- Aug 13, 2016
- 2,919
- 1,243
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
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.
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.
Last edited:
