Eloise

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

  Eloise, your quite brilliant aren't you.  I haven't been able to find any posts of you describing what your belief system is.  I see you have over 1500 posts and so I'm sure you've done this before, but if you wouldn't mind.  Do you belong to any particualr religion, or is their a holy book you believe to be devinely inspired by a diety?  I respect your posts very much, and I see you are thiest, I was just wondering what that meant for you.  Do you just believe the universe was created and thats it, or is their more to it than that for you.  From the logic in your posts I would assume your are a rational theist (someone who believes the universe was created, but doesn't claim to know anything with certainty about this creator.)

 

Just curious... 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
[troll]Dearest Eloise,I

[troll]

Dearest Eloise,

I think you and I should marry, and join together to move to Westmoro, a virtuously graceful pair, willing to outLIVE A NATION OF DIRTY SODOMITES!!!

WE SHALL LIVE... as a pair of WOLVES amongst Wolves... with a "lion-pastor" of sorts to CLEAN us from sin!

What say ye, m'lady? YEA, or NEA?

[/troll]

 (to RRS cores: can I get a troll tag now?! >:})

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:[troll]Dearest

Kapkao wrote:

[troll]

Dearest Eloise,

I think you and I should marry, and join together to move to Westmoro, a virtuously graceful pair, willing to outLIVE A NATION OF DIRTY SODOMITES!!!

WE SHALL LIVE... as a pair of WOLVES amongst Wolves... with a "lion-pastor" of sorts to CLEAN us from sin!

What say ye, m'lady? YEA, or NEA?

[/troll]

 (to RRS cores: can I get a troll tag now?! >:})

Seriously dude your such a cccreeper.  I'm sure the ladies are fighting over eachother to have you, awkward!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Om nomah narayanaya


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No EXC, I

Eloise wrote:

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.

The same be said for groups of people that have high birth rate standards. You like to rag on the wealthy for using a lot of resources, I'll agree to some extent, but then why aren't people with high birthrates? Don't they put tons of pressure on "the energy available"? So if you're going to have universal minimum living standards as you desire it would need to be coupled with mandatory birth control.

Eloise wrote:

Indeed I do. I am the perennial thrillseeker.

How are thrills possible while believing that you'll live forever? Seems like there can only be strong emotion when the outcome is unknown. Subconscious doubts maybe?

Eloise wrote:

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?

So of course the skeptics will say you willed an answer. You want to have an answer so badly, but there was no evidence to make any conclusions. So your mind invented an answer just to satisfy your intense curiosity. And having this answer made you feel better, so you indulge it just like any drug addict does his/her drug of choice.

This is why theism is essentially an exercise in narcissistic indulgence. You can't hang on to theist beliefs unless you somehow believe god or the universe make you special. Do you think you are entitled to the answers just for being born? Just like people are entitled to health care and minimum living standards just for being born?

And if you have this high curiosity about the mysteries of human conscience, why not study the neuroscience, psychology, artificial intelligence or some such endeavor that produces hard evidence? So you know it's not an exercise in self-delusion. 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

I mostly follow what you're saying Eloise - and don't have any problem with it bar the part where (I think) you suggest consciousness might continue after our particular makings go back into the system. I agree the universe is an entity (I don't mean this in a spiritual sense) of some sort and we're all part of that big thingy. I tend to think of the universe as an inanimate thingy but given we're part of the universe, and are alive, this assumption is open to significant debate. I read an interesting article about the subconscious recently that suggested what we might call free will - a separate and otherly executive function - does exist and is in fact the sub conscious, which makes complex decisions with great accuracy without conscious intervention of any kind. The reason I raise this here is that background processes like those conducted by the subconscious call into question the elevation of the conscious mind to the position of aggrandisement it currently holds. Things do function in the background - minds, systems, universes, with no conscious intelligence needed to guide them. And if we are governed by the universe's particular reality then you'd assume we and all other matter, in all ways, mirror the way the whole universe functions. 

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?

 

No - it's not really odd, Eloise. I was feeling my way around the topic from your point of view and tying it to something I had read that was supportive of your thinking. I admit I find this a fascinating but wildly nebulous area. My position is that consciousness and subconsciousness are properties of brains. I'd be wary of going too far in terms of bringing the universe to a sort of life. But I think that as rationalists, atheists would be forced to admit that life is obviously something this universe can 'do'. What this says about the universe is endlessly debatable.

I would strongly agree with you that there is a potent self in humans - I think perhaps a primary self - that is not dependent on the ego or executive function. But I don't think I could agree the subconscious operates in the complete absence of the senses. I've read things my hungover brain is only loosely reminding me of that suggest there's a much stronger mind/body connection than we generally think. I would contend there are subconscious sensory inputs that the 'quiet brain' processes and acts on without conscious input.  

From my point of view, Eloise, yours is the best sort of spiritual belief. Personally, I don't think you are by any means a theist and I have little moments of comprehension as I try to put my mind across this area that make me wonder whether your belief even qualifies as being spiritual. In any case, yours is a unique position.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


dingusdangus
Troll
dingusdangus's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2009-12-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise is.......................................................

the prettiest and smartest girl that has ever graced this disgrace of a forum, and she might appear uneducated sometimes, but that's just a disguise, she's a mastermind  of espionage, I'll tell ya folks, she's a slithery thing,  she has gone as far, as putting Darwin stickers on the bumpers of cars, and passed out copies of "The God Delusion" in the parking lot. She's a snake in the grass, I'll tell ya guys, she says one thing but look in her eyes, she knows Jesus is just a joke.

Well Eloise is a steppin and I am a fetchin'

When she says jump I ask how high

I gaze at her crotch and she asks me why

I have no answer but I do it anyway

I wonder if Eloise would appreciate the fact

That I left my wife and grabbed my backpack

And Went straight to Australia, via Omaha?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:No

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

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.

