Trolling Tide Turning? God-people trolling

Gordon

Is it just me that's noticing a lot more religious folk troll atheists these days?

example

I remember some years ago, Christianity forums were trolled by Atheists quite a bit, and the religious folk didn't seem to enter into atheist discussions except to try their hand at converting people, but it's different now. I'm getting the impression that religious folk are getting a bit annoyed at the swell of atheism in the recent years, and are trying to bite back by doing a bit of the auld trolling (like above).

I think it's quite a significant marker to be honest, in a way I'm really chuffed that this shift has happened, as it's just one more step closer to religion disappearing off the planet

Is it just me that's been thinking this?

Sarky

Well, they're certainly trying.

But so far it's ended up like any phenomenon that religious folk try to co-opt. Like with Christian Rock, there's something missing from Christian Trolling. Let's call it "soul", for the sake of, ahem, argument.

Gordon

They god no soul in their troll eh?!

philologos

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

Gordon

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Trolling. Check the link I gave above

philologos

The word is often bandied around, and I've seen the link posted above. You've claimed that this was common rather than once off. I just want to understand better what you mean.

ed2hands

That wasn't trolling though. Taken up wrong more like..

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

This is a good example.
It was clearly set up to get a bit of a rage fest going, link to prove how wrong he was etc and was not set up to the purpose the OP claimed was it's reason.

There was already a few threads up at the time he could of posted on, but intentionally chose to make a thread he knew would get a stronger reaction.

e.g trolling.

Zombrex

ed2hands wrote: »

That wasn't trolling though. Taken up wrong more like..

Yeah I'm in too minds about whether Anti meant the phrase as it came across.

From previous discussions with him I would imagine not.

We certainly do have some genuine trolls though, and I would say to anyone on this forum the same thing I would say on the Christian forum, you don't have to answer them unless you want to.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Anti's post, particularly the taking Christ out of Xmas bit, was taken as a slightly snide or double sided complement.

Bit like me saying "To all those who wish atheist would go to hell, a merry Christmas"

Now, I'm not sure Anti meant it like that, but as it came across it certainly seemed a bit trollish.

Sarky

Gordon wrote: »

They god no soul in their troll eh?!

To be perfectly honest, I don't think many of them really believe in trolling. They just go through the motions, but that special something is just missing from it, and can't be copied by a non-believer.

Poor guys.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

In horrible places like Uganda. But wait, they do bad things so they aren't proper Christians.... but we're growing!!!!

edit: Now THAT's trollin'!

philologos

Christians in Uganda are Christians in Uganda. Some may have the wrong idea about forcing all those around them to believe everything, that tends to have disastrous results, rather than recognising that Christianity is a grass-roots movement people try to make Christianity a political entity.

Indeed, that's trollin', but I'm not going to take the bait sir! :pac:

Galvasean

The murdering of homosexuls in Uganda is purely a political entity. Nothin' to do with the Bible so?

RichieC

not new. anyone who follows science news and watches science videos on youtubr knows they get into the comments and destroy any useful discussions with their anti science rubbish.

philologos

The political demonisation of LGBT people in Uganda is a distortion of the Christian gospel. Jesus died for our sins, why on earth would I or any other Christian have the authority to put anyone else to death as a result. Any Christian I feel who would be advocating this view needs to be reminded of Christ's grace.

Dades

Gordon wrote: »

Is it just me that's noticing a lot more religious folk troll atheists these days?

I'm not sure I've seen a big increase recently. There's a few regulars that have been cropping up in the last couple of years.

Adds a certain 'balance' to the place in that freedom of speech is seen to be given to all.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Yeah I'm in too minds about whether Anti meant the phrase as it came across.

Thank you for your vote of confidence



Let me elaborate..

Joyeux Noel was a film about an incident in World War 1, where opposing sides laid down arms for a Christmas truce so as to share something that is more important and vital that whatever the momentary struggle happens to be - namely, their shared humanity.

In that case, WW1 was the momentary struggle. In our case, it's a war of words concerning worldviews.

In that context, there should be no issue with labelling collective-you as those who would seek to take Christ out of Christmas. The death of religion and the secularisation of society is a repeated stated focus of very many in this forum afterall.

