Trolling theistic message boards

Semper Idem · 03-30-2014, 12:10 AM

I noticed that many atheists online tend to 'troll' theist message boards. I have to ask, why do this? All that gets you is banned, and the people on the other side become even more committed to their theism.

I respectfully suggest that we leave the theist boards alone. Posting there to provoke them to actually, yanno...THINK...will do nothing more than convince them that they are under attack by Satan's minions and will stick together and cling even tighter to their theism.

Most importantly, we don't need any pushy jerks bearing the atheist equivalent of badly written screeds bearing 'heaiveneley wittttnus' (heavenly witness, I imagine). I mean, it's one thing to get the truth out. It's quite another to emulate the pushy, obnoxious, overbearing evangelists who refuse to STFU about their religions. We don't need an atheist version of Tony Alamo or Jack Chick. Just the facts will do. After all, if there's no hell, what are we saving people from exactly?

Your thoughts?

ILOVEJESUS · 03-30-2014, 03:02 AM

I'll post where I bloody well want to! Fuck their dementia!

Smellyoldgit · 03-30-2014, 06:38 AM

It's painful enough reading the complete crap they post here and across the web, so why the fuck subject oneself to tenfold the amount on their home turf? To quote one of our former regulars, "I'd rather cover my schlong in honey and face-fuck a rabid grizzly"

Semper Idem · 03-30-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I'll post where I bloody well want to! Fuck their dementia!

Baaaaad idea if your goal is to make rationality look good. If they're still under the religious meme, they'll view you as an attacker and shun everything you write. That means that it'll be that much harder to win them over to reason and logical thought.

davros of skaro · 03-30-2014, 11:22 PM

I agree that I do not see the point in posting on a theistic specific message board.I see better time is spent with a broader audience in a place less likely to get banned.This forum is on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I used to be live and let live when it came to religion.Then after some time interacting with theists I seen how illogical they are.This invisible wall I encountered with theists led me to research religion beyond my childhood rejection of it.I now see religion as a danger, and try to educate others that was like me that was unaware of the backward nature of religion.

I am glad that thanks to the internet more and more people are becoming aware.

Trolling theist boards only comfirms their scripture that shackles the mind against free thinking.

mondrian · 03-31-2014, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Semper Idem wrote

I noticed that many atheists online tend to 'troll' theist message boards. I have to ask, why do this? All that gets you is banned, and the people on the other side become even more committed to their theism.

I respectfully suggest that we leave the theist boards alone. Posting there to provoke them to actually, yanno...THINK...will do nothing more than convince them that they are under attack by Satan's minions and will stick together and cling even tighter to their theism.

Most importantly, we don't need any pushy jerks bearing the atheist equivalent of badly written screeds bearing 'heaiveneley wittttnus' (heavenly witness, I imagine). I mean, it's one thing to get the truth out. It's quite another to emulate the pushy, obnoxious, overbearing evangelists who refuse to STFU about their religions. We don't need an atheist version of Tony Alamo or Jack Chick. Just the facts will do. After all, if there's no hell, what are we saving people from exactly?

Your thoughts?

I've set off a big data extract for my 'Gambling Joint' post so have some time to kill so dropped in here and saw this post.

However much we think we don't, we all have a tendency to stay within our own bubble and tend mix with 'our own kind'. Also, PC is everywhere these days. One can't really say what one thinks any more without someone taking offence on someone else's behalf.

As a result, we don't really get to hear what other people really think these days except if one visits forums where peoples' identities are masked. Then, their true thoughts are on view. OK, there's the forum's piss-takers and wind-up merchants to contend with but at least some will expose their true feelings.

It's OK someone else telling you what a backward and close-minded set of retards these chritians are, but, until you actually visit their forums, one doesn't really fully appreciate just how close-minded and how retarded they really are. There's nothing like first-hand experience.

My feeling is that it's probably a good idea to visit a couple of forums and to post and get some first-hand experience of their venom when challenged. Beyond that, I can't really see the point.

As once quip once uttered: Have you had ten years experience or one year ten times?

Davin · 03-31-2014, 07:40 AM

I don't really care if people want to troll theist boards. But I don't want to think about things in terms of teams or sides, of theist vs. atheist... I consider it a nice big mess of a bunch of people with lots of different ideas where I will agree or disagree with people based on what they say instead of what team they claim to be on. If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational. Though at least without religion, they might stop pretending that it's a virtue.

