Religious trollery [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

04-27-1999, 06:04 PM

In the General Questions forum there have been a number of topics which serve no purpose except trolling. I'm talking topics like "Why do everyone hate Catholics?", "Atheism a religion?", "Genesis creation in the bible doesn't make sense", "More proof of Jesus or George Washington?", "Non-Christian creationists", "I want some proof", etc. I enjoy legitimate questions and debates about religious issues, but it seems none of the original posters of these topics were really looking for answers. They just want a soapbox to spout their personal beliefs. Is it possible to create a seperate forum so these topics can be moved over to it when they turn into endless flame wars? If not, can they be moved from General Questions to the BBQ Pit?

04-28-1999, 07:32 AM

I was thinking the same thing, although I would add politics, so there is a separate "Politics and Religion" message area that can be easily ignored, since these discusssions never get anywhere. One of the current problems with alt.fan.cecil-adams is that USENET group is starting to be dominated by endless political and religious threads, which drift off the original topics.

04-28-1999, 10:03 AM

I also think a separate "Politics & Religion" topic is an excellent idea. I enjoy those threads sometimes, but would like to be able to avoid them when I'm in a hurry. Just make sure it's moderated by someone with a brain in their head...

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

04-28-1999, 02:15 PM

YES! This is a great idea!

The General Questions section has been overrun by these purely subjective threads. As much as I love to argue, it gets rather frustrating when you know everybody has already made up their minds. When I ask a question I would like to receive answers or opinions based on facts, experimentation, gut instinct or even a wild guess, but not those founded on religious dogma or political affiliation. These kinds of philosophical nay-saying, debates seem to be a significant departure from the spirit of The Straight Dope column.

It's obvious that a sizable portion of the teeming hundreds enjoy this type of debate, and I, myself, have been known to jump into the brawl. But, I think a separate section is called for here.

Perhaps it could be called RAP (Religion And Politics). My Mom always banned those topics from the dinner table. I think she would have also banned them from the General Questions table.

I'll stop now before I start agreeing with my Mom about how I should live my life or start paraphrasing George Wallace. You know: "Separation now....."

04-28-1999, 02:51 PM

Even as a regular pariticipant in several of these threads, I have to agree. Indeed, I was thinking about something similar earlier today (I seemed to recall that the "General Questions" area was for questions that Cecil, or somebody like him, could answer -- indeed, while Cecil could answer the creationists (for example), they wouldn't accept that answer any more than they have accepted the other answers given to them.

Not having been a part of the AOL board, how was this handled there? Some of the people involved seem to already know each other from AOL, so I would guess these types of discussions took place there as well. I would not, as somebody suggested, put them in the BBQ Pit, as they aren't really flames (yes, there are some, but not as many as you'd expect). Maybe instead of an area called "Religion and Politics," something along the lines of "Debates and Discussions," which would clarify that questions go in one place, debates in another. This would allow us to encompass things outside of religion and politics that can also lead to heated debates (for example, Is psychic power real? In a battle between the Death Star and the Enterprise, who would win? Etc.).

What does anybody think?

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

04-28-1999, 02:53 PM

As the originator of the "Non-Christian Creationists?" thread, I resent the implication that I was looking for a soapbox to share my views. My original intent was to seek information, not to start a religious debate. Unfortunately, I expressed myself poorly and got some answers that were not quite what I was looking for, and an awful lot of attacks on my beliefs or those of others. I can't deny that I cringe a little bit every time I see a new reply has been added to that thread, and most other religous topics. I don't disagree with most posts in this thread. I just wish to make clear that starting a debate on religion was NOT my intent.

04-28-1999, 06:48 PM

04-29-1999, 12:25 AM

Mike, I think this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

Hehe...sorry, but I couldn't just let my post blend in with all of the others. :) Actually, I think it's the perfect idea. I myself had refused to post on a religious thread until just recently, when I couldn't help but join the fray (it's damn addicting, I tell ya). It's not like by posting a "Creation or Evolution?" topic, I'm going to eventually find out the correct answer. The few posts I wrote attempted to explain this fact -- that too much of it was personal and based on a person's spiritual values (or lack thereof).

