Atheism, Evolution, and anger management...
Related Topics
"Michael Altarriba" mike...@gmail.com
We've heard it a million times before...
"Why do you hate / reject God?" "The Bible is the only source of morality." "Evolutionists are just God-haters." "This is a Christian country." "The majority are Christians. Don't you believe in democracy?" The same statements, expressed over and over again, countered over and over again, and then brought up yet again as if no discussion had ever taken place. Trolls who spam us with articles, then don't bother to respond to questions or criticism. New posters who tell us about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as if they'd made a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery that had eluded us all.
We get annoyed, we get short-tempered, we get angry. I include talk.origins in this because, in many minds, and despite the evidence, evolutionary theory and atheism are inextricably linked, even one and the same.
I've hung around both newsgroups, and seen it time and time again.
And, I've seen many regulars of both groups respond with anger and insults. Understandable? Sure... but not very productive, unless one's goal is stress relief or entertainment, and one is uncaring of the consequences.
Why do we post here? I imagine there are many different answers to that question. As for myself, I like exploring the ideas, and, yes, "fighting the good fight" when I see what I believe to be mis-statements concerning evolutionary theory or atheism. Talk.origins is expressly intended to be the lightning rod for debates about orgins (of life or the universe) for Usenet, so it is bound to be the place for philosophical pit fighting.
What I'm trying to ask is that, while, we all have our reasons for posting here, are those reasons best served by anger and insults, however strong the provocation to do so ? Is whatever pleasure we may derive from doing so worth the costs? What costs, you may ask? The cost of generating a lot of heat, which gets dissipated away (or worse, feeds an even bigger fire) at the expense of generating light: understanding, knowledge, maybe even enlightenment.
What effect would the trolls have if their posts were used as a springboard for discussion, rather than a reason for anger? What effect would new posters have, those who post the same, debunked ideas, if they were calmly met with the right answers, each and every time?
What effect would these actions have on them, and what effect would it have on *us* ?
Thanks for your time...
"J Forbes" jforbs...@fastmail.fm
It would have little to no effect on them, and we get tired of it after a while...
I think you'll see that lots of people have tried this, it gets old, because the trolls keep posting the same bs over and over as you've said. Jim
"Ronin" roninfro...@yahoo.com
I absolutely agree in general terms. But as far as trolls, they are a complete waste of time. At least the ones who never respond and simply post rant after rant. But I have seen people from a religious perspective go back and forth for hundreds of posts and I admire the ones who can do that. A good deal of the responses from evolutionists are simple-minded attacks and I am frustrated b/c I would hope that people here would be more rational than the other side. If you see someone actually engaging in debate, don't post just to insult them.
If the creationist is simply spouting crap and not responding, then knock yourself out.
"VoiceOfReason" papa_...@cybertown.com
<...> BUZZ. Hence some of the anger. Creationists often attempt to demonize 'Evilution' by linking it with Atheism. By going along with that nonsense, you play right into their hands.
The fact remains that science and religion are apples and oranges. One can be a theist and accept the facts of science at the same time.
That's why many scientists are theists of one flavor or another.
"J Forbes" jforbs...@fastmail.fm
unless perhaps you want to use science to try to understand human religious behavior.....
Jim
Soul food cthu...@soulstogo.com
Probably not, but it's the only langauage most of these hate filled bigots understand.
I don't derive any pleasure from it, it needs to be done, however.
We aren't the ones with the problem.
They often are, just to prove the point.
Exactly the same as on those numerous occasions on which they are: Derision, insults and accusations of stupidity and lack of comprehension - in other words, projection.
From observation, absolutley none at all.
You're welcome.
What you are overlooking is that most of the theists on this planet at least suspect that what they are saying isn't true, they say it and stand by it nonetheless because we won't tell them exactly what else to think and they need to be told what to think because they cannot think for themselves. Anybody who can is a mortal threat to them, that's where the hostility comes from - nowhere else.
------------------------------------------------
"If iron chariots make people immune to God (Judges 1:19), why do Christians drive cars?" D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN AA #2208
"Stephen Montgomery-Smith" step...@math.missouri.edu
It NEEDS to be done?
I think that you are seriously overrating the importance of this activity. If you get pleasure from it, by all means, go for it. But if you find it raises your blood pressure .....
I see that you have a good hold on reality.