The same be said for groups of people that have high birth rate standards. You like to rag on the wealthy for using a lot of resources, I'll agree to some extent, but then why aren't people with high birthrates? Don't they put tons of pressure on "the energy available"?

We've had this conversation, EXC and I told you, the per capita consumption of resources in high birth rate populations (usually coinciding with extreme impoverishment) can be so fractional in comparison to the consumption of the wealthy that even very large numbers aren't enough to make up the difference. Think, for example, of an African child consuming somewhere in the vicinity of 2 cents worth of resources, in our terms, daily -- that's a really small coefficient EXC it takes ten thousand of them to consume the equivalent of $200, a sum middle class people would be hard pressed to live on, forget high flyers whose consumption rate demands the sustaining employment of an entourage of equally mass-consuming personal assistants.

While promotion of birth control methods and family planning education can have far reaching social, health and psychological benefit, birth control persay is not a viable policy for reducing consumption so mandatory birth control amounts to no more than pointless bigotry. The reality is that extravagance is what consumes resources fastest, not populus.

EXC wrote:

 So if you're going to have universal minimum living standards as you desire it would need to be coupled with mandatory birth control.

Again, we've been here , and I reiterate: No, it only needs coupling with freely available, safe birth control options and education. Where one or both of these things have been stifled for one reason or another (eg religion) that's where concerning rates of population growth are found.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Indeed I do. I am the perennial thrillseeker.

How are thrills possible while believing that you'll live forever?

I never said I would live forever. This body will die and the identity that goes with it... well... goes with it, so for a start I always have that to lose. 

But it's not even that, and if you don't know it then you just don't get out enough. Do you know the feeling of being in the air with wind rushing past your arms and face? the feeling of doing something extraordinary, superhumanish?  Fo example : people don't fly, so to feel like you are flying, to emulate the experience in some temporary way, that's a rush of its own. You don't need to be afraid of it, just as long as you're out of the ordinary places a human goes, that's exciting in itself.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

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?

So of course the skeptics will say you willed an answer. You want to have an answer so badly, but there was no evidence to make any conclusions.

All very well, EXC, but that would only be a rational objection if the skeptic backed themselves by demonstrating how my conclusions are wrong. Just saying that I made them up isn't an argument and as for there being no evidence, I am relying on established physical science, by definition the things I have claimed are evidenced because that's what it means to be established in science it means evidence has been found to support it.

 

 

EXC wrote:

And if you have this high curiosity about the mysteries of human conscience, why not study the neuroscience, psychology, artificial intelligence or some such endeavor that produces hard evidence? So you know it's not an exercise in self-delusion. 

 

I am studying EXC.  Why oh why do you think I haven't already though of that myself when you know I am already doing it?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:This body will

Eloise wrote:

This body will die and the identity that goes with it... well... goes with it, so for a start I always have that to lose.

everything?  including any insights or realizations you've had?  is there some part of yourself you've "liberated" from samsara?  have you liberated yourself?  aren't you liberated already?  aren't i?

you're a fantastic thinker, but i can't help but think hui neng would've slapped you a long time ago (not that he wouldn't have already bruised his knuckles on me many times over).

if you meet the buddha on the road, el, kill him.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It's a shame you are labelled correctly and I am NOT

dingusdangus wrote:

the prettiest and smartest girl that has ever graced this disgrace of a forum, and she might appear uneducated sometimes, but that's just a disguise, she's a mastermind  of

(yada yada fucking yada)

 

THEIR BODIES WILL SOON PILE UP TOWARDS THE 'HEAVENS' AS YOUR PITIFUL KIND CALLS IT... THE LAMBS WILL DIE! All of them, to the last Carnice...


 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Seriously dude your such a cccreeper.  I'm sure the ladies are fighting over eachother to have you, awkward!

I'm probably the creepiest dude on the site, save for that complete dolt named Matt Shizzle. I'm also the most harmless guy on the site (because of a lack of martial discipline/muscle mass), save for trying to scare the ever living shit out of people here. (when I can get away with it, anyways.)

 

  1. HOWEVER, I had a more rational point to make by giving you a direct quote.... I no longer see RRS as a 'valid' dating site. There are some Celtic Cuties here... but I lose interest when I can't be allowed to make advances towards them, nor KNOW THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION!
  2. Marquis made a better suggestion for potential dating sites!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:dingusdangus

Kapkao wrote:

dingusdangus wrote:

the prettiest and smartest girl that has ever graced this disgrace of a forum, and she might appear uneducated sometimes, but that's just a disguise, she's a mastermind  of

(yada yada fucking yada)

 

THEIR BODIES WILL SOON PILE UP TOWARDS THE 'HEAVENS' AS YOUR PITIFUL KIND CALLS IT... THE LAMBS WILL DIE! All of them, to the last Carnice...


uh-ooooh.  i think someone's a little jealous at the idea that there might be someone around here who's a bigger fucking weirdo than he is...

 

Kapkao wrote:

I'm probably the creepiest dude on the site, save for that complete dolt named Matt Shizzle.

matt shizzle hasn't been on here in a loooong time, hoss.  since long before you started posting.  good fucking riddance, as far as i'm concerned.  it's so nice being able to look at threads without inevitably coming to a post that says, "give him the asshat avatar."

btw, he would probably want them to give you the asshat avatar.

did any of the mods actually give anyone an asshat avatar at his urging?  in fact, just wtf is the "asshat avatar"?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Let the battle begin against theists!

iwbiek wrote:

uh-ooooh.  i think someone's a little jealous at the idea that there might be someone around here who's a bigger fucking weirdo than he is...

Not really...

 

Kapkao wrote:

I'm probably the creepiest dude on the site, save for that complete dolt named Matt Shizzle.

