It's somewhat similar to the way that an atheist might say "no, I don't know anything about theology's answer to the Problem of Evil and I don't care, they're wrong regardless".
That's roughly my position vs. the Problem of Evil; I don't care what the theologians say; but then, I don't use the Problem of Evil to argue against religion, religions would be wrong even if they had the perfect answer to that specific argument (same goes for other weak arguments like the historicity of Jesus).
You realize that such epistemic habits would never lead you to truth if you were indoctrinated with a different prior? "I don't care what the atheists say about he Problem of Evil, they would be wrong for a host of other reasons even if the theologians' arguments suck." In general your epistemic habits should be meta enough such that you wouldn't immediately be screwed if your prior were different. [ETA: Deleted needlessly snarky sentences. Apologies.] [ETA2: This is certainly an uncharitable caricature of your actual position; I wrote it the way I did to shine light on a basic point of epistemology. In general this comment kinda sucks and shouldn't be taken too seriously.]
Sometimes I run into people that have rather strong opinions on some topic, and it turns out that they are basing them on quite shallow and biased information. They are aware that their knowledge is quite limited compared to mine, and they admit that they don't want to put in the effort needed to learn enough to level the field.
But that's not really a problem. What is bothering me is that, sometimes, that declaration of ignorance is expressed with some kind of pride.
This behaviour is noticeable on other levels too, in politics or in the sciences-humanities culture clash.
I came up with several hypotheses which might account for this:
Do you notice this behaviour too? What do you think causes it?
EDIT: formatting, style, grammar