Agnosticism

Post Reply New Topic

i did not know being agnostic was this complicated, now i dont want to be one

Having your own beliefs isn't complicated... at least not in my opinion. Explaining them to others, now that is a bit more difficult - and convincing someone else that your beliefs are 'correct' is downright challenging.


M.

Well, whatever you think of his language you must admit that Transcention made a decided effort. Admittedly it gave one the feeling of being englobed in mental mucus but it certainly was an effort.

Agreed, Sand, and I apologize if the effort appeared disrespected - anyone who attempts to understand his or her world is undertaking a worth effort in my mind. As a person, my issues come from the disrespect and hostility shown towards other religions through inherent bias and generalization, and the condescending attitude shown when one dares to disagree or question the validity or reasoning for what was said. Such attempts to create a sense of self-superiority are tiresome and irksome to me... and admittedly I have little patience for it.

I must confess... I am amused at Jesus, Abraham and L. Ron Hubbard being the three 'religious' figures referred to out of the many prophets, messiahs and holy conduits available. Transcention, you certainly do not lack confidence, this I will say freely.


M.

Having a good deal of personal resilience and not a hell of a lot of respect for myself I am not at all disturbed. I may be very wrong but I suspect Transcention has severe mental difficulties and he has my sincere sympathies.

Am I the only one here who immediately recognized Transcention's trolling attempts for what they were? Amusing and original, for sure... He gets an A for effort, but it's still trolling nonetheless. He knows full well that what he's spouting is intellectually vacant, elitist, narcissistic, self-righteous, prejudiced (I could go on and on) drivel with no real argumentative substance or real point whatsoever. You're giving him exactly what he wants by treating him seriously, and he's laughing at your expense. Observe this quote, taken from his thread about writing religion:

Essentially, this is the very definition of trolling, delivered poetically in trollspeak itself. He freely admits it; why don't you?


Actually, as an experienced writer of religion and connoisseur of thematic irony I have another possible perspective. He might just be mocking the entire concept of evangelism by spouting a form of it so extreme that it's impossible to take seriously, thus bringing the less obvious problematic qualities of the concept as a whole into question. My conclusion is that he's treating himself so absolutely, ridiculously, absurdly, blindly seriously precisely because in truth he doesn't take himself seriously at all, and this level of extremism, in my opinion, can be attained only by someone who doesn't truly buy into it himself. After all, the pillar you're building can never reach the ceiling if you're standing on top of it (because you get in the way).

This is similar to what I believe L. Ron Hubbard was doing with Scientology (a topic I might soon start if it hasn't been covered already), a far more elaborate attack/exposition against religion as a whole that half-joking projects such as the FSM could never attain. It works precisely *because* it's treated seriously, if it's known to be a joke it loses its semantic/argumentative value.

Hrmm.. I may be rambling, but the point is that I have to commend Transcention's nobility if he's indeed sacrificing himself/his reputation in order to be a living argument from analogy. However, it's far more likely that he's just a troll.

Last edited by BobTheMartian on 04 Apr 2009, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reluctant to label as a troll; provocative thought has produced more great ideas than blind obedience... but acknowledge the possibility. When someone posits their beliefs, I'm apt to question when there are gaping holes; sometimes it is better to allow quiet consumption, however... some interesting food for thought, BTM, appreciate the perspective. My issues with what is said are separate from having to step in as a moderator; I'm interested in continuing the conversation, but not at the expense of the site rules and policies regarding language, slurs, and insults... and not if it remains a one-sided sermon.


M.

True, but I wasn't suggesting that he be silenced simply on the grounds that he is trolling. My "why can't you?" comment wasn't directed at you personally, but rather to the participants of this thread as a whole. Personally, I believe that it's always more effective to actually leave trolling attempts up and let the members govern it themselves based on its content. After all, if you delete the post, you lose the evidence that this member is indeed a troll, and thus lose your justification for the moderating action in the first place. I think the social effects of being labeled as a troll do the job in a far more poetic and humbling manner than moderator intervention. For all you know, this guy might see getting his posts deleted as the crowning achievement of his intended exploits. I'd rather moderate by not giving him the possible satisfaction.

Trolling is moreso defined in mentality and intent of the poster than what exactly it is he says. There's alot you can take away from the provocative ramblings of trolls if you're so inclined, but the cornerstone of what makes it a trolling attempt is that the poster himself is not trying to provide anything you can take away other than negative emotion. This is nigh impossible to prove over the internet and so I do not believe there can be an adequate justification for moderator intervention in the case of trolling attempts anyway.

