NOM

I've been thinking about the quality of apologists and their arguments, among other things. Also are they open to discussion? Are they malicious?
Before we rate them we need criteria. What makes a good apologist? Or a bad apologist?
I hope to discuss quality, not whether we agree with them or not.

Truth and facts need no apology.

This leaves apologists as deceivers.

What I've seen seems to fall into one of two main categories:

• Those who try to present evidence that's difficult to refute for traditional religious claims. Proofs for the existence of God, for example. Even if I don't buy their arguments, they can be interesting and at least exhibit some boldness and confidence.

• Those who respond to evidence against religious claims by simply trying to show that the religious claims are not totally impossible if you look at it just right and focus on one piece while ignoring others. Totally on the defensive and trying to stake out a tiny sliver of space for belief. I find this variant less impressive and it can even do more harm than good for those who aren't simply looking for any excuse to retain their faith (which, to be fair, may be the intended audience).

Church apologists argue in defense of the church. The role is inherently biased and not truth-seeking. Any discussion is had with the goal of convincing the other party; i.e. in bad faith.

I have little patience for any of that.

At Discuss Mormonism, the Dan Scale was proposed with Dr. Dan Peterson being the lowest and Dr. Dan McClellin being the highest. This seems to follow a direct correlation from deceptiveness to honesty.

I don't have a scale yet, just anecdotal experience. The '132 Reasons' blogger, Michelle Stone had encounters with Greg Matson and Brian Hales. Brian Hales acted like he was her bishop calling her to repent. At least Greg Matson listened to her, respectfully for the most part. Deacon Scale says Greg Matson-6, Brian Hales-1.5
Maybe more to follow.

One big problem with apologetics is that the tools apologists use work equally well for just about any belief system. Apologists from any two religions with mutually disharmonious claims would call out apologist from the other group using the same tactics they themselves are using; an LDS apologist has no patience for the arguments of a Jehovah's Witnesses apologist and vice versa. You will also see the same tools being used in support of flat earth, Bigfoot, etc. The difference is that from the inside, with the associated internal biases, the arguments seem valid, but from the outside the flaws are obvious.