 

Quote:
matt shizzle hasn't been on here in a loooong time, hoss.  since long before you started posting.  good fucking riddance, as far as i'm concerned.  it's so nice being able to look at threads without inevitably coming to a post that says, "give him the asshat avatar."

btw, he would probably want them to give you the asshat avatar.

did any of the mods actually give anyone an asshat avatar at his urging?  in fact, just wtf is the "asshat avatar"?

Fuck if I know

He's about as close to a living breathing MALIGNANT NARCISSIST as has ever been found on RRS, apparently...

(ED Note: strike out code doesn't work? Awww man)

NOW! The writing's on the wall!

It won't go away! IT'S AN OMEN- you just run a... AUTOMATION!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:(ED Note:

Kapkao wrote:

(ED Note: strike out code doesn't work? Awww man)

 

Neither does marquee.  That made me sad, but I suppose it's good that it doesn't because otherwise people could make the pages scroll, and that'd be a nightmare.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
All too true...

All too true...


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Blake wrote:Why

Eloise wrote:

Blake wrote:

Why spend money on safety equipment when you can use it to shoot up instead?

 

Because skills are valuable and expensive and people are the vessels of their actualisation and of their longevity through generations. Protection is a utilitarian end.

 

No Eloise, most skills aren't really difficult to produce or expensive.  Quite frequently workers are cheaper than the safety equipment they require; there's a good  surplus in humans, and those costs aren't up to the company doing the work- don't forget that pesky fact, Eloise. 

Eloise, work culture before modern standards brought on by social revolution was quite utilitarian- and that involved only the most economical safety measures that cost less than hiring and training a new worker in terms of his or her chance of death or disability (and these costs are astoundingly low for most jobs).


Eloise, we have these things through social progress and advancing social contracts because people care about their lives, and the lives of those they relate to, beyond mere experiential pleasures or reproduction.

 

So, Eloise, your weak rationalization is entirely unsound unless you advocate returning to those standards (very nearly non-existent) which were purely utilitarian, because the ones we now have are certainly not.

Though of course, Eloise, even that wouldn't save you from your pseudoscientific woo- something you are and will evidently remain deliberately blind to.

 

 

It is not surprising that you, Eloise, would come up with some wacky woo woo rationalization like the latter half, but arguing that the person wants to perpetuate his or her lineage (which your expressed morals are in potential conflict with anyway) doesn't weasel you out of this (although I'm sure you think it does).


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Though of

Blake wrote:

Though of course, Eloise, even that wouldn't save you from your pseudoscientific woo- something you are

 

 

It is not surprising that you, Eloise,

I should have known better than to respond to anything you say, Blake.
I've wasted enough time already waiting for you to have a civil tongue or even just make a fact based single argument instead of this puerile name-calling. You don't know me, and you have never looked past your own nose long enough to say that you do so just forget it.

 

If anyone else wants to take up Blake's question and advocate for him, I will be happy to debate any of you at all, just not this impossible wanker.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm not even sure what

I'm not even sure what Blake's point is, so I can't speak for him.  I do have a question though.

 

Since humans are part of the universe, not separate, and will continue on after death, why doesn't your belief turn into some sort of hedonistic nihilism?  Why does anything matter?

If the universe isn't judging people, and there is no purpose other than to be a semi-autonomous outgrowth of universal consciousness, why create a higher purpose?

 

I'm pretty wishy-washer on whether or not I understand your initial assumptions so those questions might not be applicable.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I should have

Eloise wrote:

I should have known better than to respond to anything you say, Blake.

 

If you can't respond, Eloise, I accept your defeat.  Thank you for playing.

 

Although perhaps, Eloise, you are too ignorant of the history of the industrial revolution and progressivism to understand my point, and you actually believe that all of the safety regulations in place today are purely utilitarian.  Congratulations Eloise- history and politics fail.


Quote:
I've wasted enough time already waiting for you to have a civil tongue or even just make a fact based single argument instead of this puerile name-calling.

 

Name calling, Eloise?  Oh noes!  Lets see what I might have called you, Eloise... hmm... oh, it appears that I called you "Eloise" Eloise.  Wow, that's pretty immature of me, isn't it Eloise?

You certainly haven't called me any names, now have you Eloise?  Oh wait, no, yes you have.  Several in this very post.

 

A fact based argument... hmm... well Eloise, I don't really need facts to point out your logical foibles- I just need to highlight your flawed reasoning.  However, Eloise, if you will read my posts, I have included references to a number of facts.  That your opinions and your delusional world view are in conflict with these doesn't really nullify my presentation of them, Eloise.

 

Quote:
You don't know me, and you have never looked past your own nose long enough to say that you do so just forget it.

 

Eloise, I know your type- you're practically the female version of Luminon, just less intelligent from what I've seen, a bit more educated (which makes your beliefs less excusable), and substantially less open minded.

I've seen enough of your argumentation to know you Eloise- and in particular, I've seen your bad side, since that's the only side you show me, so I'd say I know you better than anybody else here does-- particularly anybody who likes you, because if they did know you, Eloise, they wouldn't.

 

I gave you a chance to be civil, Eloise- many, in fact.  You don't seem to be capable of it towards me.

 

 

 

Anyway, Eloise, I am not interested in debating you- I have made my point, and you aren't capable of refuting it coherently.  You are wrong on that point, Eloise- and what's more, you are inconsistent, and as such, your entire worldview is patently false.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
note to self: no more hotlinking images. EVER.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Although

Blake wrote:

 

Although perhaps, Eloise, you are too ignorant of the history of the industrial revolution and progressivism to understand my point, and you actually believe that all of the safety regulations in place today are purely utilitarian.  Congratulations Eloise- history and politics fail.

You didn't ask for an essay on political history, you asked what reason I would have to support it given my beliefs. And that's what I told you. congratulations, Blake, moving the goal posts = Logic Fail.


