If one layers a question (such as "what are the acrivities in God?") solely as a means to broaden a conclusion (such as "god does not exist") then it definitely is a ruse ... and such prolonged exchange simply demarcates the political boundaries of the parties involved.
By that logic, no one should ever try to ask questions to gain an understanding of anything, since, unless they actually do change their minds, you will accuse them of never having any intentions of changing their mind in the first place.
What I am hearing is that
you have given up, and you see no point in trying to have a debate among opposite viewpoints.
Not true for everyone else. There is nothing wrong with going into a discussion with a skeptical viewpoint. Nor is there anything wrong with engaging a skeptic knowing they probably won't change their minds. It is unlikely (not is it fair to expect) that someone such as you or I will switch camps because of a discussion. It's a matter of reaching an understanding, and it happens in increments.
One example just happened to me. Baldee is the first person who has ever helped me understand the agnostic point of view. I'd always assumed anything could be evidenced sufficiently enough, but the way the conversation happened, I realized for the first time that there is a distinct possibility that we
cannot evidence god. I can demonstrate the Earth is round and that we went to the Moon, but how is it possible to demonstrate that an entity is the creator of the universe?
Anyway, the implicit
rule zero in any discussion is that the topic is
worth discussing. That also means they accept that everyone else abides by rule zero as well. If any participant feels it is not worth discussing, then they have an obligation to bow out, so that others may continue.
You've made it known that you suspect it is posted under false pretenses and that's fair. But that's doesn't mean others can't continue to discuss. You need to decide if you accept the tenets of this topic. Otherwise you're just disrupting it.
The only alternative is to play Devil's Advocate; grant the pretense of an sincere question, and answer it as best you can. It costs you nothing to pretend for the sake of discussion that the question is honest.