Notwithstanding that stated of aim of collective-yours, one which I seek to oppose, I can, in a moment of laying down of arms, wish peace be upon collective-you too. It's only a momentary thing - we'll be back in business before too long.

Gordon wrote:

Is it just me that's noticing a lot more religious folk troll atheists these days?

Set your antennae to 'subtlety detection' and you might avoid spamming the forum with false troll alerts. (this statement being an example of an actual Trollism)

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

Set your antennae to 'subtlety detection' and you might avoid spamming the forum with false troll alerts.

Happy Holidays ..
..to all who would shove Christ down our throats at this time of year. In the hope that there will peace on earth for you all too at this time..

robindch

Gordon wrote: »

I'm getting the impression that religious folk are getting a bit annoyed at the swell of atheism in the recent years, and are trying to bite back

That's true, but I think the reason lies elsewhere.

From my interactions Here and There over the last six/seven years, I believe that the religions are losing most heavily (at least in rich countries with high levels of education) from the ranks of what might be termed the "idle middle", the people who deem themselves religious mostly for social reasons. This leaves, I believe, people with more extreme religious views, who, now lacking the social inertia provided by what was the idle middle, have formed successively more cohesive ingroups which provide fertile grounds for feeding In-group–out-group bias, Collective narcissism and other unhealthy social traits. These fragmentary groups are likely to continue to shrink, as their beliefs become more and more self-centered and untenable.

One side-effect of this tendency towards extremism is an increased sense of the necessity for propagation, for outgroup persecution (qv, Dana's bullet-ridden car tyre) etc. Another side effect of this lack of social restraint, is that small, unhinged religious groupings, such as the 9/11 hijackers, are going to continue to engage in what I suppose could be referred to, drily, as "indiscriminate high-profile actions". I think it was in Algeria, where one group of religious extremists determined that every citizen in the state was an apostate and cheerfully murdered as they wished (up until, AFAIR, they imploded when one group member realized that everybody else in the group was an apostate, and killed the lot).

Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares discusses some of the above, although not generally in these terms.

lmaopml

Atheists have pretty much always existed, it's not a new phenomena to be an atheist or somebody who asks questions etc. The new generation are nothing more than the new generation, the same way as those of faith are the next generation in faith. One of the most quoted atheists seems to be Epicurus, among the new generation of atheists who has been made popular due to the next generations recent writings.

Trolling is nothing new either, it's something that arose with the freedom of speech that the internet allows - It's a fine art trying to recognise it though, and the term is thrown about far too freely imo too.

Sonics2k

lmaopml wrote: »

Atheists have pretty much always existed, it's not a new phenomena to be an atheist or somebody who asks questions etc. The new generation are nothing more than the new generation, the same way as those of faith are the next generation in faith. One of the most quoted atheists seems to be Epicurus, among the new generation of atheists who has been made popular due to the next generations recent writings.

Trolling is nothing new either, it's something that arose with the freedom of speech that the internet allows - It's a fine art trying to recognise it though, and the term is thrown about far too freely imo too.

I will admit the amount of people willing to admit to being Atheist/Agnostic has greatly increased over the last few decades.

As education has grown, science has progressed and the world has moved on, people have learned to question various beliefs they or their parents had. Noticed the similarities between numerous religions, but are sceptical about the fact even they can't really agree on anything.

It's hard for me personally, to accept something as true, when even the people preaching it argue with each other about it.
That and frankly, most holy books make no real sense.

lmaopml

Perhaps the amount of people willing to admit being atheist now is greater Sonic, that's probably to be expected along with so many things, alongside this imo so too has a type of pop style proselytising - and I don't mean to cause offense to the residents of the forum, but imo this is true too.

I have nothing against people questioning and finding out who they are, I think that's good. I think it's a pretty cool age to live in.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The political demonisation of LGBT people in Uganda is a distortion of the Christian gospel. Jesus died for our sins, why on earth would I or any other Christian have the authority to put anyone else to death as a result. Any Christian I feel who would be advocating this view needs to be reminded of Christ's grace.

