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

[Keith&Co.]

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

It doesn't, it just changes whether they'll accept vague weaseling answers.
If you're going to insist on actual 'point on a timeline' answers when they don't and cannot provide such, then exposing their failure to answer is a 'gotcha.'

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with those who think that "timeline" questions about the creation of angels or the flood are gotcha questions. Since dates aren't really mentioned in the scriptures, there is no way to get anything other than a speculative answer.

And why bother trying to debate scripture with believers anyway? It's not as if scripture really defines their belief system. What often does define it is doctrinal interpretations of scripture. What the Bible says literally is easy to dismiss on a wide range of grounds. Nobody actually takes everything in the Bible literally, although it isn't hard to find people who claim they do. Generally speaking, it is just a matter of finding excuses for alternative "literal" interpretations. But, even if you can find common ground on what scripture says literally, there is still the modern tendency of Christians to simply reject some aspects of doctrine as well as scripture. (For example, see  Cafeteria Catholicism.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree with those who think that "timeline" questions about the creation of angels or the flood are gotcha questions. Since dates aren't really mentioned in the scriptures, there is no way to get anything other than a speculative answer.

So you'd think.
But evidently there's enough information in Scripture for them to reject actual science, like geology, so if they're trying to play on the same field, they should be held accountable for the same standards.

Geologists can say "This event happened in this location, and at this time," and explain why he thinks this to be true.

If the thumpers are limited to speculation, then they're limited to speculation. But they should be able, like a geologist, to produce the sources they use, and their interpretations, to support a claim that they know more than the geologist does about geology.

It wouldn't BE a 'gotcha' except that when given a chance to compete, they end up hand-waving. They clearly demonstrate that they don't have much of their own, except as a reaction to, and rejection of, actual knowledge.

 

[Copernicus]

Although religious faith is fundamentally a rejection of the materialist perspective that science is based on, I think that most believers compartmentalize the two in separate thought spaces--non-overlapping domains, so to speak. A lot of Christians accept the idea of evolution in a kind of divinely guided version, although that fundamentally misunderstands how evolution works. They still accept the idea of common descent and survival of the fittest. It is important not to confuse conservative believers with the somewhat less dogmatic majority.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I agree with those who think that "timeline" questions about the creation of angels or the flood are gotcha questions. Since dates aren't really mentioned in the scriptures, there is no way to get anything other than a speculative answer.

So you'd think.
But evidently there's enough information in Scripture for them to reject actual science, like geology, so if they're trying to play on the same field, they should be held accountable for the same standards.

Geologists can say "This event happened in this location, and at this time," and explain why he thinks this to be true.

If the thumpers are limited to speculation, then they're limited to speculation. But they should be able, like a geologist, to produce the sources they use, and their interpretations, to support a claim that they know more than the geologist does about geology.

It wouldn't BE a 'gotcha' except that when given a chance to compete, they end up hand-waving. They clearly demonstrate that they don't have much of their own, except as a reaction to, and rejection of, actual knowledge.

Down here in Texas, we are up to our necks in fundies. who take their creationism very seriously. The good Christians of Texas for instance, have managed to stuff out State Board of Education with creationists who are always trying to cram creationism into school science courses, and have managed to water evolution down so far as to have essentially have banished it from Texas textbooks.

So, such gotchya questions for creationist - fundy types has a reason. Trying to kick start their brains. It prevents them from ramming stone aged nonsense down the throats of Texas children when the pro-science advocates use such stuff to attack them come textbook adoption time. We get to play these little games continually. For example, creationists claim we should "teach the controversy" allow creationism to be discussed in class under that rubric. But of course don't want the controversy from the point of science, the 2 contradictory creation tall tales and such errors of Genesis to be pointed out to the kiddies. The creationists have their little gotchyas too.

These morons want to teach the flood of Noah as history. It isn't just a game down here in Texas. It is protecting competent education from idiots.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree with those who think that "timeline" questions about the creation of angels or the flood are gotcha questions. Since dates aren't really mentioned in the scriptures, there is no way to get anything other than a speculative answer.

