She just seems to parrouse the threads and point out the errors/fallacies and bad logic used by both athiests and theists, she seems to be fairly indeferent.  I think she does a great job, but I know nothing of what her position is on god and I hope it is well thought out as I would assume it is and a climactic explanation to the mystery of her true beliefs.  I'm quite bored of average minded theists, Eloise seems to be a cut above, dependant ofcourse on what she believes, so far I can't see what that is other than that she doesn't like bad arguments and bad logic, which is great!!!  I'd like to know more. 

eloise, imo, is the most analytically brilliant person on the whole website and i gave her the highest compliment i've ever given a person i've actually spoken to: i called her a theorist.  i've also compared her to hannah arendt and rosa luxemburg on two separate occasions.  i don't think i've ever praised a lady that much, even in college when i was very drunk and very horny.  if she wasn't a beautiful woman and downright nice i would probably harbor a black hatred for her out of pure jealousy. 

i respect her unwillingness to be pigeonholed.  anyone who will make even one assertion without qualification is in my book an imbecile, be they theist or atheist.  this discussion might shed some light, if you ignore the inane blathering of treat2, who could be almost as infuriating as Paisley, and who, thankfully, has not been seen here for quite a while.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17718

Don't believe iv ever crossed paths with her. but isn't she the token panentheist? I got no problem with them. there just as right as the rest of us. Meaning that we are all wrong in our understanding of life, the universe and everything.

While speculation is good, you need to be careful.  Our universe has only existed for ~13 billion years, not trillions and trillions.  (that may be the case in some other 'area' of reality, but not one that we can even begin to talk about, at least not yet).

I remember Eloise saying she was a neutral monist.  As I understand it, neutral monism reconciles the supposed separation of mind and body.  In naturalism/materialism/physicalism mind and body are both natural/material/physical.  In dualism (typical in theism), mind is supernatural while the body is natural.  In neutral monism, mind (mental states) and body (physical states) are both some form of the same, neutral, 'substance' underlying reality.  I believe that that is what is deified in her panentheism.  (I am by no means certain about this, but that's how I understood it).

Ofcourse I'm aware our universe is only 14 billion years old, I wasn't stating this jupiter brain thing was true it was just a rediculous overegarerated example what could be true given what we know.  Are you arguing it's not possible for their to have been multiple universes that have begun and ended for a period of who knows how long and a being could not have existed/survived and evovled for longer than how long our universe has existed into something we could never understand with our current brains.  That's fairly close minded. 

I hate quoting people as "something."  Neutral monist:

Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two. 

Ok.  So what would a Neutral monist  say about conciousness after death?  Or the afterlife?

Ofcourse theirs not, I was just using it as an exmaple as a  way to look at a creator (or munipulator) in a reasonable and natural way, instead of this poof miracle god that doesn't like gays type silliness.  I'm  trying to figure out what kind of god a reasonale/rational theist believes in who doesn't adhere to any man-made holy books and bases their belief in logic and science.   

I know, that's the point, that's why I aksed it, I wish she would awnser these.  This neutral monism doesn't explain these issues, I'm trying to engage her informally about what her beliefs are.  If you asked I would say I am an athiest, but that's not where the discussion ends, its the beggining of large amount of experiences, beliefs, and other interesting things that make up me. 

Eloise=Theist/neutral monist

BBBoring!  What does that mean?  Who is god to her?  And how does this "god" affect us?

You probably just said it about as well as it could be said.

People like Eliose, Deepak Chopra, and Kent Hovind- these nutty pseudoscientific types- tend to irritate me more on an intellectual level because they pretend to be respectful of scientific rationality, and then attempt to manipulate it to serve their ends.

Eloise has only ever been rational and consistent to the extent that she is not emotionally invested in the subject- like any theist- when emotion comes into play, all bets are off and the convenient reality distortion comes into play.

The only difference between Eloise and Paisley is the placement of that line.

It's sad, though- if she stopped being delusional, she might actually be intelligent enough to have something to offer the world (that goes for many of these religious leaders, perhaps swapping out charisma and leadership skills for intelligence).  She is (like all of the rest are) just too stubbornly invested into her emotional whims for that to happen.

To the OP:  It's not a good idea to argue with her if you don't want her to hate you.  I can understand that Bob wants to keep the peace by not arguing with her about such things- it wouldn't serve to change her mind anyway.

Case in point, a fun fact:  According to Eloise,  I'm a Christian spy participating in some grad conspiracy.

