They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[Tigers!]

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

No it may not be disingenuous. I am willing to accept that questioning might be sincere and genuine until, or if, proven to be otherwise.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Labelling a sincere objection as disingenuous is itself disingenuous. "If God is good, why is there evil?" is for atheists a problem for the idea of a perfectly good and omnipotent God. Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason. Christian theologians tell us God is a supernatural being. Asking them to demonstrate that there is a supernatural realm, that it is not just a fantasy is not a disingenuous question. The question of why an eternal hell exists if God is merciful, is something that Christians argue about among themselves. It is not a gotchya question meant insincerely when atheists mention the issue.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Labelling a sincere objection as disingenuous is itself disingenuous."

Agreed.
Fortunately, ppl reveal their bona fides or otherwise during the course of the dialogue.
"...for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of the so-called theological problem of evil, you wouldn't raise an objection that..."the bible is all lies"

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of an alleged contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience, you wouldn't rudely insist that there's only one permissible definition of omniscience.

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of how the Exodus Israelites progressed from Egypt to Canaan, you wouldn't raise the intellectually dishonest objection that God couldn't help Moses because God (and Moses) don't/never existed.

By all means, if you argue that there's no (evidence for) God(s), engage your opponents as you will, but please don't do the Rhea bait and switch and gutlessly retreat to your true presuppositional atheism when you can't handle the theist who says that they have a coherent, internally consistent theology/theodicy.

...and maybe think about calling out your fellow atheists here at TFF when they strawman theists but can't name one TFF biblical theist who holds the view they are attacking.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason.

That particular question gets repeated by creationists because it appears to them to be clever. It's not an intelligent question. If anything it demonstrates the old maxim that when you don't know what you don't know, you think you know. It's a case of basic scientific illiteracy.

So it's not an inability to reason, but rather a lack of knowledge that would then allow reasoning to occur.

 

[steve_bank]

A trick question...how old is the Earth?
Based on interpretion of scruipture maybe 5000 yrrs or so.

Based on scince much much older. Scince rtechiques that are well demonsted in other areas applied to the question of age conflicts with young Earth creationism.

What is the most like answer? For me the one with objective data.

Back in the 19th century a Christian came up with idea when god created the Earth it was as is, dinosaurs placed in the ground, light from distance stars in flight all created at once. If you are a biblical literalist that answer makes perfect sense .

For us on the skeptical science side we scratch our heads and think WTF is up with these people. If you believe in an all powerful all knowing god then you can believe anything you want to satisfy yourself. Science does not allow that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For us on the skeptical science side we scratch our heads and think WTF is up with these people. If you believe in an all powerful all knowing god then you can believe anything you want to satisfy yourself. Science does not allow that.

If you think about it for a moment, the God of the Gaps argument is making personal ignorance into a god. The proof that there is a god is that we are ignorant.

 

[Rhea]

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of an alleged contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience, you wouldn't rudely insist that there's only one permissible definition of omniscience.

Wait. There's more than one definition of "all-knowing"? What other kind of "all" is there besides all "all"?

 

[Rhea]

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of the so-called theological problem of evil, you wouldn't raise an objection that..."the bible is all lies"

But if you genuinely believe it is entirely fabricated by 2nd century men, how is that disingenuous?
Particularly when you are talking about a book that claims you are evil/lost/foolish and unworthy of being a spouse of anyone who carries that book?

Are you saying that it is righteous to hold and love a book that denigrates people but it is sly and malevolent and insincere for them to denigrate the book that denigrates them?

Isn't that kind of weird?

 

[remez]

Labelling a sincere objection as disingenuous is itself disingenuous. "If God is good, why is there evil?" is for atheists a problem for the idea of a perfectly good and omnipotent God. Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason. Christian theologians tell us God is a supernatural being. Asking them to demonstrate that there is a supernatural realm, that it is not just a fantasy is not a disingenuous question. The question of why an eternal hell exists if God is merciful, is something that Christians argue about among themselves. It is not a gotchya question meant insincerely when atheists mention the issue.

