Asking for a logical reason for atheist/mythicist fear of spiritual revelation

[johnson1010]

For sonoman,

I have no fear of spiritual revelation, but i doubt very highly that it did not originate in your imagination.

You are asking us to believe you speak with authority on a matter because god told you you were right.

Really?

See how easy it is to invent "authority". In some matters, sonoman wants us to basically imagine god standing behind him, arms crossed, beaming with pride, nodding his head in tune to sonoman's words.

[ant]

Lets say a person values something for subjective reasons. A puppy. There is no objective value IMPOSED on the puppy. However, because it is valued by a subjective intelligence it will be objectively safeguarded.

So when the house burns down the person risks life and limb to retrieve the puppy, even though the bose sound system they own is worth more money. Their subjective value of the puppy has resulted in real world efforts to secure its safety which proves that it IS more valuable than the sound system.

That is a relative preference, but so is all preference, since only subjective intellects are available to attribute value to anything.

Any value you add is subjective, and relative – PERIOD.
That doesn’t make it imaginary, or vacuous – PERIOD.

The puppy story is touching. I'll admit that.
But in the context of Interbane's purposeless cosmos (short of "existence") it was a meaningless action.
It's nice that you added meaning to it for the moment, but it was a worthless and silly action in the grand scheme of Interbane's true reality.

You can color the rhetoric nicely about how it was so meaningful and noble and loving and kind, but in the larger atheistic context, it was of no real objective value.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks

[ant]

You are asking us to believe you speak with authority on a matter because god told you you were right.

Really?

Who told you creation is ultimately purposeless?

What conclusive evidence do you have?
Is the evidence all in yet?
Is this something that can be proven, or is it entirely subjective?

You're asking me to believe the atheist claim that the universe has no purpose because of what now?
Because certain scientists said so?
Which ones?

I mean, really?

See how easy it is to invent "authority".

Actually, I do.
If you are to claim the the universe/creation has no purpose because it has not yet been discovered or verified by science, then you are appealing to the authority of science.
And questions of meaning aren't even scientific questions at that!
So, by whose authority are you speaking? From your own??!!
See how easy it is to invent authority?

Double standard BS

[johnson1010]

Quote:
We live in an indifferent, purposeless cosmos.


Ant… what the hell are you talking about?

YOU wrote that!
I quoted you!

But of course, you've made other know-it-all assertions before
You've universalized an opinion - "WE."

You seem to be uncomfortable that I am comfortable speaking on these issues. Why is that?

If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.

Such as atheists are unable to live a purposeful life? Any value we add to life is illusory – PERIOD.?

Passing the hot potato to someone who thinks otherwise is lame.

Like how you routinely come up with some nonsense and pretend it was one of us who stand by that stance?

You're relative life does not make it any more meaningful than someone who believes in purpose.

And nor is it LESS meaningful than anyone else’s life. Do you begin to understand? God is not needed.

This know-it-all, haughtiness of yours is actually amusing.

Am I getting’ above my raisin’s, Ant? A bit uppity for you, eh? Haha.

There aren't many scientists who've made claims even similar to yours (i.e. "we've stopped evolving" "there's no purpose").

Case in point:

I kind of assumed you were at least skimming our responses, Ant. You originally claimed it was interbane who said “we’ve stopped evolvging” and he denied it. Now you are claiming I said that? What the hell man?

Now, you saying that I said “there’s no purpose” is pretty much the antithesis of everything I’ve said on the matter. How do you explain this massive disconnect?

But in the context of Interbane's purposeless cosmos (short of "existence") it was a meaningless action.
It's nice that you added meaning to it for the moment, but it was a worthless and silly action in the grand scheme of Interbane's true reality.

You are missing the point entirely, and it seems to me, on purpose. Substitute the puppy for a playstation, and the story stands as an example of how a subjective preference has imparted real value on an object.

You can color the rhetoric nicely about how it was so meaningful and noble and loving and kind, but in the larger atheistic context, it was of no real objective value.

Never mind loving, noble, and kind. A SUBJECTIVE preference has real world impact and proves something is OBJECTIVELY valuable by way of the real world efforts made to preserve it.

What do you mean “atheistic context”?

Dude, are you drunk?

[ant]

We live in an indifferent, purposeless cosmos.

