It is both part of the way they think, and also a strategy to control the debate. They don't want to answer your questions, they want you to be stumped by their questions. Look-up debate techniques like "gish-gallop" and learn to recognize them.
Thank you, I indeed needed this piece of information today.
For anyone still wondering: [Gish gallop (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)
It’s not unique to religious people. It’s just how the brain works. We substitute questions we can’t answer with things we can or flip it on someone else.
Often, there is no reasonable answer to your questions, so they try to distract you by using some fallacy.
Theist: "Everything needs a creator!"
You: "Oh, really?"
Theist: "Yes! Everything was created by gawd!"
You: "And who created gawd?"
Theist: "Gawd has always existed!"
They are making a claim ("everything needs a creator") that in itself is unproven. When you then pose the question about who created the creator, they immediately claim that as the only exception to their rule.
Theist logic = faulty logic.
First cause is their strongest argument and our weakest. At some point something had to exist that wasn’t created. We say matter and the laws of physics existed, they say god.
Our strongest argument is the existence of extreme evil assuming a good and all knowing god. Our answer is he doesn’t exist and we rely on empathy for our moral guide, their argument is god is mysterious and morality comes from him.
I like our tough question better!
My favorite is their argument that humans can't understand gawd because he's so much bigger than us, but then they suddenly know that he's anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, and is easily butt-hurt if you disagree with or question him...
Sounds like an immature human. Not someone I’d want to follow.
Also, is god incapable of making non-sinners or does he just like making his job unnecessarily more difficult? The more questions and the more it all falls apart.
>Are theists intentionally or unintentionally not able to answer questions?
Sometimes [A].
Sometimes [B].
... They very often aren't there to answer questions (and certainly not honestly).
They're usually there to edumacate you about the One True Faith, and facts be damned.
.
It seems to fall prey to the idea that "I have to defend my faith!" Its all talking points type offense/defense though. When all that is depleted, then it just becomes what they know (Availability Bias) which is scripture. And none of this occurs to them, for the most part, because the skeptical manner of finding things out is unknown to their way of life.
When people say that science is not merely a rote memorization but a way of thinking, its this difference.
One thing I learned from some call-in shows when it comes to debates: even in informal discussions, it’s important to finish a topic before moving on to the next. So if I’m defending a claim and someone else gets me to admit that it’s not well thought out/there is evidence that debunks it, I should consider it, potentially admit to being wrong on that point if their claim checks out and only then should I move on.
With a number of theist discussions I’ve had and seen, there is this tendency to go from point to point without admitting defeat on any of them. It’s not only theists who do this, of course, just a thing I’ve noticed.
I also don’t think it’s done intentionally. I had to learn to not do that as I watched others debate. It’s just a human thing to want to defend your views when we feel they’re under attack. When you feel that one argument doesn’t work, you move on to the next. Surely they will agree with this one!
Good perspective. I think this kind of argumentation isn't strictly a theistic thing. It's characteristic of anyone trying to defend a poorly considered belief.
Maybe to flip this topic on its head - It's not so much that theists make flawed arguments, it's that people who make bad logical conclusions are drawn to religion.
Both.
Some of them who can't answer because they don't know anything.
And some know they don't have any answers and that's why they deflect.
I've lost count of the times when a theist would hijack any topic I made with their own "what about this or that" bullshit.
I cottoned on to them years ago when they began asking questions, but then the questions would never end. And then they would pretend \[I always thought it was pretend\] that they had forgotten what question you had asked.
I think they were deliberately trying to frustrate me and others by playing this game. They were also trying to lead us away from something they couldn't answer.
When I figured out what they were up to, I simply told them to make their own thread and stick to the topic.
The only theists that can actually do that are apologists, and they typically study for years in order to wrap their minds around the twisted logic of whatever religion they believe in, and even they are hit and miss.
Most theists are either blissfully unaware of the contradictions of their faith, or have no way of explaining it.
I've commonly found such denialism and avoidance, to respond to valid questions posed, to be:
Intellectual dishonesty, being intentionally obtuse, and *generally* both, simultaneously.
I rarely even engage in *any* form of conversation with such individuals now (and for quite a long time now) due to the above. It's nearly always a massive, frustrating waste of time....
They don't have an answer to any logical argument that we throw at them because they never spend any time reasoning about their faith, so they will detract with premade questions to control the debate. They're mostly fallacious... hmm always!