The only problem with that is the Christian doctrine of removing those who sin from your society.

Now don't get me wrong, what is happening in places like Uganda is still a gross distortion of what Paul was talking about. But that is part of the problem. Paul thought the end times were upon us. These are not plans for living century to century. Or to put it another way, Paul was not thinking how are centuries of people going to act on my words.

Unfortunately the idea that the presence of sinful behaviour will corrupt others to sin, and thus people must be shielded and protected from exposure to this sinful behaviour, is something found throughout Christian history, and even today in the West is used to justify sanctions against the acceptance of homosexuality in society.

It is taken to a murderous extreme in places like Uganda, far beyond anything I believe Paul would have sanctioned. But teaching this sort of seperationist dogma and then expecting that no one takes it that far is naive in my mind.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The political demonisation of LGBT people in Uganda is a distortion of the Christian gospel.

Nonetheless it happens.

A few days back, AFAIR, you said that you were not concerned by what christianity produced in practice -- is this still the case?

Cicero

Trolling goes back to the time of Ancient Greece- it was known back then as sophistry. Socrates was accused of (wrongly) and ultimately put to death for, being a sophist.

A sophist is someone who, through clever use of language and rhetoric, decieves others into believing fallacy.
I imagine the accusation of sophistry rides high against Christians in this forum, but I've no doubt the accusation exists equally towards athieists in the Christian forum too.

The modern definition of a sophist is one who manipulates the opponents Prejudices and emotions to overcome their logical fallacies- which I would say is as pretty close to a troll definition as you can get...

But it could be argued that this is also the over riding feeling you get when an Athiest and Christian come head to head on a discussion forum.

dixiefly

Gordon wrote: »

Is it just me that's noticing a lot more religious folk troll atheists these days?

example

I think it's quite a significant marker to be honest, in a way I'm really chuffed that this shift has happened, as it's just one more step closer to religion disappearing off the planet

Wow!
You attempt to conclude from a thread written to wish seasons greetings that religion is finally on the way out. The words jumping to conclusions spring to mind!

Is this not the kind of approach to making a conclusion based on tenuous information that atheists have a big problem with?

Also, if you had a problem with the other thread could you not just post your points on that thread?

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Unfortunately the idea that the presence of sinful behaviour will corrupt others to sin, and thus people must be shielded and protected from exposure to this sinful behaviour, is something found throughout Christian history, and even today in the West is used to justify sanctions against the acceptance of homosexuality in society.

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

That men distort God's truth and wisdom (for his people) unto monasticism or the actions of those in Nigeria is the fault of men. Not God's truth.

Your argument might hold for one who supposes the bible just another political manifesto. But to suppose God's desire for his people should bow to the sin-bent tendencies of men?

That's a failure to understand the overarching purpose and authority and holiness of God (even for the sake of discussion).

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

And how does one "excise" the depraved?

MrP

Sonics2k

MrPudding wrote: »

And how does one "excise" the depraved?

MrP

What people like antiskeptic want to believe is this.

If it's good, then it's God's good grace.
If it's bad, then it's Man's fault.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

Well yes, that is the point. Some of the blame for this sort of behaviour rests on the Bible.

For example, when the Oregon School Board fire a teacher for being gay they are not distorting the message of the Bible. They are in fact following it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That men distort God's truth and wisdom (for his people) unto monasticism or the actions of those in Nigeria is the fault of men. Not God's truth.

Well God doesn't exist, so I agree we cannot blame him for this

We can though critically look at how separationist dogma leads, unsurprisingly, to people being separated and persecuted. Christians may say something like "Oh its ok, it is what God wants so it is fine" but that, needless to say, means nothing to me or a great deal of people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your argument might hold for one who supposes the bible just another political manifesto. But to suppose God's desire for his people should bow to the sin-bent tendencies of men?

That is again the point, the authors of the Bible didn't want their fellow Jews or Christians to tolerate sinful behaviour. They wanted it removed, often violently, from society so that it would not corrupt others.

