Are Religious People More Prone to Internet Trolling than Non-Religious People?

[HydrogenBond]

Trolling not only occurs on science sites, but also on religious sites. Each site has their method for presenting arguments. I used to troll on some religious sites. Their analogy of the scientific method involved using exact bible quotes to support your position. This is equal to quoting a science paper but in this case specific places in the bible. If you do, than one is allowed to present a position. If you just present ideas without the protocol support, it is treated differently and is analogous to their version of trolling. If this survey was done on those sites, science would be the trolls. The overall number depend on whether there are more science or religion sites on the internet. If one is trying to be original, so data is in the future, instead of the past, one will always be a troll. Copernicus may have been a troll in his day, simply because he didn't tell everyone what they wanted to hear in the way they wanted to hear it.

[Moontanman]

I think you have a distorted idea of what a troll is, trolling isn't just disagreeing with what is being said in a thread. I have no problem with disagreeing. Trolling involves asking the same questions over and over and totally ignoring answers. Trolling is ambush posts and trying to make the other guy look stupid by making claims you have no intent on backing up with anything other than rhetoric. Trolling is doing your best to confuse the issue so no one can call you on your ideas. Trolling is obfuscating everything and anything to avoid the truth. Trolling is long rambling posts that may or may not have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[CraigD]

Because, I think, everyone believe she of he knows what a troll is via sheer internet intuition, we tend to avoid the usual scientifically sound step of defining our term before using it, with the usual consequences. So, without further preamble, let’s reach a consensus definition of the term “internet troll”.

Being far from the first community to undertake this, we’ve a wealth of literature to draw from. As a start, I recommend everyone not already acquainted with it read the wikipedia article “Troll (Internet)”.

Like many intuitive terms, “troll” is, I expect we’ll agree, a broad one encompassing many “species” (as I like to term them). It’s even believed by many troll-ologists that some species of troll are actually beneficial. For example, under some interpretations, anyone practicing the Socratic method is, by definition, a sort of troll.

Taking time to define terms is a sidetrack from the thread’s main subject, the correlation of the psychological attributes of religiousness and trollishness, but, if the discussion is to be a coherent, communicative one, a sidetrack that IMHO needs to be taken.

[Thunderbird]

I believe it has to do with intent of the poster, which my take time to discern. The question should be ask , Is this person a provocateur seeking feedback , or are they just being obnoxious because they have an ideology to promote ?

[InfiniteNow]

Despite the accuracy issues in HBs post, he did (I can't believe I'm about to say this... please... somebody.... just shoot me now... two in the chest, and one in the head... I really don't want to say this...) he did allude to an interesting point that I'd considered prior to opening this thread.


We, being a science-y forum are likely to attract a specific "non-science-y" type of troll, and even more likely to attract religiously motivated trolls who see science as an affront to their "this makes me feel good/faith based" approach to life.

However, if it were a religious forum, discussing (I have no freaking idea... how many imaginary dogs you must pray to in order to avoid the next volcano eruption and ensure that the spaceship stops at your house prior to departure.... really, people... I have no freakin idea...) discussing religious topics, then someone coming in with a scientific mindset could, very well, be considered a troll for asking questions related to evidence and verification.

I, of course, spending the many hours I do at childish fantasy camps ...erm... fairy tale based believer communities ... I mean... spending the many hours I do at science-y forums, I very possibly have a selection bias, and a non-representative population sample. The trolls I see are ridiculous morons who do one of a few things:

• Preach their special book
• Challenge evolution using kindergarten arguments
• Deny global warming
• Assert how relativity is wrong while offering nothing better
• Just be a jackass who asks ridiculous off-topic questions to keep everyone off of the actual topic or get attention

All of those things remind me of theistic religious practitioners. This thread hasn't, however, gained much traction, so let's go help the poor and throw rocks at some homos instead so we can serve the lord.

[InfiniteNow]

Let me ask this, then..

What is the relationship between religious practice and the need for attention?

[Boerseun]

Pretty simple, really.

Coming from a position of faith, where your only proof for the existence of the deity of your choice is merely your own conviction thereof, having your stance questioned will evoke a deep indignation. After all, facing the possibility that the bedrock of your life philosophy is built on mud might not be the most enjoyable scenario.

Also, of course, the phenomenon that I'd like to call "rapture-envy" comes into play.
Basically, you have a lot of people professing their belief in the same deity. Everybody prays, and everybody claims that their God listens to their prayers, and talks to them. And the only reason people claim that, is because God seems to be talking to everybody else but them. So they invent stories of how God spoke to them, because if God speaks to everybody else but the individual in question, then that individual will be seen as the "bad believer", and God does not like him/her. Which, of course, leads to all sorts of psychological issues through their lifetimes, because what they will never confess to their fellow believers, is that God, in fact, have never spoken to them. Why? What have they done that made God ignore them? God seems to speak to everyone else at Church?

...which of course just reinforces to impetus to lie about their own particular personal relationship with God.

A group of priests/pastors/bishops/imams at a religious gathering who have to go pray about a certain issue before they can issue their God-inspired decision regarding the matter, is a particularly laughable (and quite sad) example of it.

Imagining being a bishop, and pretending throughout your entire life that you've got a special relationship with God, that God actually does speak to you, simply because He seems to be talking to all the other bishops. And, of course, forgetting that the other bishops all make the same claim because you're doing it, and they are all envious of you.

I suspect that the internet trolling that you refer to in your original post is merely another extension of it, and just another manifestation of this particular envy. If anybody on the internet questions the existence of God, then it's a prime target for the religious insecure to pounce on it, because the bigger the troll, the more he reaffirms his imaginary relationship with his imaginary friend, and the more envious his buddies will be of him because he's demonstrating that he's a good soldier in defense of his chosen God. Which, of course, strengthens their resolve to become bigger and more active trolls on their own.

Science-oriented atheists are not as prone to trolling, because the burden of proof doesn't lie with them, and they're not envious of other people claiming to hear voices in their head.

[lemit]

I'm kind of reflecting Boerseun's post, but if you have one side that believes in looking at all the evidence and another side that believes in a priori truths, then I think your choice is fairly easy.

Also, and I find this extremely persuasive, the judge on "The Simpsons" ruled that religion had to stay at least 100 yards away from science, not the other way. That has to tell you something.

--lemit

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Science-oriented atheists are not as prone to trolling, because the burden of proof doesn't lie with them, and they're not envious of other people claiming to hear voices in their head.

*cough* Strange Claims *cough*....

I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down',
Buffy

[GAHD]

see, my personal experience with the /b/ crew, MYGOT, and my real life friends tell me athiests are probably more prone to trolling. Just that they don't troll about RELIGION as much. I attribute this to them taking their love for "being right, damn it!" beyond ONE book.