• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The active trolls

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Yes, that was the original reason I entered the foray. For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God, period. The founder thing, they invented later. If you speak to the more liberal Baha'i here, they admit that Baha'ullah said very little at all about dharmic faiths, as he came out of the totally Abrahamic (Islam, specifically) paradigm. That's a far more logical approach, in my view ... to say nothing, or very little. The challenge for Baha'i is that they have the doctrine of progressive revelation within their founder's teachings. Most religions don't have comments about other religions right within their own teachings. There is nothing about Hinduism within the Christian bible for instance. So therefore, there is no such challenge.

In the end, I'm just going to try and let science and rational thought prevail. If someone claiming to be a manifestation of God asked me for my last $100, and I did have a strong suspicion they were indeed very inspired, I'd still have a million questions, and they probably wouldn't end up getting my last $100 -unless- they told me they needed it for food and shelter.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I see RF has active trolls, in the guises of balanced posters.

It could be they do not think they are and as such it could be applicable to my own self.

What says you?

No names allowed.

Regards Tony

I guess anyone who considers opposing argument to be trollish. I guess anyone who can't provide justification for their claims would consider being queried to be trollish.

Troll-Spray-10-25-2010.jpg
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
On thing I've noticed entering the fourth page of this thread is that none of whom I perceive as "active trolls" have posted in this thread.

Oh crap...I just ruined that, didn't I? :(
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I guess anyone who considers opposing argument to be trollish. I guess anyone who can't provide justification for their claims would consider being queried to be trollish.

Yuppers!
Chip: "You're the troll!"
Dale: "No you're the troll!"
Chip: "I'm right and you're wrong!"
Dale: "No, I'm right and you're the one that's wrong."

In the end, it's kind of silly.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
On thing I've noticed entering the fourth page of this thread is that none of whom I perceive as "active trolls" have posted in this thread.

Oh crap...I just ruined that, didn't I? :(
I don't perceive anyone here as active trolls. Haven't noticed anyone recently. Been accused for sure, but ... well, you know.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In the end, I'm just going to try and let science and rational thought prevail. If someone claiming to be a manifestation of God asked me for my last $100, and I did have a strong suspicion they were indeed very inspired, I'd still have a million questions, and they probably wouldn't end up getting my last $100 -unless- they told me they needed it for food and shelter.

It's still okay, in my view to occasionally jump from 'rational' to gut. Using rational all the time means less adventure.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I see RF has active trolls, in the guises of balanced posters.

It could be they do not think they are and as such it could be applicable to my own self.

What says you?

No names allowed.

Regards Tony
I would say the term troll is used just as liberally as the funny icon is.
 

anna.

but mostly it's the same
All true enough but what I wrote was that the troll posts in order to stir up discord, rather than to express ideas in good faith.

In short, a troublemaker for the sake of it. There are people to are just looking for a fight, or find it fun to set one group against another and watch. That is troll behaviour.

Someone getting into an argument about ideas, because they have a real point of view they want to get across, in the face of opposition, is not trolling, in my view, just arguing.

I partly agree, and partly still disagree, and why I do can be found in the part of your post I bolded. There's a big difference in motive between "people looking for a fight" and people who "find it fun to set one group against another and watch." It's about motive.

It seems (to me, anyway) that some people come online to blow off steam for whatever reason, related or completely unrelated to the subject they're talking about. They also can be quite passionate about their beliefs which can end up looking more combative than passionate.

Then you have someone who finds it fun, as you said, to set one group against another. If it's entertainment for them, if it's a consistent pattern of behavior for them to derive pleasure from intentionally making other people miserable, I'd think they were trolling too.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I really have no mindset on this at this time.

What I am seeing is the repeated postings of negitive comments, that have previously on many occasions been given a fair an reasonable answer.

What are we to conclude from such input to a post?

Regards Tony
Hello Tony,

I totally understand what you mean. I got the feeling this happens to Bahai also.

Below is how I see all of this.

Trolling: placing messages to provoke emotional flames (anger, fear, sadness).

Trolling belongs in the corner of narcissisists. We have plenty on earth nowadays. So obviously there is a percentage on RF.

Narcissists are emotionally underdeveloped and got stuck at age four emotionally, many experts say. They are filled with rage, which has to come out of course.

To solve their problems they should focus on themselves. But it's easier to find fault with others.

Hence, instead of doing introspection, they stay 'outside', creating havoc around them, as this feeds their ego; but never their soul. Hence they will be "eternally" unhappy.

Many experts agree, that it's kind of incurable. Which makes sense, as most narcissists think they are perfect, so they need no help at all. They rather prefer to take on the role of President, therapist, prophet or even believe they are Jesus themself.

Because they got hurt so deeply, by parents mostly, as it happens before age 4, they feel they have the right to hurt others also. Of course, others are never allowed to hurt them.

Most experts advise "No contact" when you meet a narcissist and run away. Never get entangled in their games. Because they always win, as lying has become their first nature.

So, if I feel someone is not genuinely interested in what I say, I feel no need to answer them. If they just like to test me out, I reply with a smile, and go to the next message. I need not defend myself, and definitely not to a narc.

Trying to explain something to them is waste of energy, as they are only interested in trolling (emotionally upsetting) you. Look up the term gaslighting in combination with narcissism, and you understand what I mean.