So you'd think.
But evidently there's enough information in Scripture for them to reject actual science, like geology, so if they're trying to play on the same field, they should be held accountable for the same standards.

Geologists can say "This event happened in this location, and at this time," and explain why he thinks this to be true.

If the thumpers are limited to speculation, then they're limited to speculation. But they should be able, like a geologist, to produce the sources they use, and their interpretations, to support a claim that they know more than the geologist does about geology.

It wouldn't BE a 'gotcha' except that when given a chance to compete, they end up hand-waving. They clearly demonstrate that they don't have much of their own, except as a reaction to, and rejection of, actual knowledge.

Down here in Texas, we are up to our necks in fundies. who take their creationism very seriously. The good Christians of Texas for instance, have managed to stuff out State Board of Education with creationists who are always trying to cram creationism into school science courses, and have managed to water evolution down so far as to have essentially have banished it from Texas textbooks.

So, such gotchya questions for creationist - fundy types has a reason. Trying to kick start their brains. It prevents them from ramming stone aged nonsense down the throats of Texas children when the pro-science advocates use such stuff to attack them come textbook adoption time. We get to play these little games continually. For example, creationists claim we should "teach the controversy" allow creationism to be discussed in class under that rubric. But of course don't want the controversy from the point of science, the 2 contradictory creation tall tales and such errors of Genesis to be pointed out to the kiddies. The creationists have their little gotchyas too.

These morons want to teach the flood of Noah as history. It isn't just a game down here in Texas. It is protecting competent education from idiots.

It sounds like Texas needs to start "Comparative Religions" courses. The creation stories from twenty or thirty different religions could be gone through in detail to give the kids a more realistic understanding of how reliable religious thought is concerning such matters.

 

[steve_bank]

Down here in Texas, we are up to our necks in fundies. who take their creationism very seriously. The good Christians of Texas for instance, have managed to stuff out State Board of Education with creationists who are always trying to cram creationism into school science courses, and have managed to water evolution down so far as to have essentially have banished it from Texas textbooks.

So, such gotchya questions for creationist - fundy types has a reason. Trying to kick start their brains. It prevents them from ramming stone aged nonsense down the throats of Texas children when the pro-science advocates use such stuff to attack them come textbook adoption time. We get to play these little games continually. For example, creationists claim we should "teach the controversy" allow creationism to be discussed in class under that rubric. But of course don't want the controversy from the point of science, the 2 contradictory creation tall tales and such errors of Genesis to be pointed out to the kiddies. The creationists have their little gotchyas too.

These morons want to teach the flood of Noah as history. It isn't just a game down here in Texas. It is protecting competent education from idiots.

It sounds like Texas needs to start "Comparative Religions" courses. The creation stories from twenty or thirty different religions could be gone through in detail to give the kids a more realistic understanding of how reliable religious thought is concerning such matters.

I expect if public schools started teaching commonalties between religions implying a kind of equivalence it would cause a firestorm among Christians.

 

[Copernicus]

I wouldn't dispute that creationists have a strong presence in Texas, although I hear that not everyone is a creationist there. They do have a big political footprint. However, I am very skeptical that these kinds of questions are going to play any significant role in fixing that political problem. Atheists aren't very popular with Christians in general, so posing gotcha questions over scriptural details is more likely to drive a wedge between you and moderate Christians who might otherwise join forces with you in ridding the school curriculum of biblical dogma disguised as science or history.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that you might somehow fluster a true believer as a result of posing a question that he or she agrees is legitimate. My experience with such people has been that they usually are fully prepared to spend hours going round and round on biblical issues. They spend a considerable portion of their life strengthening their defenses against such questions, no matter how significant you may consider them. In fact, I find that believers are seldom troubled over contradictions found in the Bible, since they can usually find clever ways to explain them. We atheists tend to be a bit more challenged on that front, because we have no interest in resolving them. Myself, I usually stay away from disputes over how I think Christians should interpret their sacred scripture or structure their faith doctrine. Most of the interesting questions are about philosophical issues that have nothing to do with the content of the Bible.

