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

[Lion IRC]

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.

Trolling.
Yes. That's the word I was looking for. "It only demonstrates that they are trolling"

Start a thread about the problem of evil or divine command theory, or the biblical Exodus stats or supralapsarianism...then when people (theists) try to answer/debate sincerely, or as you put it - applying reasoning to that one specific case - we get told our position is untenable because;

Quote - there's no God (Exclamation Mark!)
Quote - primitive Bronze Age goat herders
Quote - the bible is all lies
Quote - that's not evidence (Exclamation Mark!)
Quote - that's not what omniscience means you doofus
Quote - wait! What do you mean by the word God?

 

[Rhea]

Quote - wait! What do you mean by the word God?

Hey, yeah - you never did say.

 

[abaddon]

Trolling.
Yes. That's the word I was looking for. "It only demonstrates that they are trolling"

In fishing, trolling is a technique of wiggling colorful lures through the water to get an unsuspecting fish to "take the bait". In internet usage, trolling means goading people to emotional rather than rational responses.

If anyone's doing that, it's wrong and you should report it to the admins. And consider that this complaining looks like someone dangling from a hook.

It doesn't look like a good strategy to me.

 

[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.

Trolling.
Yes. That's the word I was looking for. "It only demonstrates that they are trolling"

"or"

Start a thread about the problem of evil or divine command theory, or the biblical Exodus stats or supralapsarianism...then when people (theists) try to answer/debate sincerely, or as you put it - applying reasoning to that one specific case - we get told our position is untenable because;

In this case, it's just a misunderstanding of evolution. No biggy. I'm sure you understand the misunderstanding (why are there apes if men evolved from them? Why are there non-MRSA strains if MRSA is becoming more prevalent? Why are there more rabbits in a year with more rain?).

Quote - that's not evidence (Exclamation Mark!)

Assuming you're talking of the bible, it's not even trustworthy 2nd hand "testimony". The bible is a book primarily created by the Romans, who were sick of priests using Gods to manipulate society politically. They paid the Jews for the OT, which was about Jews who used nature to best the superstitious stupid primitive Egyptians (fucking Ra worshippers said sunburn was the curse of Ra and said pale people who got sunburned were cursed... used it as an excuse to enslave them, until the not so stupid Jews said "fuck these superstitious douchebags, let's turn religion against these fucking morons, 7 plagues we have up our sleeves for these corrupt pieces of shit").

You gotta think, the RCC predates the mafia by a bit, but it's the same basic idea: keep shit secret, bullshit people, make it seem you're backed by more power than you are.

Quote - the bible is all lies

Well, the bible is bullshit, isn't it? Or am I confusing bullshit with bereshit?

Quote - there's no God (Exclamation Mark!)

Silly claim. Obviously there is an imaginary God in billions of people's brains, located in the brain part responsible for imagining what others will do in certain situations. It's basically transmitted like a virus: think about it existing, what characteristics it has, and you can imagine it interacting with you like you can imagine winning the lottery. God abusers tend to focus on God rather than lottery stuff though...it's a vicious cycle once you're hooked. Well... if you're every really hooked.

 

[Lion IRC]

Quote - wait! What do you mean by the word God?

Hey, yeah - you never did say.

Yeah - I did
I said I use the atheist definition of God
(Please tell me you know what it is you say doesn't exit. Please tell me you don't go round rejecting evidence for God without knowing what you mean by God. Please don't tell me your disbelief is nothing more than ignorance.)

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...n-t-believe-in&p=552716&viewfull=1#post552716

 

[Sarpedon]

Ummm, it is legitimate to object when you think someone's evidence is faulty.

Can you give an example of a time that you consider someone used that objection in a trolling fashion?

 

[Rhea]

Quote - wait! What do you mean by the word God?

Hey, yeah - you never did say.

Yeah - I did
I said I use the atheist definition of God

Well of course, since there are hundreds of millions of atheists, and they obviously don’t all think the same (you didn’t think they did, do you?!) and they don’t have a holy book, which one are you using? Yu can take your answer to that other thread.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ummm, it is legitimate to object when you think someone's evidence is faulty.

I see tons of off-topic and derail posts moved to Elsewhere and Up In Flames which can be described as 'legitimate' objections to someone's evidence.

Can you give an example of a time that you consider someone used that objection in a trolling fashion?