Quote:

 

I gave you a chance to be civil, Eloise- many, in fact.  You don't seem to be capable of it towards me.

 

I do not have to rewrite the history of our back and forth to steel my position, Blake, it speaks for itself.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I'm not even

mellestad wrote:
I'm not even sure what Blake's point is, so I can't speak for him.

They really don't like each other. I'm not sure why. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I'm not even

mellestad wrote:

I'm not even sure what Blake's point is, so I can't speak for him.  I do have a question though.

 

Since humans are part of the universe, not separate, and will continue on after death, why doesn't your belief turn into some sort of hedonistic nihilism?  Why does anything matter?

Your question is actually very much in the same vein as Blake's, nonetheless, mellestad. 

The answer to your question is that in essence my beliefs dictate the antithesis of nihilism. 

everything matters - it is this significance of things which gives them any existence at all.

I believe to say "an entity having bearing on another entity is what bestows meaning", is redundant, equivalent to saying "having meaning bestows meaning". How is that even sensible? If something has meaning it's hardly an effect in addition to then have it bestowed.

However, it is not redundant, consider, to say "an entity having bearing on another bestows existence*" . Moreover this is an idea which works in practice in theoretical physics, it is the english equivalent of mathematical statements such as the Pauli exclusion principle and decoherence. 

*existence in the case of the examples I have given you is qualified by the order of magnitude in which it is defined (ie human scale), the orders of magnitude in which the principles themselves actually operate confuse the notion of existence defined by the Law of Identity.

mellestad wrote:

If the universe isn't judging people, and there is no purpose other than to be a semi-autonomous outgrowth of universal consciousness, why create a higher purpose?

 

So that there can be something which it is not. This motivates existence, it is the Law of Identity.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:mellestad

Eloise wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I'm not even sure what Blake's point is, so I can't speak for him.  I do have a question though.

 

Since humans are part of the universe, not separate, and will continue on after death, why doesn't your belief turn into some sort of hedonistic nihilism?  Why does anything matter?

Your question is actually very much in the same vein as Blake's, nonetheless, mellestad. 

The answer to your question is that in essence my beliefs dictate the antithesis of nihilism. 

everything matters - it is this significance of things which gives them any existence at all.

I believe to say "an entity having bearing on another entity is what bestows meaning", is redundant, equivalent to saying "having meaning bestows meaning". How is that even sensible? If something has meaning it's hardly an effect in addition to then have it bestowed.

However, it is not redundant, consider, to say "an entity having bearing on another bestows existence*" . Moreover this is an idea which works in practice in theoretical physics, it is the english equivalent of mathematical statements such as the Pauli exclusion principle and decoherence. 

*existence in the case of the examples I have given you is qualified by the order of magnitude in which it is defined (ie human scale), the orders of magnitude in which the principles themselves actually operate confuse the notion of existence defined by the Law of Identity.

mellestad wrote:

If the universe isn't judging people, and there is no purpose other than to be a semi-autonomous outgrowth of universal consciousness, why create a higher purpose?

 

So that there can be something which it is not. This motivates existence, it is the Law of Identity.

 

Ok, but with your beliefs isn't everything just a state change for the universe then?  What is the difference between pain/bliss, life/death, liquid/steam, brains/stars?  To say the individual state of the universe is somehow right or wrong seems to indicate that the universe wants things to be a certain way and is not capable of directing its own inner workings without the intervention of humans...even though humans are a part of itself, which seems kind of circular.

And if we are somehow supposed to have an autonomous role (Universe brain antibodies or what have you) then why are most of us malfunctioning? 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is meaningless (not to

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.

Sorry, couldn't keep biting my lip any longer without serious injury.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.

Sorry, couldn't keep biting my lip any longer without serious injury.

 

Well

1. I'm not necessarily saying meaning precedes existence at all am I, since time is a feature of things existing as they are (ie change) its nonsense to speak of a precession in those terms. There isn't a time before time.

2. I disagree that meaning is an emergent property, elaborate, convince me.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Is meaning

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.

Sorry, couldn't keep biting my lip any longer without serious injury.

 

Well

1. I'm not necessarily saying meaning precedes existence at all am I, since time is a feature of things existing as they are (ie change) its nonsense to speak of a precession in those terms. There isn't a time before time.

2. I disagree that meaning is an emergent property, elaborate, convince me.

 

In the absence of the human executive function possible? From the perspective of stars or planets or bacteria there is no meaning. Given the very recent arrival of meaning on the scene - within the last million years at most - can the universe be described as having developed on the basis of meaning, emergent or not, or should we consider that it came to be based on fundamentals that either were (conditions on earth) or were not (conditions most everywhere else we can detect at this point) conducive to organic life?

Meaning to me, is an emergent property of the interaction of the human brain with its environment. But our application of subjective impressions of meaning can't prove the existence of meaning existing outside of our heads.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Ok, but

mellestad wrote:

 

Ok, but with your beliefs isn't everything just a state change for the universe then?

Yeah, that's kind of it. Additionally everything is a point from which something can be made of the universe, so to speak. As I said earlier in this thread we are individuated by the unique relationships and interactions we are in with the universe so we have contrast for its own sake where the alternative is homogeneity - this trasnlates to existence for the sake of existence. Existence is our primary purpose and it is a good purpose in the sense that we would be, then, taking part in a mass sojourn into being.

mellestad wrote:

 What is the difference between pain/bliss, life/death, liquid/steam, brains/stars?

The differences that are assigned to them by individuals in relationship with them.

mellestad wrote:

 To say the individual state of the universe is somehow right or wrong seems to indicate that the universe wants things to be a certain way

As I see it this is an indication that individuals "want" things a certain way since right or wrong is assigned by individuals. And by "want" there I mean that the individual expresses its identity as an inclination to relationships and interactions supportive of its expression. An individual can even "want' what is destructive of itself, since want is an expression of identity and identity need not be self preserving.

mellestad wrote:

and is not capable of directing its own inner workings without the intervention of humans...

I wouldn't say it isn't capable of directing its inner workings but for people, that's not necessarily true, but it would appear that human identities are an instrument by which inner activity is generated among other things.

mellestad wrote:

even though humans are a part of itself, which seems kind of circular.

I understand why you say this. It comes down to a question of whether individuality is lost in the 'wholeness' of things. Many buddhist philosophies would have it that it is but I disagree. I believe individual autonomy is the essence of being, individuality is real because it is how there is anything at all. 

 

mellestad wrote:

And if we are somehow supposed to have an autonomous role (Universe brain antibodies or what have you) then why are most of us malfunctioning? 

Simply because functioning to some set value is a restriction on existence itself. Where individuals are restricted to being within some set of values there are individuals that simply will not be and since individuality is a function of relationships and interactions with other individuals the function tends to zero individuals ultimately where something is restricted.

eg say you and I are opposites on some value, and I cannot exist because the value expressed in my identity is resticted as malfunctioning, then you as you defined by my relationship with you does not exist, and another individual as defined by you as that individual does not exist, and so forth the function tends to zero. To total homogeneity.

So malfunctioning is a 'good' thing for existence as we know it - ie defined by the law of identity.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.

Sorry, couldn't keep biting my lip any longer without serious injury.

 

Well

1. I'm not necessarily saying meaning precedes existence at all am I, since time is a feature of things existing as they are (ie change) its nonsense to speak of a precession in those terms. There isn't a time before time.

2. I disagree that meaning is an emergent property, elaborate, convince me.

 

In the absence of the human executive function possible? From the perspective of stars or planets or bacteria there is no meaning. Given the very recent arrival of meaning on the scene - within the last million years at most - can the universe be described as having developed on the basis of meaning,

 

"meaning" is just a word we use to refer to it as we experience it from the coordinate of our human identity. So I'm saying it's an anthropomorhism of a basic reality in the universe. I also described it as an entity having bearing upon another, which may seem more universal to you, though its really just the same thing.

AtheistExtremist wrote:

or should we consider that it came to be based on fundamentals that either were (conditions on earth) or were not (conditions most everywhere else we can detect at this point) conducive to organic life?

Yeah that's about right.

AtheistExtremist wrote:

Meaning to me, is an emergent property of the interaction of the human brain with its environment. But our application of subjective impressions of meaning can't prove the existence of meaning existing outside of our heads.

 

No but we can draw the correlation between our sense of meaning underpinning our psychological identity and the relational basis of existence in mathematical statements whcih describe fundamental reality.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BobSpence1

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.

Sorry, couldn't keep biting my lip any longer without serious injury.

Well

1. I'm not necessarily saying meaning precedes existence at all am I, since time is a feature of things existing as they are (ie change) its nonsense to speak of a precession in those terms. There isn't a time before time.

2. I disagree that meaning is an emergent property, elaborate, convince me.

My position is not really a function of the nature of 'time'. It was logical precedence/dependency that I was thinking of.

I see meaning as something that develops out of, is dependent on, our perceptions of the nature of existence and our place within it, and whatever we envisage as where the course of our life leads. IOW it is intrinsically and unavoidably a subjective thing, dependent on and emergent from our basic reactions to our experiences, and modified by whatever reasoning processes we apply to those intuitive and 'gut' reactions.

Since I see it as so fundamentally subjective, including my feeling about the meaning of meaning itself, and I am aware you seem to see so many things in such a fundamentally different way to the way I do, I see no way I could 'convince' you that my perspective is more valid that yours.

My approach 'works' well for me, I have developed it over a long period of time. I gather that your approach is also the result of a lot of thought. I find what glimpses I have gathered of your more deep ideas mostly incomprehensible to me, and I can find no motivation to try to understand them any further, after early attempts to discuss them with you.

I am not entirely comfortable with Blake's approach either, but I can honestly find far more points of contact with his ideas than I can with yours. I can also understand his frustration with trying to make sense of some of your ideas, he is just less restrained in expressing it than I am, and maybe feels it more strongly than I do, having had less time to get accustomed to your 'unique' understanding.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:You didn't ask

Eloise wrote:



You didn't ask for an essay on political history, you asked what reason I would have to support it given my beliefs. And that's what I told you. congratulations, Blake, moving the goal posts = Logic Fail.






You don't seem to be following this conversation very well, are you Eloise?  But then, you make a habit of that.



 



The question was not originally posed by me- it was why, in reality, assuming the things which we all assume to be true about out reality (historically and physically, from a perspective of the most remote sanity), you would hold that we need the safety precautions we have (in addition to certain kinds of medical care), relative to your judgment of it being (according to the universe) fundamentally on contrast with the sense of 'essence' or meaning, and just silly.



It was an accusation as to your inconsistency, for which you have no coherent answer.




Eloise, I will break it down for you.



1. Question was posed, and restated by myself.



2. You, Eloise, gave an excuse based on poor reasoning- suggesting that they are utilitarian.



3. I pointed out that they are not, in fact, utilitarian as they exist today (significantly), whereas they were more so during the industrial revolution before the progressive era (wherein they were virtually non-existent). 



As a result, Eloise, the last post by me negates your point, and reveals your inconsistent beliefs if you do, in fact, as you suggest support these safety precautions.  Inconsistent not only with the sum total of rational and scientific knowledge, but internally inconsistent as well provided you have no resolution to this problem- unless you fall in with some zany conspiracy theorists and believe "Progressivism never happened"?




Maybe that's it- you are a progressivism denier, aren't you Eloise?






Eloise wrote:
I do not have to rewrite the history of our back and forth to steel my position, Blake, it speaks for itself.





Yes, it does.  It's hilarious too; I encourage anybody to read it- it is clearly evident that you're stark raving mad.





BobSpence1 wrote:


It is meaningless (not to say f**king stupid) to claim meaning precedes existence. It is an emergent property.





I would go a bit further to say that any worldview or philosophy that relies upon the claim of fundamental essence or meaning is patently false, insulting to any intelligent and thinking human, and not worthy of consideration- and it is not closed minded to say this, merely rational enough to exclude impossibilities (which is essential to an open mind- anybody who does not is not open minded).  I don't think there's any harm in making this clear (particularly when the people advocating these ideas have demonstrated themselves thoroughly resistant to reason)- and more specifically, I think it's the only way to really reply to this kind of nonsense when education has failed (as it has in this case).


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
This is a very strange - an

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:This is a very

Marquis wrote:

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

A more 'civil' tone of discussion is helpful sometimes, however... I don't see the point in ANY discussion going on here. The ultimate outcome appears inevitable: both sides of the argument NOT seeing eye-to-eye, and walking away even more irritated with each other.

(and thank rationality I'm finally calmed down from my excessive antidepressant dose+mania!!! I can discuss things on an even level again.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:This is a very

Marquis wrote:

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'm still

iwbiek wrote:

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

 

Maybe he has an unfulfilled Abelard fantasy?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:iwbiek

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

 

Maybe he has an unfulfilled Abelard fantasy?

AHHHHH, you bastard!

actually, i've been meaning to ask her for awhile if that's her real name or if she's an admirer of the great (and VERY unfairly treated) intellectual nun.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
And I want to

And I want to pester/aggrevate Iwbiek some more, but for some reason I just don't have any fight left in me. That lower dose of SSRI was almost TOO effective!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Marquis

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

 

Because Blake doesn't like Eloise, and when he doesn't like someone he's a prick.  It isn't that complicated, lol.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Marquis

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

It's a caricature of my writing style.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Eloise

Blake wrote:

Eloise wrote:

 

You didn't ask for an essay on political history, you asked what reason I would have to support it given my beliefs. And that's what I told you. congratulations, Blake, moving the goal posts = Logic Fail.

 



 

You don't seem to be following this conversation very well, are you Eloise?  But then, you make a habit of that.


 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blake wrote:

Why spend money on safety equipment when you can use it to shoot up instead?

 

Because skills are valuable and expensive and people are the vessels of their actualisation and of their longevity through generations. Protection is a utilitarian end.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I answered, and quoted for your reference, a solitary question. Nothing more or less. This is the question I chose to answer, as is my prerogative. It questions the internal consistency of my beliefs, nothing more and nothing less. My answer is complete in addressing the question, if i had intended otherwise in any means or measure i would have indicated as much. I didn't, so any presumption, on your part, of the contrary is just that. Presumption.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:iwbiek

Eloise wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i'm still trying find out why blake feels the need to say eloise's name in damn near every sentence...

It's a caricature of my writing style.

 

This is correct sir!

 

I never say a person's name when I'm addressing him or her in sentences (maybe just once at the start so he or she knows I'm talking to him or her if I don't begin with a quote), and Eloise was doing it frequently (repeating my name in almost every sentence) and ignoring what I said, so it seemed a reasonable assumption that if I peppered my sentences with her name she might be more inclined to read them.  Short attention span or something.

Also, I'm mocking her for purposes of condescension, because I think she's an idiot.  It's hard to do, though, I have to go back and add it in after.  I hope she appreciates all of the effort I'm putting in for her here.

 

mellestad wrote:
Because Blake doesn't like Eloise, and when he doesn't like someone he's a prick.  It isn't that complicated, lol.

 

Hey now!  That's totally unfair!  I do my best to be a prick to people I like too.

Seriously, the nerve of accusing me of that kind of bias...  I'm an equal opportunity ass (note my argument with Rob, whom I do not dislike)


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:This is a very

Marquis wrote:

This is a very strange - an a little bit vile - discussion.

As far as I can see, Miss Eloise isn't assering anything other than some quite common (although esoteric) metaphysical points of view which are concerned with some admittedly quite vague properties of "will" that emerge in the physical context as a propensity for local systems of "negative entropy". It is VERY HARD to toggle these concepts without resorting to somewhat mythical metaphors; and all this character assassination isn't making it any easier for her.

I agree, and what it is exactly about her/her position that would warrant such hostility?  I can't see anything deserving of that.  


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, it warrants this much...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

I agree, and what it is exactly about her/her position that would warrant such hostility?  I can't see anything deserving of that.  

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

I agree, and what it is exactly about her/her position that would warrant such hostility?  I can't see anything deserving of that.  

 

Is there anything that makes Ray Comfort's position deserving of hostility?  How about Ted Haggard's?  Osama Bin Laden's?

 

No, not objectively.  These are matters of opinion. 

 

Maybe you think we should just leave these fine people alone to say whatever they please; or with only the most meek and polite, politically correct suggestions?

 

Well, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  I disagree- and I think RRS was largely founded on the principle of disagreeing with that proposition.

 

I think irrationality, particularly that which fraudulently hijacks the name of science, or encourages unethical (from my perspective) social behavior is deserving of verbal hostility.

 

Eloise's beliefs do both:

 

1. They definitely pile on the woo, and make egregious appeals to her bunk concept of science, and in the process both mislead people and insult the very nature of scientific knowledge.  This isn't really arguable, as it has been very well demonstrated.

 

2. In my opinion, these beliefs encourage and justify unethical behavior and social policies (that's just from my perspective, though- obviously to anybody with sense, morals are relative- not everybody will agree with me on this point and that's fine) 

 

 

So, Eloise is in the same camp- she's a nutcase who uses her whims in place of facts and reason, and beyond that, has clearly demonstrated that she is perfectly content to distort and ignore extremely obvious facts of a matter to fit her world view (in keeping with her theist peers):

 

Eloise wrote:
Because skills are valuable and expensive and people are the vessels of their actualisation and of their longevity through generations. Protection is a utilitarian end.

