Trolling Relgious Fanatics – The case of Christians and Atheists

There are many ways to troll religious fanatics, whether God believers or God disbelievers, or something else. One of the most fun is being that of a Poe, which is someone who takes on the persona of a particular worldview and exaggerates it so as to mock it. The term, ‘Poe Troller’ comes from ‘Poe’s Law’, an observation by Nathan Poe that without the use of emoticons it is near impossible to tell whether someone is parodying someone who’s opinions they don’t share, yes arguing as if they did to wind up people with the same views as them in reality.

Poe Trollers are a type of ‘Iconoclast’ who post messages to disrupt others certainties in their beliefs. So a Poe  might go into a Christian forum and say all the things an Atheist believes to wind them up, or they may going into a Atheist forum and say things that the Atheists might think extreme but which support their premise they believe that there is no god.

The video below shows a clip from the British TV series Goodness Gracious Me. The clip depicts a Poe-like father trying to dash his son’s new found faith in Christianity, by telling him it is really “Indian”.

This article provides some helpful tips on how to troll Christians and Atheists as an Iconoclast, especially the ones who call themselves these names without actually having done anything to think about the belief systems of these, such as reading the Bible or Origin of Species.

Christians who believe in the virgin birth

The First Testament says in Kings that David’s line will always be King of Israel. Mary was not of David’s line, but Joseph was. So the only way Christ could be king is if he was Joseph’s son, which many think he is not. This can destroy their worldview.

Atheists who don’t know their science and Christian’s don’t know their Bible

Agnostics often make the best Poe Trollers – often in search of the truth they will read biblical as well as scientific texts thoroughly – unlike most Christians or Atheists who will only read one of the other, or in many cases neither!

Most Atheists understand little about evolution, of which natural selection is the most important part. They have probably never read the Origin of Species, nor A Brief History of Time. Most Christians have not experienced the Bible other than through hearing readings and sermons at Church. So if one wants to be a good troller of these religious fanatics then read and learn their ‘scriptures’ and quote it against them in debates – often they won’t know whether your telling the truth or not in any case! The Christians who ‘know’ God exists without proof suffer from the ‘God delusion.’ One of the most radical of this kind of atheist is Richard Dawkins, who despite claim to believe in rational thought will block people who are good at being Iconoclastic to his faithism.

GOOD REASON? Richard Dawkins blocks Internet trolling expert Jonathan Bishop on Twitter. Is this what someone who calls for reason should do? Courtesy: Obtained from Twitter.

GOOD REASON? Richard Dawkins blocks Internet trolling expert Jonathan Bishop on Twitter. Is this what someone who calls for reason should do? Courtesy: Obtained from Twitter.

Why Atheists are not a-theist

Many Atheists are actually ‘Gnostic Scientists’. That is they believe science can or will prove things it actually doesn’t – the science delusion. Ask them about gravity – if it is proven – and they say it is. But it is not – because there is no way of analysing gravity to see what it actually ‘looks’ and ‘functions’ like, in the same way one can’t with ‘God’. If they are happy for one to exist, why not the other?

Adam and Eve – Courtesy of Wikipedia

Who were Adam and Eve?

Most Atheists dismiss the story of Adam and Eve, and in fact most stories in the Bible. So try changing the definition of Adam and Eve to mean the first humanoids to walk the planet. They can’t prove this either way. While scientists can strongly allude that because we as humans share very similar DNA to chimpanzees we must have a common ancestor. Even if this is true – it is not yet proven – then it is likely that chimpanzees are as different from that ancestor today as we are from it. What if the reason we are different is because our common primate mother had six children, of which they three girls married Adam and Eve’s sons, and her three boys went their own way with other primates? What if Adam and Eve’s grand-daughter was ‘Lucy,’ who unlike the primates before her had human-like breasts; like Eve? It can’t be proven and it can’t be not proven. Atheists hate this fact as they misbelieve that science can prove everything that it not known.

Does God exist?

Like with Adam and Eve, one can have good fun by playing with the definition of God. Most Christians will believe he is a deity, but swear he exists as described in the Bible – the God delusion. Most Atheists say that God is a deity also, and then say this is either disproven or can’t be proven. To prove something true or false with the scientific method one must ‘refute the null hypothesis‘. Most Atheists don’t know this as they are not proper scientists. It would look like this:

  • The Null hypothesis – There is no evidence about whether God exists or doesn’t exist
  • Alternative Hypothesis 1 – God Exists 
  • Alternative Hypothesis 2 – God doesn’t exist 

When you’re trolling an Atheist, like Richard Dawkins or Chris French, or indeed a Christian, ask them for evidence to support the Alternative Hypothesis. They are unlikely to be able to. How can one prove it either way? If one can not ‘measure’ God then one can not test to degree to which he exists. Catholics claim they can, when making people Saints after they perform ‘miracles’. Atheists often claim they can, through probability, scientific consensus, etc. But until they can provide solid ’empirical’ evidence either way then one cannot ‘reject the null hypothesis’. Scientific consensus is basically an agreement to share the same premises – not believe evidence exits to support those premises. Why is the consensus among scientists not based on real evidence any better than religious fellowships who do not use real evidence either?

