sonoman wrote:because if spiritual revelation is true, atheism is not.
surely that would depend on the nature of the spiritual revelation and the nature of the atheism.
i have heard atheists say that if they were presented with proof of something beyond their current understanding they would change their thinking.
for something to be recieved as more than interpretation or subjective experience but rather as FACT requires a different level of verification, i can for example accept as fact that some people believe in a historical jesus but i cannot accept historical jesus as fact (evidence problem attached to mythical figure)
i am completely atheist regarding yahweh (to me just a bad metaphor) but not so quick to exclude ALL possibility of there being much more going on in and around me than simply "5 sense reality" but NOT prepared to try and force other people to acknowledge something i can barely articulate to myself let alone prove.
if you could prove it there would be no need to believe it, you would know it, along the lines that Carl Jung used to say.
atheists come in all shapes and sizes and variations and many seem like wonderful people from whom i can (and do) learn a lot, i could say the same for christians, hindus, sufis, jews etc etc but i am not about to accept that abhorrent stupidity known as literalism.
but i remain, i hope, open to new knowledge and new possibilities and new metaphors etc etc hell, even a new sandwich would be nice occassionally!
i can relate to all the different groups whether atheists, mystics, psychologists, empiricists, poets, burger flippers or whatever.
whatever is good, sensible, verifiable or just funny or interesting or downright weird about the system or position i am up for it!
but you can't blame atheism if what you are trying to convey doesn't make sense to someone.
perhaps they are doing the honourable thing refusing to accept what they cannot rightly understand from the information thus far presented to them, perhaps the mystic is expecting too much from people trying to describe the indescribable to them.
i think i could land on a mystic forum and hold my own running the gamut from Jungian archetypes to Kosmic Krists to tree auras etc etc some ideas having some merit and some ideas being woo woo in the extreme, yes, ideas ranging from one to ten on the woo woo scale.
but i hope i could just as easily land on an atheist forum and respect evidence based thinking and a desire to be properly persuaded rather than just embrace any old quackery that comes down the turn pike.
i dont adhere so much to the division atheist, mythicist, theist etc etc they are all just labels that people fit more or less in one regard or another.
i think that any single proposition can be put forward and thought about and we will see if it has any merit in any way to anyone, those that accept it accept it (hopefully cautiously at first) those that reject it reject it (hopefully cautiously at first) and good luck to both of them.
i can see why one would mock someone who proposes a literalist yahweh but i cant see a problem neccessarily with someone who likes a reason for what they accept as worthwhile, indeed i applaud them and thank them for a valuable lesson.
to say atheists reject out of fear of the unknown seems less likely than saying believers reject out of a fear they may believe things they dont understand, which as stevie wonder reminds us is superstition and is not the way.
also if we identify with an idea and the idea is rejected then we feel rejected, but a rejection of an idea is not quite the same thing.
people make it personal but it doesnt have to be that way at all, or so it seems to me at least.