Yep.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yeah - I did
I said I use the atheist definition of God

Well of course, since there are hundreds of millions of atheists, and they obviously don’t all think the same (you didn’t think they did, do you?!) and they don’t have a holy book, which one are you using? Yu can take your answer to that other thread.

It's undeniably accurate to say that gods are just ghosts. The bible is a collection of stories about a ghost named yahweh and its exploits with humans in a tiny part of the earth thousands of years ago. These old stories are no more believable than modern cartoons and comics featuring casper the friendly ghost.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, I guess I didn't use the magic word.

Could you please give us such an example, and explain why you consider it trolling? We do have people here who troll, and I'm sure you could find one that I'd agree with you is trolling. However, it seems from your statement that you consider more or less any objection to the legitimacy of your evidence as trolling. That's not how it works. We have higher standards of evidence here than you will find in a Christian forum. That does not mean we are trolling. You will also find higher standards of evidence in a court of law. That does not mean that the judge is trolling.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm talking about disingenuous Ops and disingenuous responses to sincere Op threads.

Here's an apparently sincere, interesting Op Thread which would and should IMHO ordinarily make for a good topic of discussion. I wanted to make a few points in response but why bother?
Better to just fast-forward to the inevitable...
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ate-the-Angels&p=632398&viewfull=1#post632398

 

[Rhea]

Question for Lion - or whoever,

Do you think maybe you call it "disingenuous" because even though it's a valid curiosity, it's not asked with sacred respect? And so you label that as "disingenuous"?

That the only way to be genuine is to ask it with hushed tones on the cusp of believing? And anything else is a deliberate affront?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Question for Lion - or whoever,

Do you think maybe you call it "disingenuous" because even though it's a valid curiosity, it's not asked with sacred respect? And so you label that as "disingenuous"?

That the only way to be genuine is to ask it with hushed tones on the cusp of believing? And anything else is a deliberate affront?

I think from a standpoint of religion, whenever you do not buy into authority or do not take into account a person's emotional attachment to a belief, you are being disrespectful, and therefore disingenuous.

 

[Rhea]

Question for Lion - or whoever,

Do you think maybe you call it "disingenuous" because even though it's a valid curiosity, it's not asked with sacred respect? And so you label that as "disingenuous"?

That the only way to be genuine is to ask it with hushed tones on the cusp of believing? And anything else is a deliberate affront?

I think from a standpoint of religion, whenever you do not buy into authority or do not take into account a person's emotional attachment to a belief, you are being disrespectful, and therefore disingenuous.

That’ll really get in their way of learning anything, won’t it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Disingenuous and Disrespectful are two different words.

You can be disrespectful WITHOUT being disingenuous.

The intellectual honesty needed for an atheist to debate something they grant as arguendo doesn't require humility or deferential politeness. There are a goodly number of strong atheists here who are willing to engage in hypotheticals - if God was real why then...? BTW props to all the polite atheist interlocutors here (you know who you are) who engage in civil and sincere "Courtiers Reply" theology debates notwithstanding the fact that they don't concede the actual reality of the hypothetical they are debating.

It's not about politeness. It's about the intellectually honest contest of ideas. If a thread topic is soteriology just stay on topic and if you don't think God saves anyone because He doesn't exist that's bad faith and off topic - not arguendo.

Suppose I was in the middle of a discussion about soteriology with an atheist and they conceded that my hypothetical argument was (internally) coherent/consistent, and then I blindside them with a bait-and-switch gotcha...
AHA! So you DO think I'm right and that God exists.
...that would be intellectual dishonesty tantamount to trolling, and they would be right to put me in my place by reminding me that even a Harry Potter storyline can be internally consistent

 

[abaddon]

... It's not about politeness. It's about the intellectually honest contest of ideas. If a thread topic is soteriology just stay on topic and if you don't think God saves anyone because He doesn't exist that's bad faith and off topic - not arguendo.

So if someone proposes a hypothetical for discussion, you think it'd be off-topic and intellectually dishonest if anyone were to break out of the hypothetical?

Is the post you linked to an example of that? Here's that link again: https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post632398

In that thread, it was Rhea wanting to stick with a hypothetical (the discussion of when Angels were made). You entered the thread to break it up and insert God's existence into the topic when it wasn't the topic. The specific post you linked is Rhea explaining it's a thread about a hypothetical to you.