Oh yeah, and no, psychic power is not real, and the Death Star would definitely win. Oh, wait...I wasn't supposed to respond to those now, was I? ;)

So how about that new message board, Cecil and friends? Let's see it!

------------------
"Give a man a match and he'll be warm for an hour... Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

04-29-1999, 08:26 AM

David -- you are a pretty smart dude. Although I already endorsed the 'religion & politics' idea, I'm jumping ship over to the 'debates' notion instead. As a former AOLer, I can attest to the fact that questions with no answers regularly took on a life of their own at that board. As a matter of fact, I'll submit "Questions With No Answers" as a possible name for this opinion (not fact) based topic idea.
I hate to argue with anybody who has called me a "pretty smart dude," but I would still prefer to see something a bit more nonjudgmental like the "Debates and Discussions" name rather than "Questions without Answers." For example (not trying to bring that debate here, just using it as an example), while creationists may not accept evolution, that doesn't mean there is no answer -- there is as far as the vast majority of scientists are concerned. The same is true of psychic power (I won't go into the Death Star/Enterprise one <g>). I think the name you suggested would put off people for that reason (and, as a counter-example, I'm sure the religious people believe they DO have an answer as well, so you'd manage to put off EVERYBODY with that name). If everybody is put off and nobody posts those messages there, we'd be back where we started from.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

04-29-1999, 09:15 AM

"Debate and Discussion" is an even better idea. It has my vote, for what it's worth.

BTW. Is it worth anything? How big a stink do how many people need to make on this thread, before we get the administators' attention? Probably more than 8 or 9 posts. I wish the people who are so vociferous on some of those 50+ post religious threads would let their opinions be known on this suggestion.

04-29-1999, 10:10 AM

Point taken, Dave. Sheesh, are you TRYING to make me feel inferior?

Anyway, the separate board is still a great idea, whatever it is called. Ed? Where do we go to petition for this?

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

04-29-1999, 10:43 AM

In defense of Archimedes (although he is the one who inferred he was being targeted), I have seen his posts on these religious debates, and he is always open-minded and level-headed. The question of evolution vs creationism is valid to debate, as is any other question.

However, what is not valid is the attitude soon exhibited by both sides when it becomes apparent no progress is being made. And just for that, I vote for a separate bulletin board.

But I also want to point out that if creationists were all like Archimedes, we'd have a clear, sensible debate that belongs right next to 'Can you die if you fart, burp and sneeze at the same time?'. :) Well, as long as the scientists in the room behave as well.

So, Archimedes, don't take it personal. Like the consellor on South Park says, 'There are no stupid questions, only stupid people'.

04-29-1999, 11:36 AM

Mike King started by writing:
"I enjoy legitimate questions and debates about religious issues, but it seems none of the original posters of these topics were really looking for answers."

I disagree. I think the posters were looking for answers and debate. What criteria would be used to filter out the postings you don't want? Is there is a good criteria?

Some people enjoy Debate & Discussions, including discussions of religion and politics (r&p), even smart people on bulletin boards like this. I seem to have noticed several discussions about r&p in Cecil's columns. I think he has analyzed bible stories and quotes, and enjoys answering questions about the obscure facts about non-Western religions, ie, Is it true that in Buddhist (or Muslim, or voodoo, ... ) religion they do/believe this?

Cecil deals with political questions, also. What about discussions about political history, ie, Did Lenin really say this? What did Churchill mean by this? Did George Washington really chop down a cherry tree and confess? Did Ben Franklin really discover electricity by flying a kite with a key in a lightning storm? etc etc. Politcal-related Topics like these are bound to lead to greater political discussions.

Do you really want to exclude perfectly valid questions like that from the General Question area? Also, how are you going to determine what questons are religious, political, or debate & discussion oriented enough that they should be put in a separate area? What criteria would be used? For example, are my questions in the above paragraph political questions or history questions? Are they going to generate too much debate and discussion to bother you?

04-29-1999, 11:43 AM

More examples. Are the below good questions for the General Area, or are they too political and discussion oriented?

Who did Alexander Hamilton fight a duel with? What were the issues that caused it?

What was the Hamilton-Jefferson debate out?

04-29-1999, 11:56 AM

George- There's nothing mandatory about where you must post your questions. I'm sure it would be up to the OP to decide where to ask a question. Some OPs are just looking for a fight or validation of their religious or political beliefs. Those OPs should, in my opinion, have their own forum.