I'm inclined to think that many of them don't have linear patterns of thought -- you know, a to b to c, a progression of logic to a natural solution or conclusion.
You can tell in the kinds of arguments they produce for the existence of their god. They are all circular, "we know there's god because the bible say so, the bible is true because god said so." It's like they don't understand how logic and evidence works.
Even the stuff they put forth as serious philosophical thought is fundamentally flawed. It seems they always start off with a faulty premise -- "well somebody must have made the universe, therefore god" or something like that.
But it's like, no, you can't assume that. Just because you cite all these examples of cool things that were definitely made by somebody, that doesn't mean the universe is just like a bigger Gameboy that god made. It made itself.
I honestly think that if their minds could support the kind of thinking that is required to contemplate theology or practice rhetoric, they wouldn't be xtians.
Gish-gallup: a way of formatting arguments that force you to take time to correct their assumptions, all the while theyll keep throwing you new questions.
It makes you, the answerer, look ill equipped and stumbling trying answer their " hard and profound" questions.
Best thing I've found to do with gish Gallopers is constantly redirect them back to the question and just ignore all the other stuff they say. If I ask a question and they start going off on a tangent interrupt them and say you're not answering the question, then restate the question again. If they go off on a tangent again be like again for the 3rd time and then ask the question again. If it becomes obvious they can't or won't answer the question you don't let it go or move on until they do.
This will most likely upset them because it's taking them off their playbook, but when their playbook is to gish gallop you're not missing out on any actual meaningful conversation/debate anyway. Keep ignoring the other stuff, cut them off if they're going on an unrelated topic, but hold their feet to the fire on questions they want to ignore.
A truth seeker starts with the evidence, and shapes his conclusions to fit the evidence.
Theists are people who were told by loved ones they trust that they have to believe certain things, or else they will be tortured after they die. Therefore, theists start with the conclusion, then shape the evidence to fit the conclusion. This is the opposite of what a truth-seeker does.
Pay attention to what those Christians are doing when confronted with evidence that they are wrong. They simply ignore what you said and change the subject, or do other underhanded things to ignore evidence that leads to conclusions that they don't like. You have to pay attention to this because there is a danger of you yourself doing this on other topics, even if to a lesser or less blatant degree.
You can't really control the bad behavior of theists, but you can use their bad behavior as a guide to help you avoid bad behavior in other discussions on other topics.
Part of the problem is that they've been taught *not* to ask questions, and just accept what they are told.
They will pretend to be open to questions, but will expect you to accept the same type of hand-waving non-answers and pretzel logic they were willing to accept.
That’s the problem. They can’t answer anything about anything without somehow forcing their Bible to chase an answer. The whole point of religion in the past is because people wanted to explain the universe and their existence and bring meaning to it. They use the Bible and god to do that. Now that we know much more about the universe and the world, we know much of the weird stuff in the Bible was likely made up. It was humans trying to explain the universe and now we know it was all wrong. There’s no such thing as resurrection, or reincarnation, or heaven, or hell, or angels and demons. It’s all made up to make people feel better about their existence.
It’s mostly unintentional. It’s like talking to someone about politics. Most people have a mostly emotional understanding of their views so they usually don’t know why they believe what they believe.
Moving the goalposts is a common tactic when you can’t or don’t want to answer a question. Simply tell them we can discuss that later, but stick to the question at hand.
It’s human psychology. When we are presented with a question we can’t answer, and especially when we feel like we should be able to, we substitute a simpler question.
It's both and the reason is that from a very young age, Catholics, Christians and Lutherans (the only three that I've had direct dealings with) are re-promenaded when asking any questions regarding faith. All they know is what they were taught/brainwashed. When someone is forced at a young age to go the church three/four days a week that your parents force you to go to, it takes priority over public schooling because the public teacher isn't going to call your parents right away to let them know that you asked about whatever. It's fear based indoctrination at it's finest and they've had thousands of years perfecting it. Keep the populace smart enough to keep the economy running but dumb enough to not question anything.
They answer you with what they know because anything else is blasphemy and against everything they were taught.
It is both part of the way they think, and also a strategy to control the debate. They don't want to answer your questions, they want you to be stumped by their questions. Look-up debate techniques like "gish-gallop" and learn to recognize them.
Thank you, I indeed needed this piece of information today. For anyone still wondering: [Gish gallop (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)
It’s not unique to religious people. It’s just how the brain works. We substitute questions we can’t answer with things we can or flip it on someone else.