Suppose I was in the middle of a discussion about soteriology with an atheist and they conceded that my hypothetical argument was (internally) coherent/consistent, and then I blindside them with a bait-and-switch gotcha...
AHA! So you DO think I'm right and that God exists.
...that would be intellectual dishonesty tantamount to trolling, and they would be right to put me in my place by reminding me that even a Harry Potter storyline can be internally consistent

Do you mean anything like this: "How can God create angels if God doesn't exist?" That's what you said in the middle of a hypothetical discussion about angels that was looking for internal consistency in the story. You even added "/thread" to underscore your "gotcha".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Disingenuous and Disrespectful are two different words.

You can be disrespectful WITHOUT being disingenuous.

The problem I've encountered with religionists is a propensity to be offended by honest questions, responses and observations. They get replies that are not coated with religious syrup and accuse the other party of insincerity. It seems they take everything very personally while I tend to be amused.

 

[Sarpedon]

How is asking for clarification of something that is unclear in YOUR source disingenous?

Its like the time I asked you when the Flood happened, and you pretended that was an unfair 'gotcha' question. The very concept of a 'gotcha' question is rather shaky. If there's some critical fact of your worldview that you don't know, but should, isn't that the problem, instead of the question? You didn't have an answer to the question, so you pretended it was unfair, when frankly asking when something happened after being told that it happened is the most natural question in the world. By claiming the question is unfair, it is YOU who are being disingenuous.

Similarly, asking when the angels were created isn't unfair. Again, the creation story doesn't mention them being created, and yet suddenly they appear. Pointing out an omission in your worldview is not 'unfair' or disingenuous. The fact that it involves yet another thing about your worldview that you don't have a clue about does not make it unfair. Asking you questions you can't answer is not unfair. Asking questions about things we don't believe in isn't unfair.

A real example of an unfair question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" It is unfair because it is constructed in a way that both 'yes' and 'no' give rise to a false conclusion about the person being questioned. Asking when the angels were created is not the same, because you could simply answer it and no false conclusion would be drawn about you. The most obvious answer is 'I don't know,' but methinks your ego will not permit you to give that answer. The fact that you do not want to answer the question does not make it unfair.

 

[Learner]

How is asking for clarification of something that is unclear in YOUR source disingenous?

Its like the time I asked you when the Flood happened, and you pretended that was an unfair 'gotcha' question. The very concept of a 'gotcha' question is rather shaky. If there's some critical fact of your worldview that you don't know, but should, isn't that the problem, instead of the question? You didn't have an answer to the question, so you pretended it was unfair, when frankly asking when something happened after being told that it happened is the most natural question in the world. By claiming the question is unfair, it is YOU who are being disingenuous.

No Lion is right ... such questions can be used as gotcha questions. It depends on the intention. This can usually be "revealed" or "determined" by how the one who's asking, makes the "returned response", after, the individual replies to the asked question , even when the answer isn't satisfactory.

Similarly, asking when the angels were created isn't unfair. Again, the creation story doesn't mention them being created, and yet suddenly they appear. Pointing out an omission in your worldview is not 'unfair' or disingenuous. The fact that it involves yet another thing about your worldview that you don't have a clue about does not make it unfair. Asking you questions you can't answer is not unfair. Asking questions about things we don't believe in isn't unfair.

Like the above , It depends on the individuals "intention" and how they respond to the replied answer (or non response), example , though a little simplistic: "How can you believe if you don't know this or that answer"? (asking whilst expecting there to be no answer to an unknown ) GOTCHA!

Of course in the "whole realm of things biblical" there many other various questions , where the theist would be able to answer.

" Who are the sons of God"? The angels of course!

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

How is asking for clarification of something that is unclear in YOUR source disingenous?

Its like the time I asked you when the Flood happened, and you pretended that was an unfair 'gotcha' question. The very concept of a 'gotcha' question is rather shaky. If there's some critical fact of your worldview that you don't know, but should, isn't that the problem, instead of the question? You didn't have an answer to the question, so you pretended it was unfair, when frankly asking when something happened after being told that it happened is the most natural question in the world. By claiming the question is unfair, it is YOU who are being disingenuous.

No Lion is right ... such questions can be used as gotcha questions. It depends on the intention. This can usually be "revealed" or "determined" by how the one who's asking, makes the "returned response", after, the individual replies to the asked question , even when the answer isn't satisfactory.

How does the questioner's intent change when the flood occurred?