I think your examples belong in the General Questions forum. Topics like "Bill Clinton: twice as bad as a Republican, etc" or "Athiesm a Religion" or any OP demanding proof for a subjective opinion would have a place in a Discussion & Debate forum.

I don't want to exclude anybody from this board. I just want it to be easier for me and others to use it as our tastes dictate.

04-29-1999, 01:21 PM

You know, I almost hate to do this, but what the hell. I'd even volunteer to moderate the "Debates & Discussions" area, should one be formed.

I admit that I don't really know all of what's involved in moderating something here, but I was the moderator of the POLITICS and SKEPTIC conferences on FidoNet (anybody here familiar with that?) for a number of years, as well as various others over time (MUSIC, FMS, and even Asst. Moderator on the UFO conference).
Some might feel better about having a moderator who doesn't get all that involved in many of these discussions, but then you still need to find somebody who is willing to read them! :)

Oh, and for brownie points I want to point out that I wrote a very good review of the previous Straight Dope book for the Springfield (IL) paper. ;)

Anyway, I've thrown my hat in the ring. It's up to others to figure out what to do.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

04-29-1999, 05:34 PM

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in this anyway.

Personally, my suggestion for a new forum name would be "Under the Bridge" but's that's neither here nor there.

I may have been hasty in saying all of the original posters were intentionally trolling. Archimedes did ask a legitimate question, but there are some topics that are almost automatically going to descend into pointless bickering regardless of the original poster's intent, and Creationism vs Evolution is certainly one of them. There are others like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, gay rights, the Holocaust, the JFK assassination, UFO's, Shakespeare, or Bill Clinton's fitness for office where most people have already decided what they believe and don't want to listen to opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying we should eliminate these topics. My suggestion would be that when they arise they be moved to a seperate forum so that those people who enjoy endlessly arguing can do so in peace and those people who don't can avoid it.

04-29-1999, 09:18 PM

Papa Bear's* post in "Bill Clinton, worse than a..." sent me here and I think I'd have to agree that it would be nice to segregate the "debateables" from the "anybody able to point me toward some facts?" stuff. I'm glad this board already has a flame subsection.

*I think it was PB

04-30-1999, 12:35 AM

I agree with Papa Bear. George, I really don't put questions about the Hamilton-Jefferson debate in the same category as the types of posts we're discussing here. I think when several of us mentioned politics, we were thinking more along the lines of current political arguments. Even when discussing current events (rather than questions of historical facts, like the debate or Washington and the cherry tree), there is a line between asking a question ("What does President Clinton think about Kosovo?") and arguing a point ("Clinton is WRONG about Kosovo!").

I also agree with Elijah that it probably wasn't Archimedes that was on the mind of whoever mentioned the trolls. I won't mention any names, but I think one recent thread was started much more as a troll than as a legitimate request for information.

Finally, Jess, sorry if I made you feel inferior. Just remember that we are all inferior to the Master, Cecil. :)

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-01-1999, 11:58 AM

One more vote.

Okay, Cecil & Ed, the people have spoken. Now get off your ass or I'll never buy those books.

05-03-1999, 12:33 AM

05-08-1999, 09:04 AM

Ok, so how do we find out if any of our suggestions are under consideration by the powers that be?

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-08-1999, 09:38 AM

[quote] Who did Alexander Hamilton fight a duel with? What were the issues that
caused it? [quote]

Aaron Burr. Hamilton made sladerous statements which may have cost Burr the 1804 New York gubernatorial race.
Despite being indicted for murder in NY and NJ, Burr finished his term as VP, and went on to lead a life of
notorious scoundrelry

"Awwon Buww! Awwon Buww!"

(sorry, you just reminded me of my favorite "Got Milk" commercial)

However, if you read curious george's question carefully, you'll find that he wasn't looking for an answer. He was asking whether it was an appropriate question for General Questions, or whether it is too political to be asked there. Not that it matters, anyway. If anyone asked that question, I'd think they were just trying to get homework help. That's probably just a kneejerk reaction brought on from too many years on the AOL board, though.