Sarky

How awful, to never be able to take credit for your successes. If you keep it up long enough it must surely case all sorts of insecurity issues.

philologos

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society. That would be more Pharasaic. Also, Paul never encourages Christianity as a dominating force in civil politics, but rather as a grass-roots movement which works within civil society. This is evident in a number of passages. Christ died to save sinners (1 Timothy 1, Romans 5), not to exclude them from living.

robindch: No, I didn't. I said that Christianity didn't produce it. There's a difference. There's no need to make a habit of intentionally taking my posts out of context

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society.

Well, if your sin is to have children out of wedlock, it seems not to long ago this is basically what a certain Christian establishment did in Ireland, not so long ago.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Well, if your sin is to have children out of wedlock, it seems not to long ago this is basically what a certain Christian establishment did in Ireland, not so long ago.

And you expect me to defend this, why? The same response that applies to Uganda also applies in that context as far as I see it.

It takes people on boards.ie a long time to realise this - I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel. Institutions and whatever else have you aren't my consideration. I'm the wrong man to ask to be an apologist for the RCC and of many other churches.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Christianity is about encouraging people to abandon sin, not to remove sinners from civil society.

Well no, it is about both those things.

As Anti points out it is in keeping with the message of the Old Testament to remove sin, often by death (in the Old Testament, not suggesting the NT tells people to kill sinners, but in both the emphasis is on the removal of the corrupting influence of sinners) from the community.

The issue, as I stated above, is that when Paul is instructing people to remove themselves from the presence of sinners to avoid corrupting themselves this was in a time when Christianity was tiny. That act meant becoming insular and waiting for the (soon to come) apocalypse.

I very much doubt Paul gave much thought to how his instructions would be interpreted when huge areas of society would be Christian and the sinners would be the persecuted minority, not the other way around.

The problem of course is when instructions are taken as, well, gospel.

philologos wrote: »

Also, Paul never encourages Christianity as a dominating force in civil politics, but rather as a grass-roots movement which works within civil society.

Well yes, that is my point. Paul never thought about Christianity as a dominating force in society because you were all supposed to be in heaven by now.

The instructions Paul gave only make much sense in terms of a small cult like system, and are in fact common among cults.

Firstly isolate yourselves from the corrupting influences of the outside world.
Secondly invite those who are willing to repent to join your group.
Lastly remove those who continue to sin lest their corrupt spreads and causes others to sin.

Basically bunker down and wait for the end times.

The problem of course is that when the end times don't come people start re-interpreting these passages to apply to a wider society when Christianity has become the primary religion of society and instead of an insular small cult you have a whole society trying to figure out how to remove sin from their group (which now is basically all of society)

philologos wrote: »

This is evident in a number of passages. Christ died to save sinners (1 Timothy 1, Romans 5), not to exclude them from living.

Anyone can come into the religion. But you must be in the religion. Outsiders who have not repented, who have not accepted the religion, are to be shunned lest their continuous sinful behaviour corrupts others.

You mention the Pharisee, but the difference between them was not the shunning of sinners. It was that the Pharisee's offered no hope of entering the religion, no hope of redemption.

This is what was appealing about Christianity, that you could seek redemption, it wasn't an exclusive club that most could not join.

But you still had to join. And once you did you were part of the group. But if you didn't then you were someone to be preached to but not associated with.

Sam Vimes

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Yes of course he calls any criticism of atheism trolling :rolleyes:

ffs don't you ever get sick of straw manning

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

The political demonisation of LGBT people in Uganda is a distortion of the Christian gospel. Jesus died for our sins, why on earth would I or any other Christian have the authority to put anyone else to death as a result. Any Christian I feel who would be advocating this view needs to be reminded of Christ's grace.

only in uganda? what about here and in the states?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel. Institutions and whatever else have you aren't my consideration.

You haven't explained why you debate your religious views, but refuse to debate their inevitable consequences.

philologos wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

It takes people on boards.ie a long time to realise this

On the contrary, people do realize that it's your position and rightly call you out on it.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, that is the point. Some of the blame for this sort of behaviour rests on the Bible.

For example, when the Oregon School Board fire a teacher for being gay they are not distorting the message of the Bible. They are in fact following it.