Blake's a turd who touts himself as having some kind of expertise in physics after taking a couple of first year courses, he chased me around the forum preaching his woo woo at me as though he was "correcting" my knowledge. If you can't see he's a waste of time and a quack, that's your problem. 

You'll probably not notice how he came here to throw his weight around some more, as you did before, frankly I don't care what he says as he's got no credibility in my eyes, but I would prefer you didn't try to antagonise the situation since my respect for you remains.

This tolerates addressing, if only to defend NoMoreCrazyPeople.

Any interpretation that is itself internally consistent could be the case (that is, not anything, but at least anything that isn't demonstrably self-contradictory; he probably didn't mean square circles and the like)- although it becomes exceedingly unlikely as it diverges from known physics because our failed analysis must also be explained (Occam's razor would simply prefer what we have determined, rather than un-explaining and re-explaining things in a different way).

I am the first one to count something as impossible when it expresses internal inconsistency or logical impossibility, but Eloise is far too conservative with her adherence to current observation and Empiricism in calling things that disagree with it inherently impossible- which is a bit ironic from my perspective, since she readily accepts a number of logical impossibilities at the foundation of her beliefs just because, conveniently, there may be small empirical gaps there.

I guess that's an empiricist for you.  Accept everything you see and feel as dogmatic fact, and then make up whatever suits your fancy beyond that despite the logical absurdity.

--

As to the rest of what Eloise said- I may have made some assumptions before on scant evidence that she was a nutter (based only on her sig and a few other things), but I'm glad at least to have solid proof positive now without having to look for old conversations or read walls of text [vindication ++].

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that an otherwise intelligent and educated person (if not still a temperamental poopy-head) actually believes such absurdities.

Sometimes I wish I could just laugh at this stuff, but I could only do that If I cared about the future of society significantly less, and I can't give up that concern.  Here's to trying to do both:

To Eloise's hostage rational mind:  You have my sympathies.  And here's a pie. *psst* I hid some logic in it- use it to file the bars and make a break for freedom.

Interesting. This aligns with the core tenets of certain (pagan) mystery religions of old.

Essentially a claim that death is somewhat akin to your consciousness of self while you're asleep and dreaming (which to most people is a really rather disorganised state of 'unconsciousness' with little to no agency). For instance, the various "Books of the Dead" (Egyptian or Tibetan) focuses a lot on 'guiding' the attention of the subject through a series of 'gates' without losing your cohesive sense of self, thus remaining 'alive' in a sense even after leaving this world of physicality behind. Quite a different idea than the 'submissive' principle of monotheistic slave-religions, where the essential idea seems to be that you return to the nothingness of pre-birth. The latter also seems to be the most common atheistic belief; to the extent that atheists are comfortable about discussing eschatological metaphysics, that is.

Panentheism seems to differ greatly from monotheism - but how is it different from animism?

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

also, el, i've never quite understood why you feel the need to use the qualifier "god" at all.  it seems to me that in current usage "god" inevitably connotes an anthropomorphism, which seems to me to run counter to your thinking.  also, "god" can easily connote ideas of sacred space, a la mircea eliade et al, and i would hope this notion also runs counter to your thinking.

one of the reasons i've always admired zen, even though i'm not a practitioner, is that it seems to me to give the only outline of an antinomianism that works.  as i hear you use the word "god," i can't help but recall a passage i read of d.t. suzuki several years ago--it was either in mysticism: christian and buddhist or his dialogue with thomas merton in merton's zen and the birds of appetite--in which he examine tennyson's "flower in a crannied wall."  in the poem, tennyson speaks of pulling a beautiful flower from a wall, examining it, and fancying he can see god in it.  in suzuki's mind, this represented everything wrong with the western view of spirituality.  i personally think he is a little harsh (i always get the impression suzuki was a bit of a curmudgeon), but he has a point.  why pluck the flower from the wall and destroy it, not only literally but also philosophically by applying terms like "god"?  why is it necessary to bring "god" into the equation at all?  isn't the flower in its "suchness" (tathata) quite enough?

My french is rusty

He has a special trick, she something very soft, very very soft.  Maybe she can't find the right words to explain so we can undertand.

?????

Eloise:

  Touching on something iwbiek  wrote that I agree with, why do you hold on to that word "god" and theism.  I guess the universe being a god is a "god" in a sense but it's not any kind of god classically attributed to theism.  I mean your beliefs do not include this universe "god" caring, or affect our lives day to day, and making behavioral rules for us, so is that theism?  And is that a theistic god? 

  On this afterlife thing, does the conciousness who's body is now dead know that its itself? If you believe all life is equal, then do animals and other forms of life enjoy this consiousness after death, and do they (the self-aware animals) know they are themselves.  Does the universe think?  Does it have feelings, or does it just DO? 