--The Evil, Vicious Slut Who Enjoys Ruining Lives :)

05-10-1999, 11:12 AM

"I enjoy legitimate questions and debates about religious issues, but it seems none of the original posters of these topics were really looking for answers. They just want a soapbox to spout their personal beliefs. Is it possible to create a seperate forum so these topics can be moved over to it when they turn into endless flame wars? If not, can they be moved from General Questions to the BBQ Pit?"

I'm all for another forum like this as long as *I* don't have to moderate it.

------------------
Lynn the Packrat

05-10-1999, 10:34 PM

I'm all for another forum like this as long as *I* don't
have to moderate it.

------------------
Lynn the Packrat]]]]]]]]]]

But you moderate so well......

05-17-1999, 01:57 AM

Since there has still been no action taken on this, has anyone tried emailing Little Ed?

PS--
Aaron Burr. Hamilton made sladerous statements which may have cost Burr the 1804 New York gubernatorial race.
Despite being indicted for murder in NY and NJ, Burr finished his term as VP, and went on to lead a life of notorious
scoundrelry
That's all a bunch of nonsense. You have no right to post things like that without any proof. I refuse to believe anything so offensive and contrary to my preconcieved notions! ;)

05-25-1999, 06:14 PM

I just wanted to add my vote for a seperate debate-type forum. I won't bother explaining why, since everyone else has pretty much covered the reasons =)

05-25-1999, 09:16 PM

Speaking as one of the (very) guilty parties, might I suggest the title "NO ANSWERS"?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-25-1999, 10:13 PM

I would still prefer to see something a bit more nonjudgmental like the "Debates and Discussions"

C'mon, the Teeming Millions can do better than that! How about *Did Jesus Bogart With The Respectful Gun-Toting Children of Self-Absorbed Parents During School Prayer With the Wiccans, And Is It Different In Canada?*

05-25-1999, 10:33 PM

I bow before the Master-KittyCarrier

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-26-1999, 01:50 PM

I'd like to add my vote for a separate "debate/discussion" forum.

I don't want to step on anyone's right to ask any question or make any comment they'd like; it seems that having such a board would allow folks to air and discuss their 'beliefs' and leave the GQ board to matters of 'fact'.

05-26-1999, 01:52 PM

BTW, I'll happily go with felinecare's title!

05-27-1999, 03:04 PM

Since 6 out of the top 10 threads on the General Questions board are subjective in nature, I feel it necessary to move this thread to the top of the stack. Yeah, you've read this before, but let me gripe. The General Questions board should be a forum for factual questions with factual answers, a la the Straight Dope columns (hence the name of this web site). Personally, I have no interest in debate and discussion (well, maybe that's not entirely true) at this particular website, but the demand does warrant a separate Debate and Discussion board. That would definitely make the General Questions much more easy to browse, and therefore more enjoyable, for me.

------------------
"I wept because I had no shoes, then I met a man with no feet. So I took his shoes" - Dave Barry

05-27-1999, 10:38 PM

Ah! Idealistic youth (or newbies).

While I will add a tepid "yea" vote to the request for a debate/discussion forum, I will also point out that there are several serious discussions going on in MPSIMS and in the BBQ Pit (even polite ones), there are one or two flame wars smoldering and flaring in the General Questions, the Grovel-at-the-Master's-Feet, and the Take-cheap-shots-at-the-SDSTaff fora, and there have been several mindless, pointless, sh- stuff postings in all the threads other than MPSIMS. My point is that people will tend to post things where and when they will. Having a discussion forum may, indeed, gather together many opinion-only posts (hence my "yea" vote), but no one should be fooled into believing that the "fact" fora will thus be purified (hence the tepid nature of my assent).

(For one thing, one person's fact--creation? evolution? guns make us safe? guns threaten us all?--is another person's opinion.)

------------------
Tom~

05-27-1999, 11:25 PM

You're probably right, Tom. It only takes one person to S**t all over the board and ruin what should be an entertaining and enlightening experience. No doubt many of these people wouldn't limit themselves to a debate/discusion forum. The trolls (or is it just one? Thor=Hoe?) have been shaking the bridge a lot lately, and I for one am going to have to leave many topics unread, simply by noting who the OP is.

