What if God is real but quiet to max out your free choices?

[Hermit]

What is a troll?

There is a tendency to regard authors of opinions you disagree with as trolls. In reality trolls are far and few between. The only dead set troll I can think of who has posted in this forum went by the name of Chuck Jones and several other aliases. He actually boasted about his trolling exploits at the now defunct forum called Flame Warriors, and asked for advice in regard to how and where else he could upset people, but he was harmless - just like everyone else who is commonly perceived to be a troll here.

[Brian Peacock]

I remember Chuck. I always assumed he had mental health issues (and that's not to belittle anyone who does). I found his posting silly rather than egregious.

[Hermit]

He was the internet version of the stereotypical class clown - constantly stirring the pot with his tongue for his own gratification and the attention he got from it, yet essentially harmless because of his intellectual, emotional and physical stuntedness. I thought of him as one of those toy dog sized, yappy terriers, simultaneously faintly irritating, mildly amusing and kind of cute. Other forum members were seriously upset by his very presence and actually demanded that he be banned. After a suspension or two he got bored with us and left on his own accord.

[laklak]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

Yep, a method to catch pelagic fish. You generally have several lines in the water, sometimes with outriggers to keep them apart and prevent them tangling. Then you idle forward slowly. People often confuse this with trawling, which is also a low-speed fishing method, but uses a cone shaped net. Trolling is more environmentally friendly as it catches individual fish, whereas a trawl net (see below) catches all sorts of shit.

[mistermack]

You can troll for lake fish too, from a small boat.
I've done it myself many times, using a small spinner and rowing around gently on Lough Mask in Connemara. Caught some pretty special trout and perch, on that lake.

It's a lazy way of spending a sunny afternoon, with the chance of something nice for tea.

[laklak]

It's certainly a relaxing way to spend the day. But if you're hungry and a bit pressed for time then dynamite fishing is the way forward.

[Brian Peacock]

My father was the owner of a light-engineering retail and distribution outlet specialising in marine transmissions and drive train, and a 'trolling valve' was a device for slipping the clutch on a gearbox to reduce the rotational speed of the prop.

So is what we're saying is that a forum 'Troll' is someone who slowly saunters through a discussion baiting and snagging small fry too lazy, stupid or clumsey to get out of their way?

[Seth]

And yet you zealously defend the religious against being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed.

No I don't, I merely point out the hypocrisy and irrationality involved.

You say that it's futile to make proclamations about supernatural entities but what-ifs are okay because they drive development and knowledge, unless they lead to the religious being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed, at which point you declare them Religious and futile.

Right, but the point is that that what-ifs do not apply to "supernatural entities" they apply only to "natural" entities. When an Atheist uses the "supernatural entities" crutch for an argument against religion I point out that it is irrational to do so because to assume, a priori that God is a "supernatural entity" is to invoke the Atheist's Fallacy. There is zero evidence that God is a "supernatural entity" don't you see?

My point, which I'm sure you grit, is obvious; you are an irrationally Religious disbeliever, disrespecter, disregarder, criticiser, admonisher, and ridiculer of atheism, and this is irrational and illogical as long as you continue to fail to produce credible, critically robust scientific evidence that God does not not exist.

Not at all. It's not atheism that I am critical of, it's Atheists and their irrational arguments.

[Seth]

Ani,
what you are missing is that other people can handle being trolled, and sometimes find it amusing, and can troll back.
I know Seth is always trolling, and his stances are designed to irritate, rather than fuel debate, but it doesn't bother me one bit.

No, they are meant to fuel debate by being irritating. Big difference. And it works quite well and has done so for more than 25 years now.

I quite like reading the responses.

See, I told you so.

Seth's latest fad is to claim that he is only trying to stimulate debate, but of course, that's trolling too.

It's not a late fad, it's my system and purpose and always has been, since before the Internet existed and all this went on on the Usenet.

When I look at someone's reply to Seth, I ask myself, what would a troll answer to that?
And sure enough, that's what he writes. I quite like the confirmation, of knowing the troll's next troll, before he writes it.

Well, that's some sort of thinking anyway.

I don't think people are being puppets, as you put it. They are mostly being amused.

Exactly. To call people "puppets" because they choose to engage in debate with me is an insult to them. I don't think anyone here is a puppet.

[Seth]

I agree with Ani why waste time feeding trolls instead of having a worthwhile discussion.

A discussion is what YOU make of it. Raise the level of your argumentation and you'll get a higher level of discussion. Roll around in the gutter with the pigs and you'll be characterized and ridiculed as a pig. The choice is yours.

Seth has been trolling since the the RD forum was started and has kept it up ever since.

I've been stimulating debate far, far longer than that.

He never has anything new to bring into any discussion. He just regurgitates every thing what he has said already.

As do you and your ilk. And therein lies the problem. Whereas I will follow a discussion where it leads and contribute new material as it becomes appropriate (as I was thanked for doing just recently), when you and your ilk regurgitate the same old pabulum and tripe that you've spewed a hundred times without even an scintilla of original thought, it's difficult to move the debate forward.

You get what you give here. Provide a better argument and you'll get a better rebuttal. Provide ignorant, biased, dogmatic stupidity and you'll get called out for it.

[Seth]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

Yup, exactly. Which is why being labeled a "troll" is not particularly insulting to me because I'm very good at dangling a shiny argument that induces someone to glom onto it and forward the debate...or not.

What a fucking boring place this would be without me. Why, it would look just like the boring-as-fuck echo-chamber called RatSkep.

[Brian Peacock]

And yet you zealously defend the religious against being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed.

No I don't, I merely point out the hypocrisy and irrationality involved.

You say that it's futile to make proclamations about supernatural entities but what-ifs are okay because they drive development and knowledge, unless they lead to the religious being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed, at which point you declare them Religious and futile.

Right, but the point is that that what-ifs do not apply to "supernatural entities" they apply only to "natural" entities. When an Atheist uses the "supernatural entities" crutch for an argument against religion I point out that it is irrational to do so because to assume, a priori that God is a "supernatural entity" is to invoke the Atheist's Fallacy. There is zero evidence that God is a "supernatural entity" don't you see?

My point, which I'm sure you grit, is obvious; you are an irrationally Religious disbeliever, disrespecter, disregarder, criticiser, admonisher, and ridiculer of atheism, and this is irrational and illogical as long as you continue to fail to produce credible, critically robust scientific evidence that God does not not exist.

Not at all. It's not atheism that I am critical of, it's Atheists and their irrational arguments.

Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism.

[Seth]

My father was the owner of a light-engineering retail and distribution outlet specialising in marine transmissions and drive train, and a 'trolling valve' was a device for slipping the clutch on a gearbox to reduce the rotational speed of the prop.

So is what we're saying is that a forum 'Troll' is someone who slowly saunters through a discussion baiting and snagging small fry too lazy, stupid or clumsey to get out of their way?

Or one who entices the big fish to strike and then reels them in.

[Brian Peacock]

...before beating them soundly with the tiller extender and tossing them back.


But can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism?

[Scot Dutchy]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.