 

[skepticalbip]

Down here in Texas, we are up to our necks in fundies. who take their creationism very seriously. The good Christians of Texas for instance, have managed to stuff out State Board of Education with creationists who are always trying to cram creationism into school science courses, and have managed to water evolution down so far as to have essentially have banished it from Texas textbooks.

So, such gotchya questions for creationist - fundy types has a reason. Trying to kick start their brains. It prevents them from ramming stone aged nonsense down the throats of Texas children when the pro-science advocates use such stuff to attack them come textbook adoption time. We get to play these little games continually. For example, creationists claim we should "teach the controversy" allow creationism to be discussed in class under that rubric. But of course don't want the controversy from the point of science, the 2 contradictory creation tall tales and such errors of Genesis to be pointed out to the kiddies. The creationists have their little gotchyas too.

These morons want to teach the flood of Noah as history. It isn't just a game down here in Texas. It is protecting competent education from idiots.

It sounds like Texas needs to start "Comparative Religions" courses. The creation stories from twenty or thirty different religions could be gone through in detail to give the kids a more realistic understanding of how reliable religious thought is concerning such matters.

I expect if public schools started teaching commonalties between religions implying a kind of equivalence it would cause a firestorm among Christians.

The purpose wouldn't be to show commonalities (since there aren't any) but the wide disparity between religious thought of various religions about creation that could not possibly be reconciled as anything other than fanciful stories. Egyptian, Hindu, Inuit, Hopi, Babylonian, Shinto, Christian, etc. creation stories have nothing in common. The purpose would be to demonstrate that religious stories can not be taken literally or as reliable.

 

[Kharakov]

The thing about trick troll questions is you know the rules, so do I. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Inside we both know whats been going on, we know the game and we're gonna play it, and if you ask me how I'm feeling don't tell me you're too blind to see...


So, say there is a God that answers every possible prayer of its creation.

Why do you think humans are its creations rather than electrons are its creations? It seems that electrons and protons have a much closer relationship than humans and protons. So why the "if you ask God you will be answered" stuff when God isn't listening?

 

[Rhea]

No Lion is right ... such questions can be used as gotcha questions. It depends on the intention.

Says the guy who thinks he can accurately devine intentions across the internet, using neither tone nor inflection nor facial cures nor boddy language.


Do you use an Ouiji board?

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!

You think that’s a “gotcha”?

I sincerely want to know, how can you believe things you can’t even answer?. How can you conclude anything other than, “I don’t have any conclusions”???

That’s genuine; what is the method you use to determine the truth of things? Because not only is it not the same method as any of the people who design in safety to any thing, it’s not even consistent with how you decide to disbelieve other things!

This is not “gotcha,” this is a relentless step by step testing of how you decide you know things, since your explanation is not coherent and it’s fascinating watching people be certain about things they have no reason to be certain aboout, so I need to do it by inquiry and figure out your rules by testing them because you can’t describe them. So I do it by the same method I always do when I don’t know, I keep testing hypotheses until I find one I cannot refute.


And once again, if you are solidly right, no one can “gotcha,” can they.

 

[Rhea]

It is important not to confuse conservative believers with the somewhat less dogmatic majority.

The be fair, if the “less dogmatic majority” of Christians were voting with the 20% of “nones”, we would not see what we see in the electorate today. I challenge your claim that the “less dogmatic” may be thought of as a “majority.”

 

[J842P]

Down here in Texas, we are up to our necks in fundies. who take their creationism very seriously. The good Christians of Texas for instance, have managed to stuff out State Board of Education with creationists who are always trying to cram creationism into school science courses, and have managed to water evolution down so far as to have essentially have banished it from Texas textbooks.

