From this thread:
This guy is clearly a creationist who has been called out enough times that he now starts his trolling with “I’m an agnostic,” and he even includes a little jab at creationism (“Man in the Sky jazz…”). But his points are the same tired ones we’ve gone over and over and over before and he clearly is not listening to anything anyone has to say. I even gave him the tiniest benefit of the doubt that maybe he was really looking for answers, until he pulled out the old “you’re gonna burn in hell for believing evolution” shit, thinly disguised as a more FriarTed-style “all you heathens are gonna have to beg for forgiveness eventually” comment.
I wouldn’t call him a troll. There seems to have been a bunch of people wandering in who don’t seem to get science. I wish science education were good enough that I could call anyone who claims to not understand how science works a troll, but that’s far from true. He’s not obnoxious, and the discussion might be of benefit to lurkers who whom science is done by strange people in white coats.
It’s possible that he truly thinks the creationists are wrong, but doesn’t have the background to defend evolution well enough. Nothing wrong with giving him the background.
It’s fun and keeps up sharp. Besides, who gives a fuck what the creationist thinks? He’s already checked his brain at the door. The threads are interesting because of the contributions by people supporting evolution, often introducing facts I was not previously aware of and which I add to my own understanding of the subject.
Whether or not the guy is actually a creationist pretending to be an agnostic, or an actual agnostic who was raised as a creationist and whose scientific education has been poor, is largely irrelevant. He has been polite, and has not engaged as far as I can see in any deliberate provocation. Even if he is not being convinced himself, addressing the issues can serve to educate others who may be ignorant on the issues. A question can have value in and of itself, even if the OP doesn’t accept the answers.
And I don’t think that this:
is really a fair characterization of what he actually said:
Shirley as I read the linked thread the first person to act badly in that thread was you in post #35. When Apos noted that a comment of his was a word-for-word creationist phrse (post #27) he was at least polite calling out the OP.
Oh cry me a fuckin river. Did you even read my OP? I didn’t call him a troll because he asked a simple question. I called him a troll because he is trying to disguise his proselytizing as “just asking a simple question.”
He asked his question, and was given two Wikipedia articles with good information. After (presumably) reading those articles, the only thing he apparently came away with was a single sentence that seemed to back his point of view, which he then gleefully posted with a “gotcha” tagged onto the end. He did not discuss the articles’ information as it pertained to his question, he did not say “Hey, I read those articles and I didn’t understand A,B, and C. Can we discuss that further?” No, he just posted his little “AH-HA!” and followed that up with his “unbelievers will have to beg forgiveness” crap. That’s why I called him a troll.
Shirley, while I am agnostic about Harri’s actual beliefs, what he is doing in that thread is far from trolling. I would expect him to be far more argumentative than he is actually being. And he is certainly not proselytizing. He expresses no actual belief in creationism, only possible doubt about evolution.
A bit ignorant perhaps, but IMHO not worth a Pitting, at least not unless he changes his behavior. You are overreacting.
Yes, I read your OP, and I disagree with it. Your main problem with him appears to be his proselytizing. Isn’t that one of the purposes of Great Debates? So long as it’s in the proper forum, you don’t really have a leg to stand on here.
I’ve been reading A Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, and there’s a chapter in there that I could swear is about Harri. Sagan writes about people who are ignorant about how science works, but still long to understand the world. I think fits our guest pretty well. Give him some more time. You might turn out to be right, but you’re definately jumping the gun here.
On a side note, I must admit I’m disturbed by this new trend of “OMG this person isn’t behaving the way I would in his situation he must be a troll” ever since the rules about calling someone a troll were relaxed in the pit. If this board is supposed to be about squashing ignorance (it still is, isn’t it?), then let’s try and not run people away because they don’t walk in here with the knowledge that some of us already have.
This is one of the reasons the rule on troll-calling was instituted in the first place. It would be a pity to see it reinstated again due to excessive use.
It’s not the proselytizing, it’s the disguising of the proselytizing. I think I made that pretty clear.
In Carl Sagan’s book, does the person ignore educated people when they try to answer his questions?
Perhaps. But I think he qualifies because he does not seem to be interested in the answers to his own questions. He does not seem to be interested in overcoming his ignorance. It’s not that he came in here without the knowledge that some already have, it’s that he’s not listening to the people who do have the knowledge.
As your quote by him shows, his begging forgiveness phrase is in the very same sentences as him saying that creationists will be dead in the ground phrase. He was clearly giving the alternatives, not being in favor of either one. Someone describing Pascal’s Wager (which he was more or less doing) is not necessarily saying it is valid.
Yeah, he doesn’t write all that well, or think all that clearly, or know all about science, but give him time. I bet your first posts weren’t a model of brilliance and clarity either.
Are you mad that he didn’t fall on his face and confess how ignorant and stupid he was? I don’t have much hope of educating a die-hard creationist, but I think we can teach something to a kid whose only sin is getting a crappy science education.