 

This is false; it is a rationalization on her part (and she has produced many poor ones to justify her beliefs).

Comfort may choose ignorance of fossil records, Eloise chooses ignorance of social history and progressivism.

Comfort's ignorance at least makes more sense- fossils were made a long time ago, and it's a little complex so not everybody can understand it. 

Eloise's elective ignorance is more akin to (forgive my conformance to Godwin law here) holocaust denial- something incredibly evident in modern history with profound implications to human rights.

 

Eloise is worse (and less polite) than nuts like Comfort- not better.  She is, in my opinion, far more deserving of hostility.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:1. They

Blake wrote:

1. They definitely pile on the woo, and make egregious appeals to her bunk concept of science, and in the process both mislead people and insult the very nature of scientific knowledge.  This isn't really arguable, as it has been very well demonstrated.

 

Where?

Blake wrote:


Comfort may choose ignorance of fossil records, Eloise chooses ignorance of social history and progressivism.

It's not ignorance of social history and progressivism, it is plain and simply they are irrelevant. I agree with the outcomes for different reasons. I am not wrong simply because I don't defer to those things and in no way does discounting their relevance logically imply ignorance of them. Your reasoning is flawed Blake and you are clutching at straws to hide it.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I see

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see meaning as something that develops out of, is dependent on, our perceptions of the nature of existence and our place within it, and whatever we envisage as where the course of our life leads. IOW it is intrinsically and unavoidably a subjective thing, dependent on and emergent from our basic reactions to our experiences, and modified by whatever reasoning processes we apply to those intuitive and 'gut' reactions.

Since I see it as so fundamentally subjective, including my feeling about the meaning of meaning itself, and I am aware you seem to see so many things in such a fundamentally different way to the way I do, I see no way I could 'convince' you that my perspective is more valid that yours.

I think your perspective is valid, Bob, but you might have missed the part earlier where I defined my concept of "meaning" as a permutation of a basic function of the universe, ie as a thing having bearing upon another. This gives a different account of how the psychological phenomenon of 'x has "meaning"' arises.

As you know my beliefs are strictly not emergentist, I will not propose that a supervenient entity actually exists because I reject the theory of supervening entities. So it wouldn't make sense for any part of my beliefs to be dependent on an emergentism and that is why I proffered an alternative principle underlying "meaning".

BobSpence wrote:

I find what glimpses I have gathered of your more deep ideas mostly incomprehensible to me, and I can find no motivation to try to understand them any further, after early attempts to discuss them with you.

It's disappointing, but I do get that a lot. You're right that comprehension of what I believe requires quite some immersion, not everyone could be, or could even be expected to be, that committed. So there are no hard feelings and I appreciate your occasional comment for forcing me to clarify and straighten my ideas, nonetheless.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake

Blake wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

I agree, and what it is exactly about her/her position that would warrant such hostility?  I can't see anything deserving of that.  

Is there anything that makes Ray Comfort's position deserving of hostility?  How about Ted Haggard's?  Osama Bin Laden's?

No, not objectively.  These are matters of opinion. 

I disagree.  Are we really going to do the "negative"/"Positive" effects of a belief system are subjective thing... 

 

  I really can't except your comparison of Eloise to Ray/Ted and Ossama, it's completely rediculous.   Your examples have obvious "negative" effects that go along with their belief system.   Ray comfort believes homosexuals are an abomination, he thinks people go to hell, the effects of his beliefs and others like him are demonstrably "negative" (ei a bunch of fundementalist protesting gay marriage/passing prop 108, etc...)      Osamo Bin Laden believes everyone MUST convert to islam or die (or so I would assume he does as is customary for Muslim fundementalist)  This is obviously a negative effect.  Yes we can say "negative" or "positive" effects are subjective, sure, great, but we rational people should have a basic common ground on these things.  For example I think we (rational people) would agree that all humans should have the same basic rights, and one shouldn't be discrimnated against for sexual orientation.  I think "we" agree that eternal torture, or even torture at all is wrong.  If someone is very dangerous and harmfull to society they should be removed ethically, not tortured.  So rational people would probably agree that hatred towards homosexuals is a "negative" effect of their belief system.  People who believe torture by diety is ok because its a deity doing it are simply ethically fucked, I would imagine these types would be ok with torture by any authority figure they wished to allign themselves with.  I think "we" can all agree these effects are negative.

 

  Eloise doesn't seem to believe in anything that is directly "negative" to the rest of the world.  She doesn't seem to be prejudice, or racist, or believe that people should seperate and stay to their kind or religion in any way.  She doesn't seem to believe in any kind of violent bat shit crazy dogma.  She doesn't allign herself with any viloent immoral diety doing acts in their name  She doesn't actively impune on others rights, or try to pass laws that would impune on others rights.  Her position seems to be in the end that it is a hypothesis she has found to allign with her knowledge of physics and understanding of the universe that requires more investigation and understanding.  From what I can tell, that's it.  If you want to pick at her position, we'll by all means pick away and prove with you words she's a nutcase as you claim, but the hostility is simply unwaranted, unless ofcourse you've had other conversation were Eloise is a completly rude sailor mouth bitch.  But common, I highly doubt that, I haven't come across any posts by Eloise that weren't well mannered, and well spoken.  From the history of this thread (which I started as an informal discussion to learn more about Eloise's postion)  it is clear you are in the wrong, and began the hostility.  You have every right to be a dick, I can be one too but only when someone deserves it, here you are in the wrong.       


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Maybe you think

Blake wrote:

Maybe you think we should just leave these fine people alone to say whatever they please; or with only the most meek and polite, politically correct suggestions?