Sorry, I was half not thinking. I meant some things are difficult to explain in such a way that people can easily understand. She's obviously a thoughtful, intelligent, sweet  person. 

el, i'm beginning to suspect that in our theoretical approaches to consciousness we're coming from two different angles.  if i grasp your model correctly, i would guess you're a bit more informed by neoplatonism and vedanta and i usually approach from a buddhist perspective.  while buddhism uses similar terminology as vedanta, i honestly think vedanta has more in common philosophcally with neoplatonism and gnosticism than buddhism.

but no matter.  essentially i can't see anything in your model significantly different from the buddhist idea of the five skandhas.  i'm assuming this "more subtle part" you speak of, while resilient, is ultimately as subject to annihilation as any other part of our identity.  in other words, a convention, which has no independent "existence" (very sloppy term but my mind refuses to retrieve a better one this evening, hence the inverted commas). 

"ego" was a poor choice of words.  basically i was trying to find out if you see our "selves" as containing a kernel of "god," an atman that is reunited with brahman at the moment of liberation, or if your views are closer to the buddhist conception of peeling away the onion until there's nothng there.

Well, I would rather not in many respects, but I feel it's more honest to answer the question of whether my beliefs are theistic, ie whether my beliefs are consistent with the existence of deities, plainly as yes.

I don't consider the qualification itself important at all, and I frequently say as much, but presumably for the most in the context of predominantly western interlocution especially, "god" is the only mutually familiar symbol and I just figure it would be confusing or otherwise deceptive of me to shy away from it.

It's not necessary, I much rather that only the suchness was considered, and I virtually always say so at the beginning of every discussion on my beliefs as you may have noticed.

That said, I think, east kentucky, you've just made the first argument of anyone here that really compels me to reconsider my changing my theist label to atheist. Or perhaps its because I don't need to use the word "god' in discussion with you, thanks to your extensive knowledge... either way, I feel more closely aligned with atheism than ever now.....

Courtesy/proper manners, I suppose... lol 

I found a song about you Eloise It is very cheesy and from Sweden.

  El, I was hoping you would loosen up, set down the techno-talk (which we all know your a rockstar at) and just chat like were having a beer.  Everyone here seems to respect you alote, I don't think anyone on this thread is looking to argue with you, I'm certainly not, just trying to figure out what your all about.  What you believe is one thing  and it's obviously not simple to describe, but what that means to you and how it effects your life is more interesting to me.  A buddhist monk for example has a set of beliefs about the value of life, those beliefs then effect his day to day life and behavior by reminding him for instance to avoid stepping on insects.  This is the effect of his belief system.  The effect of a belief system can be "good" or "bad" or both.  A die hard Christian believes homosexuals are an abomonation, the belief is one thing but the effect of that belief in the real world, my world, my childrens world, our world is that they protest gay marriage and show hatred towards gays.

  So i guess my question is, how does your belief system effect your life.  Are you a vegetarian?    Do you drink? Do you live everyday in this world as if you will allways exist?  Is their any group you meet with who have the same beliefs?  Do you do any form of praying or maditation (or any exercise) as practice to enlighten yourself, connect or get closer to the "devine" or this universe "god" conciousness?  Like my Falun Gong friend at work, every day he does 2 hours of tai chi style exercises for physical and mental improvement.  He also use to meditate infront of the Chinese embacy in Vancouver every Thursday and Saturday in protest of the treatment of Falung Gong practioners in China and the general dooscheness of their government.  He also continuously envisioned an intensly powerful basketball sized ball of pure energy spinning in his stomach constanstly 24/7.  His teachings from what I understand say that thoughts are energy, they exist in the real world and can effect it, and if you concentrate on something long enough it will exist in another dimension.  So If he is disaplinned enough to continiously envision this extremely powerful ball of energy (thorughout the day, at work, everywhere) that could move an apartment building spinning in his stomach everyday, then eventualy he would focuse enough energy to actualise this energy in another dimension and access it.

   Just some examples of what a belief system means to someone, how it effects their day to day life.     

And I haven't because this is not a subject I generally would chat about over a beer, lol. Deep philosophical and political questions are too intense for casual conversation in my experience, but I'm open to a more relaxed format at your request.

