosophy.

2 - Represent the topic and particular problem and give reasons why you pick one inference over the next. No shifting burden of proof. If you claim no knowledge (agnostic) then fine, but if you claim that a particular inference is true in the real external world be prepared to defend it with reasons and evidence. (Atheists often fall into this fallacy regarding God's existence, theists also make a similar mistake when they refuse to give reasons for God's existence (claiming their faith is superior because they don't have reasons (I will do an entire post on this foolishness).

Example:

Universe appears fine-tuned for life.

The cause is:

Chance, or a result of the physical laws, or design.

An educated person would represent the best evidence for all 3 inferences. Then give reasons such as explanatory power why one inference is better than the next.

I hope I have offended those who are intellectually lazy and just pretend to be smart. I have included an IQ test hidden in this post and will reveal it once I get some comments.

Hmm, poisoning the well or strawman? I guess it can be two things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,719
3,791
✟254,230.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
The title above is a Halle Berry line off a movie called, "The Program."

One of my continuing frustrations on most forums these days is running into individuals who pretend to have done their homework but haven't. In fact within a few seconds of reading a post it is clear that they haven't even done a 30-second Google search on the topic of which they are pontificating.

Method for Pretending to Be Smart:

Questioning ad nauseam

Don't do research just repeat back you objector's question and put a "What causes that," in front of it. Trick is you don't have to know anything and can produce an infinite amount of questions pretending to be engaged intellectually (especially effective with complex inferences such as philosophical arguments, or historical sciences). Further you can avoid justifying truth claims by pretending you don't have to justify you own claims. (Young Earth creationist and just about every atheist (sorry I meant to say "seeker") on this forum use this method.

Create and then attack straw men

This method is so simple (pronounced in a thick New Jersey accent). Just misrepresent the particular inference such as "Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence." Next attack the ridiculousness of the statement (remember you must pretend that it actually is a fair representation...not your own absurd definition) for more: read any New Atheist publication.

Anachronistic fallacy (wait what?) (no, wait when!)

Slavery is bad. The bible condones slavery. The Bible is bad.

Here we just pretend that values we hold for the last few decades in the west are ubiquitous across all culture and all times. Again, I have yet to see a New Atheist that doesn't return over and over to this method. Don't worry few people have ever heard of the anachronistic fallacy so you can use it on theists with impunity.

How to avoid pretense and actually learn something.

1 - Research the topic
Use respected sources (not wiki crowd sourced research
which can be at times excellent at at other times complete
propaganda)

Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a
particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed
to "Scientific American"

For philosophical topics try Plato.org or internet
encyclopedia of philosophy.

2 - Represent the topic and particular problem and give reasons why you pick one inference over the next. No shifting burden of proof. If you claim no knowledge (agnostic) then fine, but if you claim that a particular inference is true in the real external world be prepared to defend it with reasons and evidence. (Atheists often fall into this fallacy regarding God's existence, theists also make a similar mistake when they refuse to give reasons for God's existence (claiming their faith is superior because they don't have reasons (I will do an entire post on this foolishness).

Example:

Universe appears fine-tuned for life.

The cause is:

Chance, or a result of the physical laws, or design.

An educated person would represent the best evidence for all 3 inferences. Then give reasons such as explanatory power why one inference is better than the next.

I hope I have offended those who are intellectually lazy and just pretend to be smart. I have included an IQ test hidden in this post and will reveal it once I get some comments.

The IQ test was not bothering to read your entire condescending post.

Which I passed with flying colors...
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,994
19,440
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,901.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
The IQ test was not bothering to read your entire condescending post.

Which I passed with flying colors...
Oh, I can't wait to read how this makes you intellectually inferior to OP.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"Science News is an American bi-weekly magazine devoted to short articles about new scientific and technical developments, typically gleaned from recent scientific and technical journals."

The "Recent Scientific Technical Journals," are peer-reviewed!
Right. So read the peer-reviewed literature, not a journalist's often woefully inaccurate interpretation of the research.
Did you miss my point on quality of research,
If you think reading a magazine about science adequately informs you about research you are mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,092.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you think reading a magazine about science adequately informs you about research you are mistaken.
I don't know. I read about a new transplant option in the NY Times so I'm now a qualified surgeon. You'd think that would apply to something less rigorous such as the hard sciences.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: sfs
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Some opinions are supported, and some are not. No need to cover "the body of knowledge has created a standard held for the last 50+ years."

I think the OP has reguarly fallen into the trap that it is easy to demand more of people who disagree with you.

It's called confirmation bias, most suffer from it.

It's also easier to complain about other people's lack of ability/education than to make a real contribution. The irony that the OP calls himself "uber genius" and complains about people pretending to be smart should be lost on no one.

OP said:
Universe appears fine-tuned for life.

The cause is:

Chance, or a result of the physical laws, or design.

An educated person would represent the best evidence for all 3 inferences. Then give reasons such as explanatory power why one inference is better than the next.

Educated people are probably aware of the idea of a false trichotomy.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0