I also don't feel like we as rationalists need to treat other people's beliefs with undue respect. That may be the style that works for a few people, but fuck you if you want to try to control my actions in the name of rationality (which I don't see much different from trying to control people in the name of a made up god). If you want to persuade me to treat stupid ideas with respect in the name of rationality, then do so with a rational argument, not an illogical one where you're invoking rationality abstractly, i.e.: "if you want to make rationality look good then give irrational ideas unwarranted respect."

It took a few people showing me that my theistic ideas don't get any special respect that broke me out of my religiousness. It wasn't only that, but that was a big part of it.

ILOVEJESUS · 03-31-2014, 08:23 AM

I just think that telling a turd it smells sometimes helps the turd to wash. Unfortunately though you cannot polish a turd.....so this analogy has gotten rather confused thanks to some mixed metaphors!

mondrian · 03-31-2014, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Davin wrote

I don't really care if people want to troll theist boards. But I don't want to think about things in terms of teams or sides, of theist vs. atheist... I consider it a nice big mess of a bunch of people with lots of different ideas where I will agree or disagree with people based on what they say instead of what team they claim to be on. If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational. Though at least without religion, they might stop pretending that it's a virtue.

I also don't feel like we as rationalists need to treat other people's beliefs with undue respect. That may be the style that works for a few people, but fuck you if you want to try to control my actions in the name of rationality (which I don't see much different from trying to control people in the name of a made up god). If you want to persuade me to treat stupid ideas with respect in the name of rationality, then do so with a rational argument, not an illogical one where you're invoking rationality abstractly, i.e.: "if you want to make rationality look good then give irrational ideas unwarranted respect."

It took a few people showing me that my theistic ideas don't get any special respect that broke me out of my religiousness. It wasn't only that, but that was a big part of it.

Davin, just kicked off another extract so have some more time to kill and so took a look at your post. I have to say that I agree with almost all of what you said except: If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational.

I've heard christians claim that the basics of most countries' laws were derived from the ten commandments. My take is that the laws would have evolved naturally without religion. Laws are used to impose rational behaviour on a society. If that society is not largely rational in the first place, then law and order would break down because the laws would be rejected by that society. In some ways, laws and rational behaviour only work because society either accepts or desires it. In other words, it is only a rational society that will accept rational behavioural standards and it is an irrational society that will not.

By definition then, we live in a society that is largely rational although it has to be said that there are times when I despair of its stupidity.

The christian religion isn't rational. It believes in the supernatural and relies on faith without proof, neither of which are particularly rational concepts. Therefore, whatever caused our society to become rational, it wasn't religion. For me, rational behaviour evolves naturally by society learning that although irrational behaviour MAY benefit certain individuals, generally, it is a disadvantage to society as a whole. Therefore, rational behaviour stems from need.

Davin · 03-31-2014, 10:18 AM

Quote:

mondrian wrote

Davin, just kicked off another extract so have some more time to kill and so took a look at your post. I have to say that I agree with almost all of what you said except: If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational.

I've heard christians claim that the basics of most countries' laws were derived from the ten commandments. My take is that the laws would have evolved naturally without religion. Laws are used to impose rational behaviour on a society. If that society is not largely rational in the first place, then law and order would break down because the laws would be rejected by that society. In some ways, laws and rational behaviour only work because society either accepts or desires it. In other words, it is only a rational society that will accept rational behavioural standards and it is an irrational society that will not.

By definition then, we live in a society that is largely rational although it has to be said that there are times when I despair of its stupidity.

The christian religion isn't rational. It believes in the supernatural and relies on faith without proof, neither of which are particularly rational concepts. Therefore, whatever caused our society to become rational, it wasn't religion. For me, rational behaviour evolves naturally by society learning that although irrational behaviour MAY benefit certain individuals, generally, it is a disadvantage to society as a whole. Therefore, rational behaviour stems from need.

I disagree a lot with that. If society were more rational, then we wouldn't need laws, since more people would be convinced by a rational argument and would be able rationalize on their own why they shouldn't go around murdering people. There are a good portion of irrational laws as well. Who makes an unenforceable law against masturbation? Several states in the US, that's who. So by your logic of "there are rational laws therefore people are mostly rational", I offer the counter, "there are irrational laws therefore people are mostly irrational." But really, I don't think either statements are useful.

ILOVEJESUS · 03-31-2014, 11:20 AM

I would argue not as rational or irrational but largely random. Laws are there to create a more controlled civilisation amongst the chaos. Some of those laws are useful, others not so. Some fair, some quite punitive for no reason etc. Religion takes advantage of the insecurity in our rather chaotic existence and plumps for solutions and explanations that offer no value....beyond the imaginary. Laws are as man made as the religions followed by so many, never forget that. The conditioning that we have evolved with as to create the order in the chaos has fuck all to do with rationality and all to do with survival. That does not always lead us as people to be rational.

mondrian · 03-31-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Davin wrote

I disagree a lot with that. If society were more rational, then we wouldn't need laws, since more people would be convinced by a rational argument and would be able rationalize on their own why they shouldn't go around murdering people.