The first thing you must estabish is your hierarchy. Paul is addressing a specific group of people: Christians. That is: those in Christ (and who have signed up to what that means) vs. those not in Christ (and who haven't signed up to what that means)

If the OSB and the teacher are both Christians (in the God/Paulian sense of the word) and matter is a church one (and we are assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the teacher is a practicising homosexual) then they (the OSB) would indeed appear to be following the NT teaching. What of it?

If the situation is other (either the OSB and/or the teacher aren't Christians (in the God/Paulian) sense of the word then that's another matter. The Christian (OSB) might, for example, might prefer to withhold a position from the non-Christian gay teacher based on his being a practicing homosexual rather than his being a disobedient Christian.

Well God doesn't exist, so I agree we cannot blame him for this

We can though critically look at how separationist dogma leads, unsurprisingly, to people being separated and persecuted. Christians may say something like "Oh its ok, it is what God wants so it is fine" but that, needless to say, means nothing to me or a great deal of people.

That's okay. But you were addressing your arguments at someone who believes there is a guiding truth that is other than the truth this person, that person or the other person adheres to.

When you say 'critical' you are really only saying "according to the truth as I and others like me see it". This can't be expected to hold any kind of universal sway.

I appreciate that all our discussions will boil down so but at least let's recognise it and not go pretending to build 'objective' sounding points on our relative positions.

That is again the point, the authors of the Bible didn't want their fellow Jews or Christians to tolerate sinful behaviour. They wanted it removed, often violently, from society so that it would not corrupt others.

Again, the lack of common ground scuppers both our arguments. For instance, the authors of the bible drew a distinction between Christian (a.k.a. spiritual 'Jew') and non-Christian (Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc). And between OT and NT. It's nigh on impossible to discuss with one who draws lines otherwise - for example, by throwing OT and NT into the one pot.

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

What is trolling in your view? Is it simply criticising atheism or something more?

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

Unfortunately, it looks like it will stay around for quite a while. It's a bit like the poor, who it seems will always be with us.:rolleyes: All the more reason for us to expose its falsehoods and fallacies whenever and wherever we can.

However, the parts of the world where christianity is growing most are quite backward in other respects as well - really not too far removed from bone-in-the-nose superstition. Africa is a good example. With so little progress and development there, no real democracy, widespread corruption and crushing poverty, it is hardly surprising that with little hope of improvement in this world, people delude themselves that they will have a better life with the sky fairy when they get to the big paradise in the sky.;)


As for the god-botherers trolling, there is no doubt that some of them try it on, but they rarely succeed in fooling many people. For that they would need imagination, and who needs imagination when you have the whole sky fairy story in great detail laid out for you and all you have to do is blindly believe it?:D

robindch

philologos wrote: »

robindch: No, I didn't. I said that Christianity didn't produce it. There's a difference.

You claim that the more religious a society is, the fewer social problems there are.

While selective readings of certain religious texts and religious believers might claim otherwise, all independent available evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

Why don't you investigate the evidence before making up your mind?

sephir0th

But they're not true Christians!

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first thing you must estabish is your hierarchy. Paul is addressing a specific group of people: Christians. That is: those in Christ (and who have signed up to what that means) vs. those not in Christ (and who haven't signed up to what that means)

If the OSB and the teacher are both Christians (in the God/Paulian sense of the word) and matter is a church one (and we are assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the teacher is a practicising homosexual) then they (the OSB) would indeed appear to be following the NT teaching. What of it?

If the situation is other (either the OSB and/or the teacher aren't Christians (in the God/Paulian) sense of the word then that's another matter. The Christian (OSB) might, for example, might prefer to withhold a position from the non-Christian gay teacher based on his being a practicing homosexual rather than his being a disobedient Christian.

Well yes, again that is the point. Firing the teacher for being gay and not wanting his gayness to corrupt the children of the school is perfectly in line with Christian teaching according to a lot of Christians (obvious it is impossible to verify what is or isn't the 'true' or 'correct' interpretation of any Bible passage, so we are left with how Christians act based on these passages).

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's okay. But you were addressing your arguments at someone who believes there is a guiding truth that is other than the truth this person, that person or the other person adheres to.

When you say 'critical' you are really only saying "according to the truth as I and others like me see it". This can't be expected to hold any kind of universal sway.