I don't think I have been ever directly asked that before. Nice question, thanks for taking an interest

No, but my beliefs do affect my attitude towards our taking life from other entities in order to sustain our own. Essentially the effect is indiscernible from basic humanitarianism but the underlying philosophy is probably quite unique. In a nutshell I believe active attempts to resist the natural cycles of destruction and rebirth which characterise our world are silly and futile, this life traverses time and space, that's just how it is and what we are, death can not be inherently bad since absolutely all life is totally dependent on its existence, everything that lives does so because something else dies. 

Thus it comes down to, for me, that life is a shared quantity, its always handed on at some point. In that, I am accepting of the fact that we kill for nourishment and simply qualify this acceptance with the belief that it should always be done with the deepest reverence and respect for the life that is being sacrificed.

I believe in being thankful to the entities that have had their life laid down for the betterment of our own and that we serve ourselves best by showing it in practice.

Yep. I don't have any prejudice about intoxicating substances.

Yeah, in some ways, like, I fear less, but mostly, since I don't fully understand existence beyond my present life and since what I do know is that it will not be this life, I seek to do the most with this that I can

No, not really.

Yes, I do meditate and have made personal appeals for insight but I do neither regularly as I'm not really ritualistic by nature.

Since you asked so nicely I'll divulge for you that, as for communion with divine consciousness, it is my belief that I have already acheived a degree of this. I live in awareness of what you could think of as an extension of my personal  agency beyond my physical limitations. I believe that physical connection to this agency is universal and primarily subconscious and that we could study it but I would like to better understand it myself before I consider proposing how.

So you should be against healthcare of any kind? Against safty equipment? You do extreme sports?

My real questions is, why are you able to see this 'God' while so many others are unable? What is so unique and special about you? Why should you have this gift and not the rest of humanity? Is it genetics or environment that gave you this gift?

No EXC, I believe that the only consistent collective ambition for humanity, a social group which claims a position of enormous privilege, is universal high living standards. We take voraciously from the energy available in our world for ourselves far, proportionally, more than we essentially need, it would be the ultimate irony for us to not be universally 'having it all' in result.

I'm not superstitious about causes of death, EXC, I simply don't consider it an ill, in the universe, to die. Moreover, justification for having a concern about personal safety doesn't have to come from trying to avoid death, I believe the same about securing well-being through safety as I do about doing so through health care, collectively we'd be just plain tools to not have the best given that we take the most.

Indeed I do. I am the perennial thrillseeker.

Committed seeking, EXC. I have put in a lot of concerted effort over the course of more than a decade.

I am, and always have been extremely interested in the ultimate questions of life- what is, what's possible and what's worth it - that's who I am and there's been a shitload of people through this common history of ours so statistically someone is gonna be me, right?

Yeah my perceptions on intelligence are probably very unique as I mentioned before. I don't consider intelligence special at all, I see it as common, a property of every coordinate of reality. So eating an animal is not essentially different from crushing a small sandstone rock under your feet, though it is clearly experientially different and experience is the essence of our existence thus we value the consequences differently according to what is consistent with our identity.

And just for the record, this means I do not believe it is wrong or pointless to value the integrity of an animals identity moreso than that of a hunk of sandstone, your identity is intractably connected to your relationship and interaction with other things around you, in the absence of unique values and relationships with the universe none of us would be so it's like saying the universe would be better if it was a single homogenous lump of sameness -- I am completely for being and individuality, therefore, in all its forms.

Well you don't escape it. "You" adapt.

Consciousness is extremely flexible. Consider when you're having a dream and how you enter the role of your dreaming self - seemingly instantaneously you drop in on some arbitrary point in the continuum of some existence and you just are that individual. The experience comes equipped with rationale and history, intrinsic in the pseudo-ego of your dream identity. Do you agree this is how you experience yourself in a dream?

If you do, then you see, consciousness is incredibly flexible. In the instance of your passing the conciousness you have experienced is already well equipped with adaptive states formed on the intersection of more subtle "subconscious" interactions that you are in with the universe. Continuation of being can theoretically be very smooth through the simple fact of this adaptability of consciousness from self-image 1 to self-image 2 that you have already experienced during your life in your dreaming hours.

And finally, thanks for the rap, I appreciate it.

Oddly it seems to me you've talked your way out of your original objection via the rest of your post, AE. Would I be right in saying that?

You've mentioned that you are aware of studies confirming a subconscious executive function which is responsible for a great deal of the more extraordinary capabilities in human expression. So I would take from this that you can somewhat agree that there is a potent 'self' inherent in humans which is not dependent, as is the ego, on the common senses that characterise the awareness we generally associate with our identity. If you can agree that this self is not dependent on our (egotistical) identity then can you also agree such independence suggests the potential for existence in complete absence of the senses?