So, such gotchya questions for creationist - fundy types has a reason. Trying to kick start their brains. It prevents them from ramming stone aged nonsense down the throats of Texas children when the pro-science advocates use such stuff to attack them come textbook adoption time. We get to play these little games continually. For example, creationists claim we should "teach the controversy" allow creationism to be discussed in class under that rubric. But of course don't want the controversy from the point of science, the 2 contradictory creation tall tales and such errors of Genesis to be pointed out to the kiddies. The creationists have their little gotchyas too.

These morons want to teach the flood of Noah as history. It isn't just a game down here in Texas. It is protecting competent education from idiots.

It sounds like Texas needs to start "Comparative Religions" courses. The creation stories from twenty or thirty different religions could be gone through in detail to give the kids a more realistic understanding of how reliable religious thought is concerning such matters.

I expect if public schools started teaching commonalties between religions implying a kind of equivalence it would cause a firestorm among Christians.

I took a comparative religions class in my public high school. 10th grade.

 

[Learner]

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

It doesn't . (are you surprised I answered that?)

Intention to be ... diisingenuous, now thats something else.

 

[Rhea]

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

It doesn't . (are you surprised I answered that?)

Intention to be ... diisingenuous, now thats something else.

And how do you decide that you have enough information to accurately conclude that? Is it actually possible that to misconstrue intent? That you aren’t “fluent” in Scientist, or Autist or Atheist? That perhaps you aren’t all-knowing? Is it so damaging to your religion to just answer the questions in good fairh?

If your answers are sound, it is never a trick, is it?

 

[Learner]

And how do you decide that you have enough information to accurately conclude that? Is it actually possible that to misconstrue intent? That you aren’t “fluent” in Scientist, or Autist or Atheist? That perhaps you aren’t all-knowing? Is it so damaging to your religion to just answer the questions in good fairh?

If your answers are sound, it is never a trick, is it?

If your answers are sound yes, but IF the question was intended as a trick ,and the reply is "its not written in the bible" then the trick has failed.
"
Basically anyone can have the ability to know, scrutinizing whats being said, if they're being "lead on" by how the discussion continues on or where it leads to. (Is what I "meant" previously)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Basically anyone can have the ability to know, scrutinizing whats being said, if they're being "lead on" by how the discussion continues on or where it leads to. (Is what I mean't)

But if you HAD sound answers, as you just said, the intent of the question doesn't matter.

And jesus fuck, 'mean't' is not a word.

 

[Learner]

I did a re-edit for clarity,

 

[Learner]

Says the guy who thinks he can accurately devine intentions across the internet, using neither tone nor inflection nor facial cures nor boddy language.


Do you use an Ouiji board?

I've not tried the above yet. Facial cures , nice one.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

I urge you to apply this reasoning to any other line of questioning.

Q: How many pairs of shoes do you own?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Gotcha!
A: What?

Q: How big is France?
A: I don't know
Q: Gotcha!
A: What?

Q: What is the Bible?
A: The Bible is the infallible word of God.
Q: And you believe the Flood occurred because it is described in the Bible?
A: Correct.
Q: In general terms, can you give an estimate of when the Flood occurred?
A: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD!
Q: uh...gotcha?

These are not gotcha questions. They trigger you because they draw attention to your own ignorance of the basic facts of your faith. It is your own hypersensitivity that makes these questions seem unfair. My ego is not bruised nor is my worldview threatened when I don't know the answer to a question. I know a great many things, but not everything. It is different for the biblical literalist. They have what they call an infallible record of the most significant events of world history, and yet they cannot even produce a coherent timeline.

To give another example. I believe that everything in the universe is composed of quarks and leptons. However, if you were to ask me about the different types of quarks and their qualities, I could give you only limited and incomplete information. This doesn't bother me. I'd simply refer you to a physicist. There's nothing threatening to me about my own ignorance. I'd never accuse you of asking a gotcha question if you asked me the different types of quark.

Our attitudes about our beliefs are completely different, largely because mine is based on evidence and consensus, while yours is based on blind devotion. This is why we react to questions differently, and you try to blame me and what you think my 'intent' is for your own unexpressed insecurity about your world view.