Well no, we all (I would imagine) in this example see the school teacher getting fired. I hope this isn't going to turn into another But how do we know the teacher really got fired, how do we know the teacher even exists discussion, we have one of those going on in another thread

antiskeptic wrote: »

I appreciate that all our discussions will boil down so but at least let's recognise it and not go pretending to build 'objective' sounding points on our relative positions.

The current employment status of the teacher is not relative. Neither for that matter is the status of a gay Ugandan (ie living or dead)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, the lack of common ground scuppers both our arguments. For instance, the authors of the bible drew a distinction between Christian (a.k.a. spiritual 'Jew') and non-Christian (Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc). And between OT and NT. It's nigh on impossible to discuss with one who draws lines otherwise - for example, by throwing OT and NT into the one pot.

You threw them into the one pot, I was merely agreeing with you.

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

The methods are different, the theme is the same.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You claim that the more religious a society is, the fewer social problems there are.

Where did I say that? - What I do say, is if people follow Jesus earnestly, one can see dramatic changes in peoples lives. If everyone followed Him, then yes, I believe the world would be a significantly better place to live in.

robindch wrote: »

While selective readings of certain religious texts and religious believers might claim otherwise, all independent available evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

Again, given that I've not even made that claim I don't see what the basis for this post is. People can be "religious" yet do what is completely immoral. Reading one of the Gospels will tell you that much. If I was to sum up my sentiments:

James 1:26-27 wrote:

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

robindch wrote: »

Why don't you investigate the evidence before making up your mind?

Evidence for what claim? - I don't defend corrupt institutions and I don't see why you are so insistent that I do given that all I claim to advocate is Biblical Christianity.

Ellis Dee: And the claim that I blindly believe it simply isn't true given how much thought I actually put in to becoming a follower of Jesus. It's amazing the stereotypes that anti-theists like you like to whip up about people like me.

Gordon

ed2hands wrote: »

That wasn't trolling though. Taken up wrong more like..

Your opinion, my opinion more like.. My opinion and years of watching out for trolls, banning trolls, and even in some cases in my past: being a troll, states that the linked post is a troll, this is a fact in my opinion. Although my sensitivities on the global trolling is something I'm open minded about, as I mentioned in my first post (please read it if you haven't).

RichieC wrote: »

not new. anyone who follows science news and watches science videos on youtubr knows they get into the comments and destroy any useful discussions with their anti science rubbish.

That happens on both sides though, no? But I haven't noticed a great deal of religious trolling, meself.

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure I've seen a big increase recently. There's a few regulars that have been cropping up in the last couple of years.

Adds a certain 'balance' to the place in that freedom of speech is seen to be given to all.

Indeed, I'm not doubting that! Interesting to see you haven't seen an increase, maybe it's just me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Set your antennae to 'subtlety detection' and you might avoid spamming the forum with false troll alerts. (this statement being an example of an actual Trollism)

Haw haw!

robindch wrote: »

One side-effect of this tendency towards extremism is an increased sense of the necessity for propagation, for outgroup persecution (qv, Dana's bullet-ridden car tyre) etc. Another side effect of this lack of social restraint, is that small, unhinged religious groupings, such as the 9/11 hijackers, are going to continue to engage in what I suppose could be referred to, drily, as "indiscriminate high-profile actions". I think it was in Algeria, where one group of religious extremists determined that every citizen in the state was an apostate and cheerfully murdered as they wished (up until, AFAIR, they imploded when one group member realized that everybody else in the group was an apostate, and killed the lot).

Interesting! Do you reckon that there is never to be an escape from extremism? The further something's half-life reduces the whole, the closer it gets to imploding in a hail of extremism?

dixiefly wrote: »

Wow!
You attempt to conclude from a thread written to wish seasons greetings that religion is finally on the way out. The words jumping to conclusions spring to mind!

Wow!

I fear the hopscotch over to Conclusion Land has been enacted by your fair self dixiefly. My opening post stated that I felt I noticed a rise in trolling by religious people. Maybe I didn't clarify enough, I mean, on boards and web forums in general. I've seen (on boards.ie) posts on Feedback and Afterhours by more religious people in the past year than I remember last year, and the years before. It's a trend that I have noticed personally, globally, on the internet arenas that I frequent.

Is this not the kind of approach to making a conclusion based on tenuous information that atheists have a big problem with?

I refer you to your tenuous hopscotch links above. I have no idea what your agglomerative collective of 'atheists' have a problem with, is there a big book that atheists adhere to or something?

Also, if you had a problem with the other thread could you not just post your points on that thread?

I would be thread spoiling, as, if you had read my opening post fully you'd see that I'm noticing a trend generally, I'm not specifying one thread in order to jump to conclusions, I gave an example.

philologos wrote: »

I only defend one thing on boards.ie - That's the Gospel.

I totally respect that dude.

sephir0th wrote: »

But they're not true Christians!

But they're not truly trolling!

the_dark_side

as a former Troll, I used to comment in the Spirituality forums and generally make a pest of myself in the name of atheism, but since I joined Trolls Anonymous I have now ironically, discovered God . After spending some time abroad I am now cringing as I read over some of what I used to post on boards. I know I have also caused considerable embarresment to one friend in particular whos pc I was using
Anyways, all is forgotten now and I am using my time to spread some positivity and good. And my biggest regret is the endless hours I spent on boards, which was a sinful waste of my time.

Peace to all.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes, again that is the point. Firing the teacher for being gay and not wanting his gayness to corrupt the children of the school is perfectly in line with Christian teaching according to a lot of Christians (obvious it is impossible to verify what is or isn't the 'true' or 'correct' interpretation of any Bible passage, so we are left with how Christians act based on these passages).

As I say, what of it (assuming the firer is a Christian grouping and the firee either a Christian/non-Christian considered to be promoting the idea that gayness is okay)?

Well no, we all (I would imagine) in this example see the school teacher getting fired. I hope this isn't going to turn into another But how do we know the teacher really got fired, how do we know the teacher even exists discussion, we have one of those going on in another thread

I suppose I don't see the issue yet.

The current employment status of the teacher is not relative. Neither for that matter is the status of a gay Ugandan (ie living or dead)

What is relative is whether firing someone who has an influence on kids or someone getting killed because of their gayness is a bad or good thing.

I don't see the former as necessarily a bad thing (in the context of church discipline is it fine - whether the person is an 'unrepentent' gay Christian or an 'unrepentant' gay non-Christian) and the latter as always bad

You threw them into the one pot, I was merely agreeing with you.

God's interest in separating his people from depravity runs as strongly under the new convenant as it did when mirrored by the old. In the old he wiped out nations, in the new he instructs those who wilfully engage in depravity be excised. For the good of the flock.

The methods are different, the theme is the same.

True. Holiness, holiness uber alles.

Sonics2k

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, what of it (assuming the firer is a Christian grouping and the firee either a Christian/non-Christian considered to be promoting the idea that gayness is okay)?

It's called bigotry, hate and homophobia.

Actually quite recently a teacher was fired from a school for being gay here in Ireland. This person had never officially come out to the school officials, and the students didn't know. But he was sighted with his partner of numerous years, holding hands walking around doing shopping.

What happened to "Jesus loves everyone".

yawha

philologos wrote: »

Given that Christianity is growing worldwide - I wouldn't say it's disappearing just yet by any means.

Is the number of people just calling themselves Christians growing, or is the number of genuine Christians increasing? (e.g. given how Ugandan Christians appear to be, as you say, distorting the message of the gospel, growth of the numbers of people calling themselves Christians in Uganda can hardly be counted in any meaningful statistic about the growth of Christianity worldwide.)

Sonics2k

yawha wrote: »

Is the number of people just calling themselves Christians growing, or is the number of genuine Christians increasing? (e.g. given how Ugandan Christians appear to be, as you say, distorting the message of the gospel, growth of the numbers of people calling themselves Christians in Uganda can hardly be counted in any meaningful statistic about the growth of Christianity worldwide.)

It does amuse me they claim that the religion is growing, but also claim the places where it is mainly growing (most of Africa) aren't 'proper' Christians.