How many GODS do you have?

[josephpalazzo]

None of those five categories focus on belief or faith.  Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories.  Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue.  Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight.  I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.   

Nice post on EQ.

As to arik, his tactics have been denial, obfuscation, distortion, with sadistic lack of empathy - all the earmarks of a troll. His kicks is to upset you, and the best remedy is to ignore him - DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

[Arik]

I see myself as two people--one using reasoning and critical thinking and the other using feelings.  I am at my best when the two of those sides work well together, with one supporting the other.  But there are times when feelings win out and times when reasoning is all I use.  That is the constant battle within me.  But I do not equate EQ with belief or faith systems.  EQ is not blind.  Here is a down and dirty look at EQ:


For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them.

Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people â€" particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers.

“Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,” says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. Five major categories of emotional intelligence skills are recognized by researchers in this area.

Understanding the Five Categories of Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize an emotion as it “happens” is the key to your EQ. Developing self-awareness requires tuning in to your true feelings. If you evaluate your emotions, you can manage them. The major elements of self-awareness are:

Emotional awareness. Your ability to recognize your own emotions and their effects.
Self-confidence. Sureness about your self-worth and capabilities.
2. Self-regulation. You often have little control over when you experience emotions. You can, however, have some say in how long an emotion will last by using a number of techniques to alleviate negative emotions such as anger, anxiety or depression. A few of these techniques include recasting a situation in a more positive light, taking a long walk and meditation or prayer. Self-regulation involves

Self-control. Managing disruptive impulses.
Trustworthiness. Maintaining standards of honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness. Taking responsibility for your own performance.
Adaptability. Handling change with flexibility.
Innovation. Being open to new ideas.
3. Motivation. To motivate yourself for any achievement requires clear goals and a positive attitude. Although you may have a predisposition to either a positive or a negative attitude, you can with effort and practice learn to think more positively. If you catch negative thoughts as they occur, you can reframe them in more positive terms â€" which will help you achieve your goals. Motivation is made up of:

Achievement drive. Your constant striving to improve or to meet a standard of excellence.
Commitment. Aligning with the goals of the group or organization.
Initiative. Readying yourself to act on opportunities.
Optimism. Pursuing goals persistently despite obstacles and setbacks.
4. Empathy. The ability to recognize how people feel is important to success in your life and career. The more skillful you are at discerning the feelings behind others’ signals the better you can control the signals you send them. An empathetic person excels at:

Service orientation. Anticipating, recognizing and meeting clients’ needs.
Developing others. Sensing what others need to progress and bolstering their abilities.
Leveraging diversity. Cultivating opportunities through diverse people.
Political awareness. Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships.
Understanding others. Discerning the feelings behind the needs and wants of others.
5. Social skills. The development of good interpersonal skills is tantamount to success in your life and career. In today’s always-connected world, everyone has immediate access to technical knowledge. Thus, “people skills” are even more important now because you must possess a high EQ to better understand, empathize and negotiate with others in a global economy. Among the most useful skills are:

Influence. Wielding effective persuasion tactics.
Communication. Sending clear messages.
Leadership. Inspiring and guiding groups and people.
Change catalyst. Initiating or managing change.
Conflict management. Understanding, negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building bonds. Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Collaboration and cooperation. Working with others toward shared goals.
Team capabilities. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.

None of those five categories focus on belief or faith.  Reasoning and critical thinking are important to use in those five categories.  Theists use blindness and willful ignorance and call it a virtue.  Airk is a prime example--he calls his willful blindness a huge virtue and true sight.  I don't see that he has any EQ and little IQ.

I do not say that most of your ideal are bad.
In fact they are good but unfortunately you miss the most important point.

In saying that these ideal would help someone in their lives and careers you only direct them towards a physical-material  accomplishment and achievement.
Considering that success in this field does not equal to peace of mind and permanent happiness then at the end you get nowhere. 

Just a waste of time.

[Arik]

You inability to see what is right in front of your face is astounding!  Atheists don't 'believe' in anything.  Theists do that.  For example, I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I think (know) it will for the simple reason is that science explains what that little phrase means.  My knowledge of the 'sun rising' comes from facts.  So, facts allow me to know the sun will rise--until one day in the far far future it will not.  'Belief' does not need proof other than what one feels.  My knowledge comes from facts.  And you and facts just don't know each other.  I have met few who simply love to reveal their ignorance, and to revel in it to the extent you do.  But if being blind gets you thru life, then that's what you have to do.

How can you say that Atheists do not believe in anything when in fact they go on and on in repeating the 10 points that I show in previous posts?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.




Are you kidding me? 
Beside don't they believe in material objects that they use all the time and in many cases they worship them like a religious person would worship God?

Get real Mike.

The only people who do not believe in anything are those who commit suicide.

[Baruch]

Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff.  Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client.  Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate.  They are deeply partisan.