Most people don't go around murdering, only the irrational do such things. The laws exist to protect the rational from the irrational. If society were largely irrational, then the law would be ignored and murder would be common place.

Quote:

Davin wrote

There are a good portion of irrational laws as well. Who makes an unenforceable law against masturbation? Several states in the US, that's who. So by your logic of "there are rational laws therefore people are mostly rational", I offer the counter, "there are irrational laws therefore people are mostly irrational." But really, I don't think either statements are useful.

Most laws are reasonably rational and most of society is reasonably rational. A minor proportion of laws are irrational - it's not just in the US - and a minor proportion of society is irrational.

Can we at least agree on this?

The one thing that I can't agree with you on is: If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational.

It's a great pity that I can't have such discussions with christians.

Davin · 03-31-2014, 11:39 AM

Quote:

mondrian wrote

Most people don't go around murdering, only the irrational do such things. The laws exist to protect the rational from the irrational. If society were largely irrational, then the law would be ignored and murder would be common place.

Most laws are reasonably rational and most of society is reasonably rational. A minor proportion of laws are irrational - it's not just in the US - and a minor proportion of society is irrational.

Can we at least agree on this?

I cannot. I know about too many laws to agree that most are rational. I also don't see the bridge from "we have laws" to "therefore most people are mostly rational." Just because people don't reject a law, doesn't mean that they are rational. There are many other reasons why a person would not reject a law. I've also spoken to a lot of people, most commit a lot of fallacies (and even think they are being logical when they do). The average IQ is around 100, that means that about half the population has an IQ lower than 100. While having a low IQ does not necessarily mean irrational, there is a strong correlation between IQ and the ability to be rational.

Quote:

mondrian wrote

The one thing that I can't agree with you on is: If there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational.

It's fine for people to disagree, it's only sad when one takes disagreement as an insult or attack on ones character. You can disagree with me all you want and it will not bother me, just don't take the route most theists try to take and infer that, because I don't agree with you that I am less intelligent, more ignorant and/or crazy. Mostly because there is a good chance that I have scored much higher on an IQ test than most of the people I meet... whether that means I am actually more intelligent is another topic of discussion.

Quote:

mondrian wrote

It's a great pity that I can't have such discussions with christians.

Yes, most shut the discussion down with condescension, avoidance and/or personal attacks. Mostly all of the above.

Davin · 03-31-2014, 11:44 AM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I would argue not as rational or irrational but largely random. Laws are there to create a more controlled civilisation amongst the chaos. Some of those laws are useful, others not so. Some fair, some quite punitive for no reason etc. Religion takes advantage of the insecurity in our rather chaotic existence and plumps for solutions and explanations that offer no value....beyond the imaginary. Laws are as man made as the religions followed by so many, never forget that. The conditioning that we have evolved with as to create the order in the chaos has fuck all to do with rationality and all to do with survival. That does not always lead us as people to be rational.

I agree with that. I even doubt that most people even understand the laws, and rational acceptance of a law is not possible without understanding the law.

mondrian · 03-31-2014, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Davin wrote

I cannot. I know about too many laws to agree that most are rational. I also don't see the bridge from "we have laws" to "therefore most people are mostly rational." Just because people don't reject a law, doesn't mean that they are rational. There are many other reasons why a person would not reject a law. I've also spoken to a lot of people, most commit a lot of fallacies (and even think they are being logical when they do). The average IQ is around 100, that means that about half the population has an IQ lower than 100. While having a low IQ does not necessarily mean irrational, there is a strong correlation between IQ and the ability to be rational.

It's fine for people to disagree, it's only sad when one takes disagreement as an insult or attack on ones character. You can disagree with me all you want and it will not bother me, just don't take the route most theists try to take and infer that, because I don't agree with you that I am less intelligent, more ignorant and/or crazy. Mostly because there is a good chance that I have scored much higher on an IQ test than most of the people I meet... whether that means I am actually more intelligent is another topic of discussion.

Yes, most shut the discussion down with condescension, avoidance and/or personal attacks. Mostly all of the above.

I guess that we are going to have to agree to disagree and move on.

What I am especially interested in is why you feel that if there were no religion, a good portion of our population would still be mostly irrational.