I concur. I know I have been rough with some of your reasoning but I genuinely agree with you there. Well said.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you 'sincerely' wanted to know what some Christian thought of an alleged contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience, you wouldn't rudely insist that there's only one permissible definition of omniscience.

Wait. There's more than one definition of "all-knowing"? What other kind of "all" is there besides all "all"?

There's the 'all-not-counting-things-my-agenda-requires-ignorance-of" definition. Self-Mutation used that one a lot. Not explicitly, but functionally.

 

[Kharakov]

Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason.

Well, in this case, it demonstrates your lack of ability to reason. It only demonstrates that they are trolling, or not applying their reasoning ability to one specific case.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason.

Well, in this case, it demonstrates your lack of ability to reason. It only demonstrates that they are trolling, or not applying their reasoning ability to one specific case.

The ones I knew who used such a response were not trolling, they were sincere. Or maybe I should say that sometimes they were trolling, and in so doing also displaying their scientific illiteracy.

 

[Kharakov]

Questions like "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is a gotchya question from creationists that demonstrates their lack of ability to reason.

Well, in this case, it demonstrates your lack of ability to reason. It only demonstrates that they are trolling, or not applying their reasoning ability to one specific case.

The ones I knew who used such a response were not trolling, they were sincere. Or maybe I should say that sometimes they were trolling, and in so doing also displaying their scientific illiteracy.

It is a funny thing to say, given that it is nonsequitur to evolution.

 

[Elixir]

The ones I knew who used such a response were not trolling, they were sincere. Or maybe I should say that sometimes they were trolling, and in so doing also displaying their scientific illiteracy.

It is a funny thing to say, given that it is nonsequitur to evolution.

Yabut, it opens the door to "If God made man out of dirt, why is there still dirt?"

 

[Kharakov]

The ones I knew who used such a response were not trolling, they were sincere. Or maybe I should say that sometimes they were trolling, and in so doing also displaying their scientific illiteracy.

It is a funny thing to say, given that it is nonsequitur to evolution.

Yabut, it opens the door to "If God made man out of dirt, why is there still dirt?"

That's politics for you. Can't get anyone to do anything without a little dirt in their past.

 

[Elixir]

According to Lion, logic doesn't even matter. Which makes you wonder why the concept of God is necessary to begin with.

Why would you premise the concept of God on Lion's alleged comment on logic?

Why would ANYONE premise their concept of God on ANYONE's comment on ANYTHING - including a really old, thick book?
If your concept of God is not founded on a direct experience of whatever you refer to as "God", that places you squarely in Yahzi's accurate description of an authority-craving intellectual toddler.
</$0.02>

 

[steve_bank]

For us on the skeptical science side we scratch our heads and think WTF is up with these people. If you believe in an all powerful all knowing god then you can believe anything you want to satisfy yourself. Science does not allow that.

If you think about it for a moment, the God of the Gaps argument is making personal ignorance into a god. The proof that there is a god is that we are ignorant.

The Vatican view in past centuries was that most people were ignorant, illiterate, and superstitious and had to be led like children. The history of the pope an the Vatican elite were ratherly and indulgent. The upper level clerics were well educated.

The paradigm continues in modern Christianity. People are children who need to be told what to do.

 

[remez]

According to Lion, logic doesn't even matter. Which makes you wonder why the concept of God is necessary to begin with.

Why would you premise the concept of God on Lion's alleged comment on logic?

Why would ANYONE premise their concept of God on ANYONE's comment on ANYTHING

I agree that is why I was asking?

 

[Keith&Co.]

People are children who need to be told what to do.

Of course, it pretty much requires telling them God wants them to do what they were going to do anyway....

 

[Elixir]

Why would ANYONE premise their concept of God on ANYONE's comment on ANYTHING

I agree that is why I was asking?

Well, good luck getting an answer from anyone who was conditioned to accept the tenets of a human-administrated religion (all of them).