[Simon Moon]

Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts ... because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff.  Like a defense attorney, who tries to get thrown out, any evidence that tends to incriminate his client.  Like criminal law, these arguments are not dispassionate.  They are deeply partisan.

I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.

So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.

Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.

When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.

I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.

I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.

If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.

But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.

When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.

When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?

All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

because they have partly corroborated claims.  Physics, chemistry all the materialist stuff

We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.

[Baruch]

I define belief as "the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true". This is the way most cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind define belief.

So, yes, I have plenty of beliefs.

Yes, when it comes to existential claims, I am partisan on what I will accept as the type and strength of evidence that would warrant belief.

When someone makes the claim that a god exists, why should I accept anything less than: demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, to accept their claim as being true? After all, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.

I proportion the strength of my belief, to the strength of the evidence provided for the proposition.

I am not making the claim, with absolute certainty, that theists are wrong, only that they continue to fail to meet their burden of proof, therefore, I have no warrant to accept their go claims as being true, or likely true.

If you tell me that you walked your dog this morning, I will believe you (accept your proposition as being true) with almost no further evidence. Why? Because I know dogs exist, I know people have them as pets, I know people take them for walks, etc. There is deconfirming evidence this belief, however, if I went to your house and did not see a dog, dog bowl, poop in your yard, a leash, etc.

But, if you told me that you walked you dog on Mars this morning, I would require an immense amount of further evidence, even if I knew you owned a dog.

When you say "Atheists have no beliefs, they only have facts", this is untrue. A fact is a data point , that is accepted as being true. So, even facts are believed to be true.

When has anyone ever provided demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods exist, that I am "throwing out"?

All the arguments ever made (Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presuppositional, etc) are fallacious. And zero of the evidence ever provided, is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

We need none of this stuff in order to not accept theists claims. I do not need materialist explanations to reject your supernatural explanations. All I need is that you and your ilk have not met your burden of proof.

How dare you sir! ;-)  How dare you believe anything not verified by academics or CNN?  Those are totally reliable source of facts ;-)  I accept no burden of proof placed on me ... by anyone.  My right hand is connected to my right arm.  No argument there, unless you want my fist ...

I don't argue.  I know.  It is a matter of how my perception works, as developed in a lifetime of human experience.  Your milage may vary of course.  It is called subjectivity.  Megalomaniacs of course claim that they are different, that they uniquely have objectivity.  Pish-Posh.

And yes, all arguments are false, because even if one used deduction correctly, all axioms are subject to BS claims.  Thus no point in arguing.  Either irrationality is in play, or shitty axioms or both.  Your choice.

And as posted many times, I agree, supernatural (as defined by atheists) doesn't exist.  Everything is natural (as defined by atheists).  That is rhetoric for you.  Heads I win, tails you lose. ;-))  I am not you.  My use of English differs.  My personal experience differs.

Philosophy = the egghead ignorant demonstrating their absurdity.

[Mike Cl]

Just a waste of time.

Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time.  And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one.  I'll waste my time elsewhere.

[Arik]

Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.

An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.

This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.

Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.

[Arik]

Yes, you are indeed, a total waste of time.  And as Joe suggested, you are simply a troll--and not even a good one.  I'll waste my time elsewhere.

Oh, well I suppose that Joe suggestions must be the real McCoy of intellect.
But please do me a favor Mike.
Do not disturb Joe for sometime.
At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.

[aitm]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Baruch]

Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.

An illusion can not possibly represent the natural so if this creation is just the mental projection of someone then is not natural but a huge illusion.

This physical dimension is real and natural only as far as we accept it as a reality but again what would you say if the creatures of your dreams say that they are real.

Isn't that foolish?
That is why I consider more natural the mind behind this creation than his creation itself.

Artistic vs analytical definition.  It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me.  The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.

[Baruch]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hive mind much? ;-)

[Unbeliever]

At the moment he is quite busy trying to explain how a dead brain can put together an NDE.

I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

Using brains from animals killed for food, researchers have now restored some cellular functions in pig brains hours after death, potentially offering a new avenue for studying and treating brain diseases and disorders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/

Scientists have restored cellular function in 32 pig brains that had been dead for hours, opening up a new avenue in treating brain diseaseâ€"and shaking our definition of brain death to its core. Announced on Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine devised a system roughly analogous to a dialysis machine, called BrainEx, that restores circulation and oxygen flow to a dead brain.

[Baruch]

I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/

Ha ... no pigs are reincarnated people, who ate bacon and ham.  Justice.

[Arik]

I wonder if pigs can have NDEs?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/

You still don't get it UB, do you?


Many body parts are used for transplant for quite sometime so what?

Is the consciousness left in these body parts?

Of course not that is why it is of little importance whether a brain can or can not have some possibilities to be revived or not.
As far as the consciousness is gone that matter a zilch because the entity in question can not re-enter the brain.

NDEs are a different story altogether.
Consciousness in these cases goes back in the brains due to a non material-physical intervention and that has only been done on humans with good reasons.