:-)
"SortingItOut" eri...@home.com
Anger is an emotional response, and it happens when someone's buttons are being pushed. It's also often an impulsive response. While someone is angered, they're generally not asking themselves "Is this productive?" or "What are the consequences of my posting while I'm angry?". That might happen after they've calmed down, but then it's too late. I consider myself to be a calm, reasonable guy. I think I'm more even-keeled than most of those around me in my daily life. But I've often regretted my posts here. I'd go back and delete them if I could. Maybe in reality I'm more like one of those 70% of drivers that think they're better than average drivers.
This sounds like an adult version of the childhood problem we're all familiar with. Kids, usually the older or bigger kids, will pick on the younger or smaller kids for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of them. We've all heard parents say "Just ignore them and they'll go away." I can only guess that it continues into adulthood here because the stakes are higher. Both sides feel that truth - reality itself - is being replaced with fiction, and they feel it's very important to not let that happen. They're emotionally involved. So trolls have good feeding grounds here.
Thanks for your post...
"Stephen Montgomery-Smith" step...@math.missouri.edu
Hi Michael, Your post seems to have touched quite a few people.
I think that responding with such anger is ultimately going to work against your cause. I think that people need to realise that persuading your opponent in the debate of the rightness of your cause is not your primary objective. This almost never happens, and I think this failure makes people very frustrated.
But a large part of the debates is how onlookers see it, and the culture it creates. Angry reponses by either side simply feed each others' stereotypes. Atheists have stereotypes of how Christians are, but also Christians have stereotypes of how atheists behave. It gets to the point where the two groups of people no longer see each other as human beings, but as morons, idiots or evil.
The way the two sides typically react to each other is not to reach out, and try to see it from the other person's point of view, but instead it gets to a point where we almost deliberately fail to see what the other person is getting at. So Christians are fed the stereotype that atheists are argumentative and amoral, which is not often true. Atheists, on the other hand, fail to see the subtle and beautiful side of Christianity (a lot of which can actually be appreciated without accepting it).
Another thing I have found out through bitter experience is that it never pays to question the motives of the other party, but only question his actions or his words. I have found this to be true even if it is totally obvious that the other person is disingenuous - it is fine for me to think it about him, but to speak it out always backfires.
Best Stephen
wbarwell wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts, from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
I am always adding to my collection, enlarging my pool of counter arguments. I usually go to insults only after post No. 12 where the idiot plays stupid games.
Or regulars like Duke.
Sometimes its best to let the counterspam do the talking.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said today that investigation into what happened to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
"Richard Smol" jazz...@dds.nl
All those Christians and other theists who believe in evolution will be highly surprised to hear this.
RS
shane remarcsdNOS...@ozemail.com.au
I think you are wrong here as far as this t.o. is concerned. You may be correct as far as our personal lives are concerned, as we will judge each other by those we actually know and see. And words can be offset by actions. Here on Usenet, we can only judge by words, and the objection, particularly on t.o. is not to christians but to creationists, a horse of an entirely different kettle of fish.
Example, for all I know Ray Martinez, may spend every second day distributing to the poor, and doing other benevolent christian works. If I knew him personally I would know that, and give him the benefit of the doubt when discussing EvC with him. But I don't know him personally, I only know him from his actions in posting to t.o. and there is precious little christianity apparent in that. So I try to deal with him only as a creationist, the only thing i have any evidence of (no matter how poor) that gives an indication of what he actually is.
I think that you are laying to much emphasis on atheism and christianity, when the real debate, on t.o. at any rate, is evolution and creation, neither of which form the major part of the two groups. If you re-worded to reflect this I would largely agree with your points, if not the extremes you take them.
I think this is overstating the case for the larger part of t.o.
Certainly a few think the opposing side is all one thing or the other but mostly it seems to be limited to thinking only one or a few of the opposing side is as you conclude.
Shane
Matthew Isleb mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com
Interesting. This is exactly the kind of aweful tactics that many creationists use. Namely, Dawkins/Kant/Skywise. It makes you look stupid and dogmatic.
-matthew
wbarwell wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com
I have had good luck with it, many of my little bits are short and I set them up, I just don't slap it down.
That way, I don't have to post the punch line by hand over and over.
Some of this stuff is in response to the same old stuff that gets posted on a steady basis. Some jerk barging in here to AA going "God exists! You can't prove he doesn't, can you!".
I point out bluntly, yes I can, point out his insufferable arrogance and post my little proof.