Interbane said it.
And that particular response was to Interbane.

[Interbane]

That is a metaphysical statement. It is strictly an opinion.
It's empirically groundless and not a testable hypothesis.

Right, it’s philosophy, not science.

Again, what’s with the chip on your shoulder against science? How repetitive do I need to be in telling you that much of what’s said here is philosophy, and not science? I’m not even claiming it’s science!

You're relative life does not make it any more meaningful than someone who believes in purpose.

I’ve never said my life is more meaningful.

This know-it-all, haughtiness of yours is actually amusing. There aren't many scientists who've made claims even similar to yours (i.e. "we've stopped evolving" "there's no purpose").

Again, I’m not claiming to be a scientist, I've never said we’ve stopped evolving, and I’ve never said there’s no purpose(we humans have purpose). You get so worked up that you don’t’ pay attention to the things I type. Stop making such blatant errors and I’ll stop being haughty.

[ant]

Here is what I was referring to.

Interbane wrote:

We're past the point where we need to evolve further. Our genes, while quite imperfect, are good enough to allow higher thought. Higher thought will in time allow us to manipulate our genes artificially. Knowledge or brilliant insight is a thousand times more valuable at this point in our evolution than good genes are. We've crossed a threshold.

And actually, although it does not match precisely what I claimed Interbane said, it's still just as bad.
It's a sweeping statement about having evolved enough. The implication is that we have all the intelligence that is needed from evolution to attain higher thought.

How do you know what human beings need from evolution?
How are you measuring "higher thought" and how have concluded we don't need more intelligence as a species?

How can anyone possibly make such a presumptuous assertion about the complexity of evolution?

Interbane knows that we have all that we need as a species.
Really? WOW!

We have a very imperfect understanding of our genes. The Human Genome Project's ambitious goals fell very, very short.

Meanwhile..,

Interbane is prognosticating some future perfection of sorts because of a "threshold" that has been crossed.

What exactly was that threshold?

But I commend you faith in our future achievements!

[Vishnu]

The atheistic downfall is and always will be its utterly hopeless state of being.

Meh. I've seen worse. Calvinist Christians in particular, if someone is not one of the elect, then even believing in a god and acknowledging the divinity of Christ would still leave one in an "utterly hopeless state of being."

Not far off from that view would be anyone who believes Christ's words (as they are, without their convoluted "exegetical" weaseling out of it) that blasphemy of the spirit is unforgivable. I've done as much. So even if I were to come around to believing in a god, or even in Christ, it would still be an "utterly hopeless state of being."

But what is it, exactly, that the atheist perspective is allegedly hopeless about?

A purposeless cosmos..,
A origin rooted in an evolution of species that at its core is nothing more than gene survival..,

Amounts to an empty, absurd existence that the atheist defends against with an illusion of "meaning."

This is weird. To me that just sounds like embellishing things with pessimistic language, glass half empty rather than half full.
Or rather, we're glad our 8 oz glass is full, then someone like yourself comes along claiming our glasses are actually 16 oz, we just can't see the other 8 oz and must have faith that it exists and have faith in Christ to get it filled up. On that premise you then claim our glass is half empty rather than half full and thus we're hopelessly in utter despair because of it. Yet all the while all that has ever been demonstrated empirically is the 8 oz we already have.

You write of a "purposeless cosmos", but what is the purpose of god? If such a thing exists, then why does god exist?

One could easily embellish the biblical world view with pessimistic language as well.

"A purposeless [God]..,
A[n] origin rooted in [dirt] that at its core is nothing more than gene [and soul] survival..,

Amounts to an empty, absurd existence that the [theist] defends against with an illusion of 'meaning.' "

Why would eternal slavery to Christ be any less "hopeless" or any more "meaningful"?

How is "meaning" or "hope" even measured or determined?

[Ptimb]

So is theistic side in this forum claiming that life is meaningless or purposeless without a god validating the value of an act? Not trying to group you guys together. I'm sure there will be varied stances about this question.

[Dexter]

We haven't been able to pin down how belief in a Vague, Generic Deity can provide meaning to your life when atheism fails.

Ant's belief system seems to be: Science doesn't have all the answers. So have faith in [missing content].

As for the OP's Biblical astrology, Robert Tulip is the guy you want to talk to.