| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Samir Ribic" |
| Date: |
19 May 2004 05:16:47 AM |
| Object: |
Trolls are welcome |
The main use of this newsgroup, for me, is to learn how to defend my
atheistic viewpoint against attack of the preachers. Previously often
occured that I had not good answer to them, mainly because some theist
questions were not expected and I did not previously think about it at
all.
Reading different troll postings I can see many smart answers (and
many, not so smart, F**K OFF insults) even when posting is not smart
enough.
That is reason, I think, that we should not introduce moderating to
this group.
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Trolls are welcome |
19 May 2004 11:05:28 AM |
|
|
"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0405190216.72e78e2c@posting.google.com...
The main use of this newsgroup, for me, is to learn how to defend my
atheistic viewpoint against attack of the preachers. Previously often
occured that I had not good answer to them, mainly because some theist
questions were not expected and I did not previously think about it at
all.
Reading different troll postings I can see many smart answers (and
many, not so smart, F**K OFF insults) even when posting is not smart
enough.
That is reason, I think, that we should not introduce moderating to
this group.
I think a moderator would cause more problems
than it might solve.
I employ local moderating.
I plonk trolls who won't answer a simple question or
are otherwise dishonest.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Trolls are welcome |
19 May 2004 09:41:09 AM |
|
|
"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0405190216.72e78e2c@posting.google.com...
The main use of this newsgroup, for me, is to learn how to defend my
atheistic viewpoint against attack of the preachers. Previously often
occured that I had not good answer to them, mainly because some theist
questions were not expected and I did not previously think about it at
all.
Since you stated you're here to learn how to defend your position against
theistic arguments, I'm assuming you don't have much experience debating
with Christians. I can't really suggest any answers without knowing the
questions they're asking, but I think I can help by pointing out some of the
more common flaws in most arguments for the existence of God. Once you know
how to spot these fallacies and refute them, you'll have your opponents so
far off balance they won't have time to toss out any trick questions. <G>
Most theistic arguments, no matter how well crafted or how persuasively
worded, are based on the same few logical fallacies. The following list is
far from complete, but these, in my experience, form the basis of the
majority of arguments for the existence of God. I call them, with tongue
firmly in cheek, the Seven Deadly Sins of Christian apologetics.
1) appeal to force (if you don't believe in God you'll suffer eternal
punishment. Attempts to win points by the threat of dire consequences for
failure to believe rather than by building a logical case for belief)
2) argument from incredulity (I don't believe the universe could have "just
happened", therefore God exists. A fallacy because whether or not you
believe something has nothing to do with whether it's true or false)
3) argument from ignorance (I don't understand how this could have happened
naturally, therefore God must have done it. Fallacious because the inability
to understand how something could have happened without intelligent guidance
doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have. If you don't understand how your
computer works, does that mean God is inside that little case making
everything happen? <G>)
4) false analogy (i.e. Paley's watchmaker. Argues for the existence of God
by comparing living organisms to man-made objects and then arguing that
since the watch (or car or whatever) could not have created itself, life,
which is far more complex than any machine, must have had a creator as well.
William Dembski's "Intelligent Design" argument is nothing more than a
modern variation of Bishop Paley's long since refuted watchmaker)
5) appeal to popularity (most people believe in God, therefore he must
exist. Fallacious because the number of people who believe a thing to be
true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is true)
6) ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument. A fallacy
because attacks on a person's character have nothing to do with the
validity of his argument)
7) assuming the conclusion, aka begging the question (i.e. God exists
because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the Word of
God. Here we must assume God exists in order to believe the Bible is his
word. Also often referred to as 'circular reasoning')
It isn't at all uncommon for an apologetic to be based on multiple
fallacies, but once you know what to look for, they're fairly easy to spot
and refute. Another common one is the false dilemma, or false dichotomy (aka
the "excluded middle", for example Pascal's Wager), but I've left that one
out because to my mind it's less an argument as to why God must exist as an
argument as to why you should *believe* God exists, which I don't see as the
same thing.
And remember, the burden of proof is on them, not you, and proof is
something they don't have. Also, when they hit you with the trick questions,
remember that "I don't know" is an honest answer. "God did it" is not.
Reading different troll postings I can see many smart answers (and
many, not so smart, F**K OFF insults) even when posting is not smart
enough.
All a troll deserves is to be insulted or ignored.
That is reason, I think, that we should not introduce moderating to
this group.
I don't think there are any plans for that. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Trolls are welcome |
19 May 2004 09:57:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:16:47 -0700 in episode
<f9e33c87.0405190216.72e78e2c@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba (Samir Ribic):
The main use of this newsgroup, for me, is to learn how to defend my
atheistic viewpoint against attack of the preachers. Previously often
occured that I had not good answer to them, mainly because some theist
questions were not expected and I did not previously think about it at
all.
Reading different troll postings I can see many smart answers (and many,
not so smart, F**K OFF insults) even when posting is not smart enough.
That is reason, I think, that we should not introduce moderating to this
group.
There was an alt.atheism.moderated. It died.
You know, alt.atheism (IIRC) came into being about '91. The trolling
started at the very beginning. It's over a decade later and the periodic
waves of trolls haven't put a dent in alt.atheism. It's a thriving ng. One
of *the *biggest on Usenet in terms of message traffic.
Yeah, it's chaotic. But it works. It's a successful example of...
something. <G>
There are plenty of moderated forums around. I suspect we have more than
enough of those. There is, however, only one alt.atheism...
(Anyway, if you're big on a moderated ng, you could try to find out what
the hell happened with alt.atheism.moderated... maybe it needs someone to
pick up the reigns and get it going again... I don't know)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Finally, we're reaching true equality in our schools.
NOBODY is getting an education...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