Sorry if you don't like it.
But I tire of debunking the same old claims again and again and again by hand.
RULES OF ATHEISM 1. Logic, reason and rationalty are not optional.
2. Facts out rank ***ertions.
3. An unproven ***ertion is the equal of any other equally likely unproven ***ertion.
4. Not all ***ertions are equal, some are more likely than others.
5. Lying is not acceptable.
6. Ad hominem attacks in lieu of facts or a competent argument is a sign of a lost argument and lack of competence.
7. Willful ignorance is unacceptable behavior.
8. Enproven revelation is not a fact, all revelations must be proven to be true to be considered revelations.
9. Examine all arguments for hidden ***umptions, including your own.
10. Putting forth an argument without bothering to logically examine obvious and disconfirming consequences of that argument is a sign of incompetence.
11. Fear mongering in lieu of competent argument is wrong and contemptible, and is no argument.
12. Even if a person is evil beyond belief, if that person says something true, it is still true.
Even if a person is a saintly person, if they say something provably wrong it is still wrong.
13. If somebody puts forth an ***ertion, burden to prove that ***ertion falls on the shoulders of the person making that ***ertion.
14. Possible is not an argument equal to probable.
15. Moving goal posts is unacceptable, that is the unmistakable and obvious sign of a lost argument.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said today that investigation into what happened to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
"Jenny6833A" Jenny68...@aol.com
Michael Altarriba wrote in part: We'd just get oodles more of the same stuff. A major reason they post canned stuff is that, with a two-minute investment of their time, they can use up many hours of our time. From their point of view, that's a superb trade.
Sure, some relatively straightforward posts can be met with minimally edited canned answers that don't require a lot of time. However, elaborately tangled posts can take far more time/effort to untangle than the poster ever put into the making the mess.
Note that what they're doing is a standard tactic of war.
Disinformation is intended to keep the enemy (in this case us) running around in circles rather than doing what it/we ought to be doing to win.
None.
Complete and thoughtful replies to each and every nutcase post would hugely waste our time, which is exactly what they want us to do.
OTOH, one can't ignore them else the lurking observers may conclude that we don't have an answer.
The responses I admire are those that say, "You're wrong, totally wrong, and all mixed up. Go here to find out why" and then provide an URL, a set of search words, or a book recommendation.
As for anger and insults, I agree that they're counterproductive --
especially because most of them are so trite and inanely juvenile. The sexual ones make the responder look _really_ bad. Alt.atheism has some regulars who need their diapers paddled vigorously. <G> OTOH, clever insults -- the kind that the target has to think about to understand -- can be quite effective. If the target ever reads them, of course.
:-) Jenny (Although every woman has one, calling some troll the crude term for one just doesn't seem to make a discernable point in rebuttal.
Similarly for a lot of other pseudo-anatomical words that make up the majority of some posters' vocabularies.)
"Jim Guillory" jdg...@cox-internet.com
All day long I am polite, professional, reasonable. I handle ignorance, laziness, dishonesty and incompetence politely, without losing my temper or being sarcastic or insulting. I am always aware of my image and that I am a representative of my school and profession.
Here on talk origins I can blow off a little steam. I can say what I really think about ignorant, arrogant creationists. I can call a liar a liar and a fool a fool without worrying too much about the professional consequences. Sometimes I say stupid things, or say good things the wrong way. There have been times when I realized I was getting too angry (or making a fool of myself) and dropped out of a debate. So, yeah, I regret some things I've said here, but that's ok. I'm learning a lot of science, and how to reply to creationist arguments (either politely or rudely). Which is what this place is all about.
If you lose your temper occasionally, relax and don't worry about it.
Oh, and apologize when you really screw up. That helps a lot.
Regards, Jim
Matthew Isleb mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com
You mean like this?...
"Michael Altarriba" mike...@gmail.com
Sadly, I suspect they would soon find, were they to engage in discussion with Creationists or Intelligent Design adherents, that the link between an acceptance of the validity of evolutionary theory and an ***umption of Atheism was taken as a given by many, perhaps most of those who reject evolutionary theory. False and annoying, but true...
"Thore \"Tocis\" Schmechtig" MAILTOcommo...@carcosa.de
What effect... on whom?
It might make a difference with the fence-sitters, okay. What I'd like to know is, do you mean "effect" on anyone except them?