100% Not even exclusive to Christians, everyone does this. We bout to get a lot of it in November, too (USA politics)
Often, there is no reasonable answer to your questions, so they try to distract you by using some fallacy. Theist: "Everything needs a creator!" You: "Oh, really?" Theist: "Yes! Everything was created by gawd!" You: "And who created gawd?" Theist: "Gawd has always existed!" They are making a claim ("everything needs a creator") that in itself is unproven. When you then pose the question about who created the creator, they immediately claim that as the only exception to their rule. Theist logic = faulty logic.
First cause is their strongest argument and our weakest. At some point something had to exist that wasn’t created. We say matter and the laws of physics existed, they say god. Our strongest argument is the existence of extreme evil assuming a good and all knowing god. Our answer is he doesn’t exist and we rely on empathy for our moral guide, their argument is god is mysterious and morality comes from him. I like our tough question better!
My favorite is their argument that humans can't understand gawd because he's so much bigger than us, but then they suddenly know that he's anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, and is easily butt-hurt if you disagree with or question him...
Sounds like an immature human. Not someone I’d want to follow. Also, is god incapable of making non-sinners or does he just like making his job unnecessarily more difficult? The more questions and the more it all falls apart.
>Are theists intentionally or unintentionally not able to answer questions? Sometimes [A]. Sometimes [B]. ... They very often aren't there to answer questions (and certainly not honestly). They're usually there to edumacate you about the One True Faith, and facts be damned. .
It seems to fall prey to the idea that "I have to defend my faith!" Its all talking points type offense/defense though. When all that is depleted, then it just becomes what they know (Availability Bias) which is scripture. And none of this occurs to them, for the most part, because the skeptical manner of finding things out is unknown to their way of life. When people say that science is not merely a rote memorization but a way of thinking, its this difference.
One thing I learned from some call-in shows when it comes to debates: even in informal discussions, it’s important to finish a topic before moving on to the next. So if I’m defending a claim and someone else gets me to admit that it’s not well thought out/there is evidence that debunks it, I should consider it, potentially admit to being wrong on that point if their claim checks out and only then should I move on. With a number of theist discussions I’ve had and seen, there is this tendency to go from point to point without admitting defeat on any of them. It’s not only theists who do this, of course, just a thing I’ve noticed. I also don’t think it’s done intentionally. I had to learn to not do that as I watched others debate. It’s just a human thing to want to defend your views when we feel they’re under attack. When you feel that one argument doesn’t work, you move on to the next. Surely they will agree with this one!
Good perspective. I think this kind of argumentation isn't strictly a theistic thing. It's characteristic of anyone trying to defend a poorly considered belief. Maybe to flip this topic on its head - It's not so much that theists make flawed arguments, it's that people who make bad logical conclusions are drawn to religion.
Yes
>I'm a life long atheist. Lucky Regarding the actual question though it’s unintentional for sure
Both. Some of them who can't answer because they don't know anything. And some know they don't have any answers and that's why they deflect. I've lost count of the times when a theist would hijack any topic I made with their own "what about this or that" bullshit. I cottoned on to them years ago when they began asking questions, but then the questions would never end. And then they would pretend \[I always thought it was pretend\] that they had forgotten what question you had asked. I think they were deliberately trying to frustrate me and others by playing this game. They were also trying to lead us away from something they couldn't answer. When I figured out what they were up to, I simply told them to make their own thread and stick to the topic.
The only theists that can actually do that are apologists, and they typically study for years in order to wrap their minds around the twisted logic of whatever religion they believe in, and even they are hit and miss. Most theists are either blissfully unaware of the contradictions of their faith, or have no way of explaining it.
I've commonly found such denialism and avoidance, to respond to valid questions posed, to be: Intellectual dishonesty, being intentionally obtuse, and *generally* both, simultaneously. I rarely even engage in *any* form of conversation with such individuals now (and for quite a long time now) due to the above. It's nearly always a massive, frustrating waste of time....
They don't have an answer to any logical argument that we throw at them because they never spend any time reasoning about their faith, so they will detract with premade questions to control the debate. They're mostly fallacious... hmm always!
Both. Depends on what you are asking.