 

Well, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  I disagree- and I think RRS was largely founded on the principle of disagreeing with that proposition.

 

Buddy, you know nothing of my position obviously.  Have you read any of my posts in response to people like ray and ted, you think your a dick?  So no, that's not my opigion at all and I resent the assumption.  You have displayed hostility out of place here, simple as that! 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople, when

NoMoreCrazyPeople, when Blake first appeared on the board, Eloise seemed to be sure he was a fake of some sort, even some sort of deliberate troll, perhaps, and she seemed to get stuck on that position, and may still be to some exxtent. I can understand Blake's reaction after witnessing those early confrontations. Eloise accused me of being 'taken in' by him when I said he seemed genuine to me.

I am not trying to fully excuse all of his comments, just saying I can see an understandable human reaction to Eloise's attitude at that time.

Human nature being what it is, it can be hard to recover from such a bad start.

I just get very uncomfortable around these 'personality' clashes (for want of a better term). I usually can see points on both sides, and then realize it is very hard, if not impossible, to really 'know' someone, and too easy to get into such a position, especially when communicating like this.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople, when Blake first appeared on the board, Eloise seemed to be sure he was a fake of some sort, even some sort of deliberate troll, perhaps, and she seemed to get stuck on that position, and may still be to some exxtent. I can understand Blake's reaction after witnessing those early confrontations. Eloise accused me of being 'taken in' by him when I said he seemed genuine to me.

I am not trying to fully excuse all of his comments, just saying I can see an understandable human reaction to Eloise's attitude at that time.

Human nature being what it is, it can be hard to recover from such a bad start.

I just get very uncomfortable around these 'personality' clashes (for want of a better term). I usually can see points on both sides, and then realize it is very hard, if not impossible, to really 'know' someone, and too easy to get into such a position, especially when communicating like this.

 

I didn't see those conversations and like I said if it was warranted then it was warranted, but it certainly wasn't in this thread which was supposed to be loose and relaxed.  They both seem to be alright away from eachother, wierd.   Blake if you hate her so much go start a "Why I hate Eloise" thread and argue with her there, I had just managed to get her to let her guard down so she would actually explain to me some of the things she believes without being pounced on.   


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BobSpence1

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see meaning as something that develops out of, is dependent on, our perceptions of the nature of existence and our place within it, and whatever we envisage as where the course of our life leads. IOW it is intrinsically and unavoidably a subjective thing, dependent on and emergent from our basic reactions to our experiences, and modified by whatever reasoning processes we apply to those intuitive and 'gut' reactions.

Since I see it as so fundamentally subjective, including my feeling about the meaning of meaning itself, and I am aware you seem to see so many things in such a fundamentally different way to the way I do, I see no way I could 'convince' you that my perspective is more valid that yours.

I think your perspective is valid, Bob, but you might have missed the part earlier where I defined my concept of "meaning" as a permutation of a basic function of the universe, ie as a thing having bearing upon another. This gives a different account of how the psychological phenomenon of 'x has "meaning"' arises.

As you know my beliefs are strictly not emergentist, I will not propose that a supervenient entity actually exists because I reject the theory of supervening entities. So it wouldn't make sense for any part of my beliefs to be dependent on an emergentism and that is why I proffered an alternative principle underlying "meaning".

Yeah, I know you have a problem with "emergentism', whereas I see some version of it as truly fundamental to making sense of reality. Rejection of "emergence" seems to match a predisposition to Panenthiesm.

I have given up trying to get my head around 'supervenience' as a concept, I find it doesn't capture any meaningful or useful idea to me.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I find what glimpses I have gathered of your more deep ideas mostly incomprehensible to me, and I can find no motivation to try to understand them any further, after early attempts to discuss them with you.

It's disappointing, but I do get that a lot. You're right that comprehension of what I believe requires quite some immersion, not everyone could be, or could even be expected to be, that committed. So there are no hard feelings and I appreciate your occasional comment for forcing me to clarify and straighten my ideas, nonetheless.

Well my position is basically that my current world-view works very well for me, I see no point in devoting any effort to getting to grips with another, unless there is some significant indication that the holder 'gets' things any more comprehensively than I do.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople, when Blake first appeared on the board, Eloise seemed to be sure he was a fake of some sort, even some sort of deliberate troll,

There is a missing piece to that story, Bob.

When Blake first appeared on the boards, to me, it was in the "ten syllable argument" thread, I posted a reply to a question by Rob regarding physics and Blake replied (actually you should really look at the woo he posted in that thread its really telling of the extent of his actual knowledge of physics) with some nonsense about me not sticking to the format of the debate (inappropriate given I was explaining and not debating) and then began another thread which in which he declared himself solitary arbiter of all things scientific at RRS (and it was, like, his third ever post here or something, no less). I, frankly, thought that this was ridiculous, given the complete claptrap he had been posting in the other thread and the fact that there are already several excellent scientific minds frequenting these boards who can do the job better than him and I told him so.

Moreover he proceeded to claim would correct my knowledge of quantum physics by saying that anything in particle physics that disagrees or does not conform with the "laws" of logic is not proper particle physics, which we both know is a patently false claim. At this point I questioned his honesty in claiming that he was qualified to speak authoritatively on Quantum Theory and went so far as to question whether he was even an atheist scientist given that I had only seen him to making false and woo claims.

 

When questioned on his knowledge of QM he demonstrated rudimentary skills in solving optics problems and complete unfamiliarity with the standard notation for Quantum events, I conceded his first year ability on those grounds but after having endured two pages of outrageous hostility from him that was all I was, and am still, willing to grant.

Ultimately though, Blake is a faker, perhaps not as much as I was first willing to believe but I stand by that he grossly overstates his knowledge and authority on the facts of the physical sciences, it has been evidenced.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com