The good thing about this is that the debate over God’s existence is ideal territory for trolling Atheists or Christians. Look in the picture below how devout atheist, Scott Hurst (@scott_hurst), responds to this on Twitter. He first tries to use a ‘red-herring’ and when I don’t feed his trolling, he tries to assert control by thinking it was him who ‘pwned’  (i.e. beat at trolling) me, when it was actually me who pwned him!

DOESN'T IT HURST?: Scott Hurst is a committed Atheist who turns to mocking me when I show how the hypothetico deductive model used by the best scientists doesn’t support his view science proves ‘God’ doesn’t exist. Courtesy: Obtained from Twitter.

DOESN’T IT HURST?: Scott Hurst is a committed Atheist who turns to mocking me when I show how the hypothetico deductive model used by the best scientists doesn’t support his view science proves ‘God’ doesn’t exist. Courtesy: Obtained from Twitter.

How do you know God is a deity?

One could say that God could actually be aliens. One day science will be able to create a universe in a Lab. What if we were created in a lab? Some say God is an ‘intelligent designer’ who created us purposely. May Atheists deny this. But the day we can create artificial life, say from a carbon source, then why would it be impossible that we could be created a similar way?

One could also say that God governs all the unknown. So where the Bible says, ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’, even if the big bang and evolution theory are correct, in the beginning as we did not know what created the earth, then it could be the ‘god of the unknown’.

Atheists often say, ‘who created God?’. To rebut this we could say that ‘God is a divine being’. If God was divine then he could do anything. He could create himself for instance. He could at the same time create the universe himself, while it also being created by chance through the big bang and then humans coming about through evolution. We do not have all the facts about the big bang yet. Would it be possible for instance that from the stand of the big bang to the splitting of the first amoeba, that this could take 6 days, as depicted in the Bible? Most atheists won’t know and scientists are unlikely to know either.

Conclusion

Anything scientists can do, then it is possible for it to have been to us. Whatever artificial lifeforms or structures they can create and monitor, it could equally be the case that another being, whether a god, alien, or whatever could have done the same with us. This makes trolling Atheists that all more easier than Christians. Many Christians think they could be wrong, and many Atheists ‘know’ they are right. Smashing their belief system with the above facts can be fun trolling to do.

6 thoughts on “Trolling Relgious Fanatics – The case of Christians and Atheists

  1. Anonymous

    It is actually a great and useful piece of info. I’m happy that you shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Remarkable articles and style of posting. I’m sure I’ll come back on this site in the evening and see what else you may have in store! 😉 I’m just planning to check out if I personally could possibly locate anything at all regarding Atheism!!

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Is this like, meta-trolling or something?

    Because this article is so dimwitted, it’s actually making me feel like I’m being trolled reading it.

    Reply
  5. Steve Greene

    Regarding: “So a Poe might go into a Christian forum and say all the things an Atheist believes to wind them up…”

    A clarification in regard to the word “Poe” – which comes from “Poe’s Law.”

    A “Poe troll” would *not* go into a forum and post messages disagreeing with the main constituents of the forum. Just the opposite, in fact. Poe’s Law refers to parody, and it refers specifically to the idea that in regard to many fringe groups, their own rhetoric is already at such a level of absurdity in its own regard that you could not actually tell the difference between the words of a true believer and the words of someone engaged in parody.

    Thus, if an atheist was engaging in a “Poe troll” on a Christian forum, he would be posing as a fellow believer and making exactly the same irrational arguments employed by religious believers but wording them in such a way (perhaps) as to provide clues to his act of parody. The problem, of course – this is Poe’s Law – is that it would be virtually impossible to tell that he was engaging in parody, precisely because he’d be employing that same crazy arguments that pervade rhetoric by religious believers themselves.

    Reply
  6. Steve Greene

    This paragraph is completely bogus:

    “When you’re trolling an Atheist, like Richard Dawkins or Chris French, or indeed a Christian, ask them for evidence to support the Alternative Hypothesis. They are unlikely to be able to. How can one prove it either way? If one can not ‘measure’ God then one can not test to degree to which he exists. Catholics claim they can, when making people Saints after they perform ‘miracles’. Atheists often claim they can, through probability, scientific consensus, etc. But until they can provide solid ‘empirical’ evidence either way then one cannot ‘reject the null hypothesis’. Scientific consensus is basically an agreement to share the same premises – not believe evidence exits to support those premises. Why is the consensus among scientists not based on real evidence any better than religious fellowships who do not use real evidence either?”

    In fact, scientists *do* employ common premises – but scientists *also* engage in testing premises all the time.

    The employment of common premises is for simply pragmatic reasons, because in any one particular research project a scientist or groups of scientists is only engaging in specific testing of specific elements in the project. If a scientist had to literally test all premises all the time for every project, then no project would ever be completed.

    Many scientific research articles, especially the more extensive ones, explicitly articulate many premises employed in that particular project, and even discuss cases in which the conclusions they have reached through their analyses would be different if certain of the premises are incorrect, and might even discuss what the differing conclusions might be. And if you follow scientific research over decades, there are numerous examples where premises are picked up from previous research for the specific purpose of making those premises the project of the research, to test the premises.

    Only someone who doesn’t really know much about how science actually works could have written the paragraph I’ve quoted from the essay.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *