Veri Similitude

Hi guys.

I've glanced at this forum over the past few days, and I've really enjoyed the arguments and the education.

Wondering though ... often half of the top ten threads (in order of last post) were started by theophilus.

In the thread, Irony of Atheism, Weltall asks theophilus this rhetorical question:
It obvious to me that you choose to argue with him, and you enjoy arguing with him. After all, you could just ignore him (there are other things to do) and eventually he would move to another message board.

Quote from Jobar: "Theophilus, we keep trying to tell you ..."
Quotes from Bill: "I've explained to you several times ..." and "I've pointed out to you (above) for the million and 1st time ..."

What's one of the definitions of insanity?

(Hmm ... not good protocol to question a board moderator and the administrator in my first post . I hope I can get away with it because I agree with most of what you say.)

We could get into a debate about the psychology and sociology of internet message boards, or even the nature and purpose of theophilus... But, this board is about arguing for and against the existence of God.

Anyway, just a personal observation. I hope to contribute to some of the debates. Also, there's now some embryonic secular activitism in me. But that's a differnet forum.

Cheers.

three4jump

Argument is the mainstay of the culture here on this board. Two people can be essentially saying the same thing and be in agreement on most everything, and they will still argue back and forth for ten pages about some perceived difference or the way it was said or a spelling error. Also, I think it is a point of pride for the theists to come to this board and stay strong in their beliefs: "Look at me: I've thrown myself to the lions and I am still faithful to my god. What a noble christian I am."

I bet someone disagrees with me....

long winded fool

I agree with this 100%. I think it's ridiculous when moderators threaten to lock threads because "We've gone over this already and you know you're wrong!" Not everyone combs these boards 24/7 and memorizes the outcome of every thread. I for one would like to see actual argument about the existence of God instead of the dogmatic assumption that everyone ought to know that there is no God and that people are supposed to post here solely to reassure each other of this fact. If you (no one in particular) refuse to continue an argument with a stubborn opponent, then don't continue the argument, as Veri Similitude says. If you do, you're obviously still interested in arguing. The fact that one gets angry and emotional and blows up the threads with flames tends to show a personal insecurity in his or her own beliefs.

Mageth

Originally posted by long winded fool
I agree with this 100%.

With what?

I think it's ridiculous when moderators threaten to lock threads because "We've gone over this already and you know you're wrong!"

Provide a link to a thread where that has happened.

Not everyone combs these boards 24/7 and memorizes the outcome of every thread. I for one would like to see actual argument about the existence of God

Then hang out in the EoG forum, filled with multiple continuing threads on the subject. Note that it would be hard to find one general topic or theistic argument that there hasn't already been multiple past threads on; for many topics, it's possible to find multiple active threads.

instead of the dogmatic assumption that everyone ought to know that there is no God and that people are supposed to post here solely to reassure each other of this fact.

I don't know of anyone here who has either of those "dogmatic" assumptions (well, the first one perhaps, but certainly not the second one). A bit of hyperbole on your part?

If you (no one in particular) refuse to continue an argument with a stubborn opponent, then don't continue the argument, as Veri Similitude says. If you do, you're obviously still interested in arguing. The fact that one gets angry and emotional and blows up the threads with flames tends to show a personal insecurity in his or her own beliefs.

I agree that flaming is bad, but I don't believe it necessarily shows a personal insecurity in one's beliefs. Some posters are just so damn frustrating that some posters lose it with them after a while; for example in repeating an argument or assertion ad nauseum that has been thoroughly rebutted time and again (sometimes, as in a recent experience I had here on a thread, claiming that their assertion "has not been answered"). After the umpteenth rational response to an assertion, it's hard not to flame the poster for continuously bringing it up like it hasn't already been thoroughly dealt with.

Jobar

Quote from Jobar: "Theophilus, we keep trying to tell you ..."
Quotes from Bill: "I've explained to you several times ..." and "I've pointed out to you (above) for the million and 1st time ..."

What's one of the definitions of insanity?

(Hmm ... not good protocol to question a board moderator and the administrator in my first post . I hope I can get away with it because I agree with most of what you say.)


Boy, you are in BIG TROUBLE.



We often get people asking us why we unbelievers argue EoG so much. It's a valid question. For me, I find it both an interesting way to approach the really vast questions of science and philosophy, and a way to help enlighten people who have been indoctrinated with God-belief since childhood. There's a bit of the evangelist (anti-evangelist?) in me.

Also, if this forum had no moderation, it would rapidly (as in days, possibly hours) decay into mostly flame wars. We have seen both believers and unbelievers who think that the loudest and crudest insults win arguments- when in reality it just chases away all but the loud and crude. Internet Infidels is one of the most intellectually interesting, and simultaneously polite, religious discussion boards on the net, because of the mods (like me! ) who keep it so. And, being a talkative sort, if I must read all these threads, I'm just natcherly going to contribute my own $.02.

Deke

Interesting post Veri Similitude.

I think one of the main reasons these types of boards have become so popular is that people love to argue, but they don't like direct conflict. That is, we've all been in debates with people two feet in front of us, and often, these debates can end quickly when it becomes obvious the "other guy" isn't listening, or is close minded. This can be uncomfortable on an interpersonal level - especially since many of the people we talk with directly, are friends or acquaintances.

So a reason a person would continue to :banghead: with a member like theophilus, is that it's cathartic. It feels good to read something for which you have a good/scathing/humorous/etc. reply. As well, it hones your writing and debating skills. I've found myself actually researching this or that in order to present a point to someone - even someone I know probably won't be influenced in any way by what I have to say.

Either that or we're all intellectual masochists - that's probably more like it.

Deke

long winded fool

Well, no one would ever say that everyone is supposed to already know that the idea of God is ridiculous before they post on the infidel EoG forums, however posts do sometimes have this very connotation when atheists berate theists for using arguments refuted thousands of times in the past. I don't think it's an exaggeration, however I will say that the polite posters almost always outweigh the impolite ones. It's only those times when they don't and when the irrational ones are arguing on the atheist side that it irks me, and this is admittedly rare. However do I think it should be kept in mind that "rehashing old arguments" and "beating a dead horse" are only tiresome to veteran posters. New posters may never have heard the arguments, so this contemptuous wave of the hand sometimes used by atheists against tired theist arguments before they even get started has a tone of self-righteousness that really makes no point other than, "You're wasting my time," which of course makes one wonder why they took the time to even respond in the first place.

I agree, but why do we get more frustrated when people won't listen to reason in particular circumstances? I'm as guilty as anyone else at this, but why does it frustrate us more in certain areas? If it's true, then why do we get so upset when someone won't listen? If I told someone 2+2=4 and they stubbornly disagreed despite the evidence I present, I'd just laugh, shrug my shoulders and walk away. When I tell someone that legal abortion is illogical and they stubbornly disagree despite the evidence I present, I start to get frustrated and have to control my temptation to berate them. Why do I feel differently about these two things? Probably because I am more sure that 2+2=4 than I am that legal abortion is illogical. While both seem to be objectively true to me, and while objective truth isn't subject to value judgement (i.e. one thing isn't more true than another,) I am more insecure in my ability to see objective truth in a case where more than just one loony disagrees with me. The fact that a large number of people think I'm wrong in a certain area affects my level of intellectual security in my objective analysis of this area. I think this applies to most, if not all, atheist and theist arguers alike on these boards at some level.

There is security in numbers. The more people on your side, and the less people on the opposing side, the more secure you are. Likewise, when everyone agrees with me, I feel no need to berate one single oddball, but when there's a split, when the opposing team is not so weak and powerless, things tend to get ugly. Shows the courage required for theists to post on an "infidel" message board. And vice versa for atheists to post on theistic message boards. And, to finish my thought, this shows that we often aren't as sure as we think we are. I think that when a large number of people disagree with us, we almost always experience some level of doubt and insecurity. The more upset we get, the more our insecurity shows.

Spurious Quirk

If someone went around saying mathematics was wrong (and for no logical reason), then I would laugh them off as a harmless idiot. But if they were in a position of power, and went around saying "math is wrong, we shouldn't teach math to the nation's children" I would start to get a little upset if they didn't listen to reason.

Also, if the math-denier went around attacking you, constantly saying that you will be tortured for eternity for not agreeing with them, constantly asserting that your position has no merit whatsoever, and calling you evil, sick, and insane for 'believing' in math; then eventually you are going to get irritated -- especially if such math-deniers are all around you and you can't just "walk away" (they even follow you onto math discussion boards!). It gets even worse when some math-deniers can be convinced of the truth (given much effort), but others cannot -- like the water torture, the randomness of it, and the constant raising and dashing of hopes, gets under your skin.

Crankery, like rain, can be brushed off if it's only a single droplet; but when it's a storm, you start to get tired of being soaked.

Cheers

Zucco

I believe this is essential. I was one of those people basically brainwashed since childhood, and until a few years ago I simply assumed that the Christian doctrine was truth. I still know people (very close family as a matter of fact) who assume the same and don't want me to even hint that they might be wrong. The continuing debate on these forums has helped me see beyond the narrow worldview I held for so long. It's been a liberating experience.

long winded fool

Very true. Again, the safety of numbers. When everyone agrees with me, I am secure in my beliefs. When a huge number of people disagree with me, my defenses go up and I am less secure in my belief than I was before. Perhaps not by much, but the level to which I raise my defenses (curt attitude, ad hominem, name-calling, flame wars, violence, etc.) directly reflects my level of security in my own beliefs. This is why, I believe, theists often have these reputations of Bible thumping and threats of burning in Hell if you don't agree with them. Everyone knows not all theists are like this, yet we sometimes assume this going into an argument with one. The most emotional theists are the ones with the least security in their own beliefs. Unfortunately, this applies equally to atheists. If there truly is no God, then "no God" doesn't need desperate defending. Like 2+2=4, if it's not self-evident to someone, then problem lies with them. When alot of people fail to see the truth, the truth we initially found self-evident becomes questionable and all we're left with is our instincual fight or flight response, of which pride all too often insists on the former.