| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Altarriba" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 05:30:44 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
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...
.
|
|
| User: "Ronin" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 07:06:05 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Soul food" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 07:59:30 PM |
|
|
Into alt.atheism shot "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:
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 ?
Probably not, but it's the only langauage most of these hate filled
bigots understand.
Is whatever pleasure we may
derive from doing so worth the costs?
I don't derive any pleasure from it, it needs to be done, however.
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.
We aren't the ones with the problem.
What effect would the trolls have if their posts were used as a
springboard for discussion, rather than a reason for anger?
They often are, just to prove the point.
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?
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.
What effect would these actions have on them, and what effect would it
have on *us* ?
From observation, absolutley none at all.
Thanks for your time...
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 08:23:39 PM |
|
|
Soul food wrote:
Into alt.atheism shot "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:
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?
I don't derive any pleasure from it, it needs to be done, however.
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 .....
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.
I see that you have a good hold on reality.
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 03:17:49 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote in part:
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?
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.
What effect would these actions have on them ...
None.
... and what effect would it have on *us* ?
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.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 07:40:28 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<...>
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 08:00:21 PM |
|
|
VoiceOfReason wrote:
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.
unless perhaps you want to use science to try to understand human
religious behavior.....
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 04:15:15 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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?
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 01:46:57 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
"Why do you hate / reject God?"
I do not reject god, I mearly find the evidence brougt forward to be
insufficient to establish the existance of one or more gods.
"The Bible is the only source of morality."
Then why do many areas of the world live in harmony with themselves and
have never interacted with the bible or bearers thereof?
"Evolutionists are just God-haters."
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.
"This is a Christian country."
Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli:: google it.
"The majority are Christians. Don't you believe in democracy?"
Sure, but our democracy does not allow the majority to subvert the
rights of the minority. Majority rules, minority rights.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 11:36:24 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 12:11:51 AM |
|
|
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
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,
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.
but also Christians have stereotypes of how atheists behave.
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.
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.
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.
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
Shane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 12:12:50 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
All those Christians and other theists who believe in evolution will
be highly surprised to hear this.
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 10:09:49 AM |
|
|
Richard Smol wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
All those Christians and other theists who believe in evolution will
be highly surprised to hear this.
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 assumption of Atheism was taken as a given by many, perhaps most of
those who reject evolutionary theory. False and annoying, but true...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 12:21:57 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
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.
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...
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Isleb" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 02:07:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:21:57 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts,
from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 03:23:24 AM |
|
|
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:21:57 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts,
from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
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
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 assertions.
3. An unproven assertion is the equal of any other
equally likely unproven assertion.
4. Not all assertions 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 assumptions,
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 assertion, burden to prove
that assertion falls on the shoulders of the person
making that assertion.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Isleb" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 09:55:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:23:24 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:21:57 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts,
from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
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
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.
You mean like this?...
RULES OF ATHEISM
1. Logic, reason and rationalty are not optional.
2. Facts out rank assertions.
3. An unproven assertion is the equal of any other
equally likely unproven assertion.
4. Not all assertions 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 assumptions,
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 assertion, burden to prove
that assertion falls on the shoulders of the person
making that assertion.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 06:26:28 PM |
|
|
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:23:24 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:21:57 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts,
from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
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
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.
You mean like this?...
RULES OF ATHEISM
1. Logic, reason and rationalty are not optional.
2. Facts out rank assertions.
3. An unproven assertion is the equal of any other
equally likely unproven assertion.
4. Not all assertions 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 assumptions,
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 assertion, burden to prove
that assertion falls on the shoulders of the person
making that assertion.
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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Isleb" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
15 Oct 2005 12:30:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:26:28 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:23:24 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
Matthew Isleb wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:21:57 -0500, wbarwell wrote:
I usually spam back. I have dozens of little canned posts,
from bible contradictions to basic proofs god cannot exist.
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
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.
You mean like this?...
RULES OF ATHEISM
1. Logic, reason and rationalty are not optional.
2. Facts out rank assertions.
3. An unproven assertion is the equal of any other
equally likely unproven assertion.
4. Not all assertions 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 assumptions,
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 assertion, burden to prove
that assertion falls on the shoulders of the person
making that assertion.
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.
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.
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.
Here in alt.atheism, we have standards.
Wonderful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SortingItOut" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 10:51:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
What effect would these actions have on them, and what effect would it
have on *us* ?
Thanks for your time...
Thanks for your post...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Guillory" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 07:17:41 AM |
|
|
"SortingItOut" <eriley@home.com> wrote in message
news:1129261879.419889.130650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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.
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.
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
13 Oct 2005 06:59:38 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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* ?
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 11:04:11 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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... 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 ***** like it
is, but inquiring minds want to know... ;) )
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 12:30:08 PM |
|
|
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig wrote:
Michael Altarriba wrote:
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... 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 ***** like it
is, but inquiring minds want to know... ;) )
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 passionate 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 associate 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>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, Evolution, and anger management... |
14 Oct 2005 02:47:46 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2005 15:30:44 -0700, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com>
wrote:
We've heard it a million times before...
"Why do you hate / reject God?"
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.
"The Bible is the only source of morality."
A blatant falsehood, usually perpetrated by those who must think that
lying to the faces of those they religiously harass, is moral.
"Evolutionists are just God-haters."
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.
"This is a Christian country."
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.
"The majority are Christians. Don't you believe in democracy?"
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 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.
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.
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.
Most of us simply treat liars and idiots as what they are. And respond
as rudely as they did in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