(Not that I'm too inclined to change my habit of calling bullshit like it is, but inquiring minds want to know... ;) )
--
Regards Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
"Michael Altarriba" mike...@gmail.com
What effect would trolls' activities have on the rest of us if their posts used as a springboard for discussion, while their false and/or imflammatory content were met with calm rebuttals?
The effect on the trolls: probably none, though a few might get bored at the lack of p***ionate attention and move on, and, who knows, a few might reduce or end their trolling? Yeah, I know, but I'm an optimist.
:) The effect on the lurkers: they'll hopefully learn something new, might feel impelled to take an active part in the discussion, and come to see that the trolls really have nothing of value to offer.
The effect on those of us who tend to respond with anger and insults: lower blood pressure, longer life expectancy, etc. ;) The effect on everyone else: more reading, less scrolling, and an also lower blood pressure.
I'm throwing the idea out there, and yes, I realize I'm hardly the first to do so.
It just seems to me that the anger and insults isn't doing any good, and is instead doing harm, in that people ***ociate the content of the message with the way it is expressed, and get turned off to both. We want to see more people educated, don't we?
<snip>
MitchAl ...@aol.com
I do not reject god, I mearly find the evidence brougt forward to be insufficient to establish the existance of one or more gods.
Then why do many areas of the world live in harmony with themselves and have never interacted with the bible or bearers thereof?
One cannot hate what does not exist. So start by establishing that one or more of these god thingies actually exist.
On the other hand, evolution is a well estabilshed scientific disipline.
Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli:: google it.
Sure, but our democracy does not allow the majority to subvert the rights of the minority. Majority rules, minority rights.
Christopher A. Lee ca...@optonline.net
A remarkably stupid question. It's like asking them why they hate Gollum.
The very fact that we have to make that substitution for them reveals just how unthinking they are.
A blatant falsehood, usually perpetrated by those who must think that lying to the faces of those they religiously har***, is moral.
So many falsehoods in such a short sentence: for starters,"evolutionist" is a dishonest label for anybody who doesn't share their fundamentalist beliefs and attempt to turn acceptance of reality into an -ism that competes at the same level as their own
-ism. Even the USA most "evolutionists" are some kind of Christian, in spite of the third-world level of science education.
Another blatant falsehood.
It is a country with more Christians than non-Christians. But they're not the same kind of Christian as the extreme fundamentalists.
There are two kinds of democracies. One that protects minorities and one that imposes the tyranny of the majority on them. The country was founded as the former. The Constitution is pretty explicit on this.
The people saying it are stupid. However polite conversation starts, the fact that the other guy is stupid, lying or both, and takes no notice whatsoever of what he is told, is never far from the surface.
It doesn't take much on his part for it to reach the surface.
Most of us simply treat liars and idiots as what they are. And respond as rudely as they did in the first place.
Even the worst of the idiots gets given a chance. But they never take it. Once they resort to personal lies the gloves are off.
This newsgroup was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss atheist issues. Theists who respect that get treated with equivalent respect.
It was _not_ set up to "debate" prosetylisers, hell-firers, bible-thumpers etc. Their behaviour is an atheist issue, and is as appropriate as a hard liquor salesman at a recovery meeting.
The trouble is that "polite" society allows their vicious slanders and stupidity, and we are supposed to be like good little Uncle Toms.
They're not prepared for a more honest response to their rudeness and stupidity.
Tink kjgr...@comcast.net.spamno.ccom
The trolls aren't interested in honest debate, inquiry or discussion.
They have demonstrated that over and over. They are only interested in intruding into a place where they are not wanted or welcome, spreading lies, propaganda and disinformation packaged as irrefutable truth and then hurling invective when challenged and defeated. There is no reasoning with them, there is no dialogue, no discourse or debate. They are most uncivil and vile and have the gall to complain when treated with the same level of response as they emit. We should be tolerant of the stupid, but not of those who are both proud of it and willing to foist it on others.
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808 EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
wbarwell wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com
Yes, exactly like that.
This grew out of an argument with a jerk.
It amuses me to post it from time to time when the jerks wobble in to argue about what is acceptable argument about god or not.
Here in alt.atheism, we have standards.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said today that investigation into what happened to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
Matthew Isleb mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com
No, I mean you cut and pasted that without setting it up RIGHT after saying that you don't cut and paste without setting things up.
Wonderful.
| To Top |