I'm quite interested in seeing how the conversation plays out too, but I was simply advising to take what is said with a grain of salt and not assume that this character actually believes what he's spouting (and then subsequently make generalizations as to the state of his mental health that might affect how you speak to him). I'd just rather not see anybody play into this guy's hand if he is indeed just trolling and getting kicks from it all; it would really rub against my sense of justice. From what I'm seeing, whether he's a troll or actually thinks he's omniscient and that we're all vermin, he isn't going to allow himself to intellectually consider anything any of us says anyway. His preconceptions are already made up, and whether it's because he feels threatened by what actual enlightened individuals might have to say or whether he simply doesn't care, the end effect is pretty much the same, so I don't feel the need to engage him directly. I feel it would simply be a waste of my time that could be better spent having reasoned and stimulating debate.

By the way, M, has anyone ever told you that you have a style of speech similar to Rorschach? I find it somewhat endearing, although if I had to guess, I'd say it was intentional. Still interesting, though.

Last edited by BobTheMartian on 04 Apr 2009, 1:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Perhaps I've been gulled but anyway the two previous comments have raised my appreciation of this site considerably. I have entered and conversed with a few other places but never encountered the depth of understanding and capabilities for clear expression I have discovered here.

I've never read Rorschach, to be completely honest... more often I am accused of abusing the language a la Faulkner than most others, but I take your comment to be a compliment. My only intent in intervention is in regards to language and attack; he is most welcome to his beliefs and I welcome the chance to learn more if there is sincere intent. One thing - I'm not sure that I've attacked his mental state; if so, would you mind pointing it out to me as that is not my intent but to speak critically about what was suggested from the writing. But the use of slurs on a support site, and frequent use of foul language, are things I do have to point out and try to prevent from occurring again. And while there is something to the element of public scrutiny being shown to be false, there is also the issue with vigilante accusations with the membership at large taking on a mob mentality. Balance in all things; I made my comments publicly not in an attempt to censure specifically, but to address an issue and make it plain for the audience at large as well. The passage I put in bold from your quote is most appropriate... keenly appreciated.


M.

...or perhaps even the one about discussing other members...

Ah, sorry. I have a tendency to generalize some comments in my posts to everybody in the thread. I don't think you've said anything about his state of mind, but I believe I recall reading an earlier post in this thread by another member making a reference to him having serious mental problems. I'm primarily concerned with the mental framework in which people view the exchange moreso than simply the outward manifestations (posts) of it.

I do agree that there may be an issue with mob mentality when it comes to self-governing systems, and that without moderator intervention on all trolls it becomes impossible to distinguish between an actual case and someone being persecuted unfairly... But I guess I have to have faith that there will be at least a few people capable of understanding who can recognize the difference and lend some intellectual weight towards maintaining justice. In the case of mob mentality and unfair vigilantism, is there really anything that you, as a moderator, can do anyway to prevent it when it's caused by a majority and not the wayward actions of one?

The main problem I have with Transcendence's posts is that there isn't really anything to consider. He's simply saying that he is right and that we're all worthless fools whose opinions cannot possibly matter, while not actually expounding on what it is that he thinks he's right about. He's just saying that whatever revelations he's had are right yet at the same time explicitly states that he's not going to share him with us, so what is there to argue about? At the same time, I *have* considered his position (which primarily is that his word about whatever religious views he touts is gospel and that ours are inherently meaningless), but due to its logical structure (or lack thereof) and just the pure extremist absurdity and hypocrisy of the claims dismissed it just as quickly. I suppose you could treat my condescending position towards him as a form of hypocrisy itself, but the difference is that my condescension is grounded and backed by my own observations to his attitude. In essence, I believe my condescending attitude towards him to be justified and backed up by observation and reason while his towards all of us is none of those.



If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the actual rule is about discussing moderator actions taken towards members. I actually have a problem with this rule as it seems to be enforcing the notion of clandestine governing, but I don't think that simply talking about the actions taken by other members, particularly within the very context and thread their actions took place, and even more particularly actions that have not actually been treated from a moderation perspective yet, qualifies.

Although, I do agree that this thread is beginning to get slightly off topic. Agnosticism, anyone? Valid theological position, or refuse for those too afraid to get their feet wet and actually take up a real position? Personally, I'm on the fence about it.

You are correct, but I have seen instances where the rule was used to also cover general discussion of other members.

This is how I would argue against agnosticism: by the simple fact that agnostics don't exist. I have met some people who do intellectually accept the agnostic stance and aren't part of the militant-atheist crowd. However, for all intents and purposes they are typically atheists. An atheist is one who lacks belief in God. If anyone can not say "I believe in God, and this is what I believe about Him" then they are an atheist.

Yeah, I've seen the last 2 arguments made before. Atheists usually argue that being agnostic is inconsistent as they want to maintain the viability of an atheist position, by trying to cause the agnostic to own up to an inconsistency and go further atheist. Theists usually argue that agnostics really are just atheists, because they want to deny the notion of a middle ground, which is one of the reasons why agnostics are what they are, as doing this would make an agnostic less comfortable and more vulnerable to being argued to believe.

Hm. I don't use the argument as an evangelical tool (as I am not an evangelist) but instead as a description of what I see. There does not seem to be much, if any, practical difference between agnostics and atheists.