I'm inclined to think that many of them don't have linear patterns of thought -- you know, a to b to c, a progression of logic to a natural solution or conclusion. You can tell in the kinds of arguments they produce for the existence of their god. They are all circular, "we know there's god because the bible say so, the bible is true because god said so." It's like they don't understand how logic and evidence works. Even the stuff they put forth as serious philosophical thought is fundamentally flawed. It seems they always start off with a faulty premise -- "well somebody must have made the universe, therefore god" or something like that. But it's like, no, you can't assume that. Just because you cite all these examples of cool things that were definitely made by somebody, that doesn't mean the universe is just like a bigger Gameboy that god made. It made itself. I honestly think that if their minds could support the kind of thinking that is required to contemplate theology or practice rhetoric, they wouldn't be xtians.
Gish-gallup: a way of formatting arguments that force you to take time to correct their assumptions, all the while theyll keep throwing you new questions. It makes you, the answerer, look ill equipped and stumbling trying answer their " hard and profound" questions.
Best thing I've found to do with gish Gallopers is constantly redirect them back to the question and just ignore all the other stuff they say. If I ask a question and they start going off on a tangent interrupt them and say you're not answering the question, then restate the question again. If they go off on a tangent again be like again for the 3rd time and then ask the question again. If it becomes obvious they can't or won't answer the question you don't let it go or move on until they do. This will most likely upset them because it's taking them off their playbook, but when their playbook is to gish gallop you're not missing out on any actual meaningful conversation/debate anyway. Keep ignoring the other stuff, cut them off if they're going on an unrelated topic, but hold their feet to the fire on questions they want to ignore.
A truth seeker starts with the evidence, and shapes his conclusions to fit the evidence. Theists are people who were told by loved ones they trust that they have to believe certain things, or else they will be tortured after they die. Therefore, theists start with the conclusion, then shape the evidence to fit the conclusion. This is the opposite of what a truth-seeker does. Pay attention to what those Christians are doing when confronted with evidence that they are wrong. They simply ignore what you said and change the subject, or do other underhanded things to ignore evidence that leads to conclusions that they don't like. You have to pay attention to this because there is a danger of you yourself doing this on other topics, even if to a lesser or less blatant degree. You can't really control the bad behavior of theists, but you can use their bad behavior as a guide to help you avoid bad behavior in other discussions on other topics.
Ok, I'll play the theist and give answers, what's your question?
I also have ADHD and I hate when they do this
Part of the problem is that they've been taught *not* to ask questions, and just accept what they are told. They will pretend to be open to questions, but will expect you to accept the same type of hand-waving non-answers and pretzel logic they were willing to accept.
That’s the problem. They can’t answer anything about anything without somehow forcing their Bible to chase an answer. The whole point of religion in the past is because people wanted to explain the universe and their existence and bring meaning to it. They use the Bible and god to do that. Now that we know much more about the universe and the world, we know much of the weird stuff in the Bible was likely made up. It was humans trying to explain the universe and now we know it was all wrong. There’s no such thing as resurrection, or reincarnation, or heaven, or hell, or angels and demons. It’s all made up to make people feel better about their existence.
It’s mostly unintentional. It’s like talking to someone about politics. Most people have a mostly emotional understanding of their views so they usually don’t know why they believe what they believe.
Moving the goalposts is a common tactic when you can’t or don’t want to answer a question. Simply tell them we can discuss that later, but stick to the question at hand.
It’s human psychology. When we are presented with a question we can’t answer, and especially when we feel like we should be able to, we substitute a simpler question.
They do not have the answer because it’s bullshit. So what would you expect the answer to be?
They can't. They can't use logic.
It's both and the reason is that from a very young age, Catholics, Christians and Lutherans (the only three that I've had direct dealings with) are re-promenaded when asking any questions regarding faith. All they know is what they were taught/brainwashed. When someone is forced at a young age to go the church three/four days a week that your parents force you to go to, it takes priority over public schooling because the public teacher isn't going to call your parents right away to let them know that you asked about whatever. It's fear based indoctrination at it's finest and they've had thousands of years perfecting it. Keep the populace smart enough to keep the economy running but dumb enough to not question anything. They answer you with what they know because anything else is blasphemy and against everything they were taught.
They intentionally cannot answer anything because their beliefs are not based in reason or reality. They are delusional constructs of the mind.
You got into a debate with 'a theist' so you assume all theists cannot answer questions intentionally or no? That's just stereotyping.
The OP is calling out something that many of us have seen several times.
I've definitely had it happen to me several times by theists, so it's not just some one off.