One important note though:
Narcissists are created by, for example, parents who belittle them, and play all kinds of emotional blackmail games, thereby destroying the pure child, and narcissist is "born".

When a religious person believes "my way is the highway" he belittles all who think different. Hence in that case, I call "narcissists acting out" the proper karmic response, created by the arrogant, so called religious, person himself.

So in a way, narcissism shows there is something fundamentally wrong in the world. Maybe 40% is religious, believing in "my way is the highway". Having this Spiritual arrogance, which in my view is the breeding place for narcissism. Heck, maybe they do the same as narcissists, just hiding behind religion. But that era is almost over now IMO. They are exposed on a daily basis.

There is only 1 disease in the world, the disease of a "blown out of proportion ego". If religious people let go "my way is the highway" then these karmic needed reactions will just vanish I think (new ones might pop up though:) )

Wish you all the best
Regards
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I take it that you see the dychotomy as justified and necessary, then?

Specifically, do you see religion as opposite to and incompatible with naturalism? Is that right?

Also, what positive do you see in the existence of Intelligent Design proponents?

I do think that they have their separate domains. Religion is quite opposed to naturalism. You can't put a square head in a round hole. And you can't force people to simply abandon their convictions.

ID people are not hurting anybody so long as they don't infringe on evolution people.

They have the right to explore their ID. And evolution has the right to do the same in their domain.

I am somewhere in the middle on it. I would love to see how both sides turn out.

I do find that many naturalists hate to be questioned. And they certainly don't respect the rights of the other side. A forceful demand for conformity is NOT necessary, but its out there.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I do think that they have their separate domains. Religion is quite opposed to naturalism. You can't put a square head in a round hole. And you can't force people to simply abandon their convictions.

I don't think that there is really anything to restrict anyone from defining "religion" however they please... all the same, it seems to me that making religion incompatible with naturalism is akin to making it pointless and, ultimately, undesirable.

ID people are not hurting anybody so long as they don't infringe on evolution people.

I have to disagree. I don't think that it is excusable to purposefully pursue a culture of superstition, denial and obscurantism. To say nothing of the intellectual dishonesty that sustains the so-called "Creationist" culture that includes proponents of ID.

It is no less than immoral to passively accept so much degeneration in our midst.

They have the right to explore their ID. And evolution has the right to do the same in their domain.
That, unfortunately, is a perfect example of unsustainable, very false "equivalence".
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I don't think that there is really anything to restrict anyone from defining "religion" however they please... all the same, it seems to me that making religion incompatible with naturalism is akin to making it pointless and, ultimately, undesirable.



I have to disagree. I don't think that it is excusable to purposefully pursue a culture of superstition, denial and obscurantism. To say nothing of the intellectual dishonesty that sustains the so-called "Creationist" culture that includes proponents of ID.

It is no less than immoral to passively accept so much degeneration in our midst.


That, unfortunately, is a perfect example of unsustainable, very false "equivalence".
If I thought it was deliberate obscurantism, superstition, and denial I would not allow it. What do you think is their motivation? Why would they invest their whole lives in outright lies?

I see nothing wrong with a genuine interest in finding natural intelligence. I am in no position to debate biology though.

Do you have any examples?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If I thought it was deliberate obscurantism, superstition, and denial I would not allow it. What do you think is their motivation? Why would they invest their whole lives in outright lies?

I don't think that the average ID'er quite realizes what they are doing, so the motivation is not particularly decisive for the ethical justification (or lack of same) of Intelligent Design.

It is the decision to proclaim dogma as "truth" or, worse still, "science" that ruins the activity, not the motivation.

But since you ask, I think that the typical ID'er is motivated by a desire to feel proud, well-informed and influential. Very often some measure of pride on "fighting the system" is also present.


I see nothing wrong with a genuine interest in finding natural intelligence. I am in no position to debate biology though.

I take it that you are implying that ID is a legitimate stance even when biology is taken into account?

Such is not the case.

Do you have any examples?

Of what?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I don't think that the average ID'er quite realizes what they are doing, so the motivation is not particularly decisive for the ethical justification (or lack of same) of Intelligent Design.

It is the decision to proclaim dogma as "truth" or, worse still, "science" that ruins the activity, not the motivation.

But since you ask, I think that the typical ID'er is motivated by a desire to feel proud, well-informed and influential. Very often some measure of pride on "fighting the system" is also present.




I take it that you are implying that ID is a legitimate stance even when biology is taken into account?

Such is not the case.



Of what?
Examples of their deliberate lies
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Examples of their deliberate lies
I have just told you that they do not quite realize what they are doing, did I not?

And that it does not excuse misrepresenting biology. It is not often deliberate lying as much as it is "refuge in faith" (by a particularly unadvisable concept of "faith") or proud ignorance.

Of course, some are worse than others.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I have just told you that they do not quite realize what they are doing, did I not?

And that it does not excuse misrepresenting biology. It is not often deliberate lying as much as it is "refuge in faith" (by a particularly unadvisable concept of "faith") or proud ignorance.

Of course, some are worse than others.

Well thankyou very much for the heads up on ID.

I definetly need to get information on this topic.
 
Top