I've probably grown overly fond of this message board and take an irrational propriatory interest in it. I've only been at this for a couple months and I don't know if problems like this resolve themselves or if they eventually suck all the enjoyment out of a site.

Any other suggestions?

05-28-1999, 12:42 AM

I'm with PapaBear. As inviting as this message board is, it has become somewhat laborious wading through the "brick wall" topics. Debates/Discussions is a fine idea.

05-28-1999, 08:20 AM

tomndebb wrote:Having a discussion forum may, indeed, gather together many opinion-only posts (hence my "yea" vote), but no one should be fooled into believing that the "fact" fora will thus be purified (hence the tepid nature of my assent).

I agree even if the Debates & Discussions area is created, some will continue to post in other areas. But that's what the moderators are for. Right now, they can't say, "Take it elsewhere," because there is no "elsewhere" to take it. If D&D is created, they can point people in that direction.

So again I have to ask, how do we get the people in charge here to acknowledge this thread, let alone creating the new area?

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-30-1999, 11:32 PM

Well, since no one listened to me, *sigh* I went ahead and emailed Little Ed to alert him to this thread. So now if he doesn't like the idea, I get the blame. I guess if anyone wants I could post a copy of my message to him here, of forward you a copy. I tried to polite and reasonably succinct.

05-31-1999, 10:44 AM

Please do post your e-mail to Ed here. I meant to e-mail him myself but, as with so many other things I 'mean to do', it didn't get done! Thanks for doing it! Post it here and I'll line up behind you on it, ok?

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

05-31-1999, 06:01 PM

A Debates and Discussions board? This is The Straight Dope!! Come on!! Sorry, BIMHO religion and political discussions have nothing to do with this site at ALL. I Want Facts!

05-31-1999, 09:53 PM

popokis5: I Want Facts!

Sorry. Politics and religion both impinge on facts. Politics, in theory, is based on setting public policy to shape the future in light of facts. Even in religious discussions, there are facts to be noted.

E.g., what is the teaching of this particular religion or sect--regardless whether that teaching represents a fact? The teaching or dogma expresses a belief, but there is a fact to be observed: the correct wording or context of the teaching or belief. The divinity of Jesus and the virginity of Mary are beliefs. The enumeration of religions/sects that share those beliefs is fact. We frequently see posters claiming that Jews/Christians/Muslims/Catholics/Mormons/B'hai believe thus. The belief of the group may be true or silly, but the identification of the belief is a fact or a falsehood. To say that Jews revere Jesus as a prophet is a belief cherished by many Christians--but it is not a fact. A few Jews recognize Jesus as a spiritually devoted man, but there is no general belief in Judaism regarding the prophetic nature of Jesus's life. Discussions of this sort of point is a discussion of fact and is fair game for the General forum. The problem, of course, is that too often the belief, itself, is treated as fact and the flames erupt. That is why, while I support the noble goal of a new Discussion thread, I don't have high hopes for its success.

------------------
Tom~

05-31-1999, 10:04 PM

Popokis5? Re-reading your post I see a larger issue. You aren't necessarily going to like the response. It is in the nature of people to discuss/debate/argue/fight/flame the very nature of facts. Cecil, sticking to a single column each week, can limit his observations to a purely factual expression. Even he, however, can be embroiled in opinions when the facts are still open for interpretation: see the thread/topic on genetically engineered food in the "Responses to Cecil" forum.

We all want to start with the facts; we'd all like to end with the facts. As long as there are conflicting views on just what constitutes a fact, we are going to have debates (and feuds/flames/general chaos).

------------------
Tom~

06-01-1999, 04:30 PM

I'm a newbie, so I don't know how much my opinion is worth, but I agree that a debates and discussion forums are a good idea.

There is still a problem, however. It seems that even when an OP asks for factual answers, people still come in debating about beliefs. As tomndebb pointed out, there can be factual questions about religion or politics, but these threads are often turned into religious or political debates. The real answers are buried in the midst of post after post of long opinions (See the GQ thread on Mormons and mitochondrial DNA if you don't know what I'm talking about.) I guess my point is that even though debates and discussions is a good idea, it won't solve the problem altogether.

------------------
"It is more from carelessness about the truth than from intentional lying that there is so much falsehood in the world."
-Samuel Johnson