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

[Robert Tulip]

atheist modality that I am convinced is based on fear of spiritual revelation that atheists do not understand

Atheists can understand the psychology of so-called spiritual revelation perfectly well. It is a combination of fantasy, imagination, projection, wishful thinking, metaphor, delusion, ignorance and error. Revelation only makes sense to the extent it is scientific. The idea of real intentional spiritual entities is an obsolete pre-scientific error. God is pure imagination. Scientists do not need to fear the supernatural because it is not real.

if spiritual revelation is true, atheism is not.

No. The "truth" of spiritual revelation is primarily a matter of allegory. For example, your diagrams of the constellations which produce the 'four living creatures' of the Bible illustrate that this revelation is imaginary. These creatures are not real, they are allegory. The meaning of this Biblical revelation is compatible with scientific atheism, and incompatible with a real supernatural god.

I don't inhabit a world of atheistic science.

Yes you do. You are welcome to imagine your own fantasy world, but the contestable rational planet the rest of us live on is governed by atheist science.

people who never look at me as a "crazy" like you atheists really want to paint people like me as

I think you are far less crazy than believers in the virgin birth.

Most all these people in my county are well aware of my religious adventures and radical Gnostic Christian beliefs.

So what, you live in California where everyone is crazy.

God's given me a holistic polymath mindset, one that is bicameral having good access to both left and right hemispheres which shows up in my ability to articulate spiritual experiences.

okay what ever you say.

I switched modalities choosing imagery to speak louder than words to convey what to me is a clear Sign Language of instruction from God that follows a most definite Aquarian/Saturn theological theme

I'm sure it is clear as day to you sonoman, it is just that it seems rather opaque to others.

thanks very much to research like Finkelstein and Silberman's confirmation of my 34 years of doubting the Bible stories, and thanks to Acharya too who I'd like to thank personally for giving me understanding of the John the Baptist role I was unconsciously playing out

You are a very interesting person sonoman, drawing on scientific religious scholarship to produce a personal spiritual vision. That is really admirable, but it comes across as intensely personal. Where I agree with you it is because I have separately understood the ideas that you are presenting.

I was an atheist myself until age 35 and it took a rather large effort by God to overthrow my science-explains all mindset. But it was done and ever since my mind is aware there really is a hidden spiritual dimension to material reality. And our brains are evolved to receive spiritual phenomena.

I still haven't got from you what science cannot explain, or why this 'receptivity' is more than psychological delusion.

that Christ icon cannot be beat for focusing the human ideal of Self-Sacrifice for Love of Humanity

That could be understood as a purely scientific archetypal psychological argument.

[ant]

"atheist science."

That is a foolish, imbicilic, moronic lie.
Science is not "atheistic" Robert. You are.
The question of God is not a scientific one. It's a metaphysical question

Your preaching, Robert. Plain and simple.
You have a religious ferver for science.

[sonoman]

I have one criticism of your atheist viewpoint that destroys it: Robert, you and all atheists like you do not know what you are talking about and yet act as if you were experts in a phenomena you have zero experience in. Get a clue. The guy standing on the sidewalk behind the construction site fence giving orders to the workers on how to do their jobs is not the expert he thinks he is. Until you've had spiritual experiences, ones that are so powerful they change your life, you are only making guesses about what it is by studying the trail of people like me in ancient times. Yet just like anthropologists like Margaret Meade coming away with South Pacific islander sex orgiests because she swallowed their humor as real sociology you too are just so far outside the realm of the phenomena you make such grandiose judgments about it's ludicrous to those of us whose brains are not spiritually disabled. Your brain doesn't have just one hemisphere in operation, the left one, that thinks everything is a straight-line linear universe, going from A to Z with perhaps an allowable fuzzy zone of yet to be discovered quantum characteristics, but still all logically explainable even though logic itself by Godel's Proof is not logical, but we won't let that stop our atheists from thinking they have the world by the scientific tail. In short, until atheists have spiritual experience they are not qualified to analysis or judge spiritual phenomena.

Even using logic defeats the atheist p.o.v. because only the agnostic position is valid scientifically. Atheism has jumped to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. The logic of human history shows a decided advancement happening in knowledge acquisition, even when Europe was in the Dark Ages, Muslims were expanding intellectual horizons and that's the way we are going, ever increasing knowledge base. So the atheist position being supposedly based on current knowledge forgets the future knowledge acquisition, e.g. the brain science findings of how "Nature" has somehow evolved our human brains to process spiritual stimulation that atheist say doesn't exist. Whatever I experienced that made me and Muhammad sweat like like pigs every time it came through our minds is something our experts in such phenomena say doesn't exist. So you can see why it is laughable for us to take atheist seriously. We theists have at least 40,000 years of human brains paying enormous amounts of their cultural attention to phenomena atheists say is imaginary. Human brains are processing imaginary stimulation..right...

Wrong. And this is why when atheist deal with theistic history of religious symbolism they are the straw bosses standing outside like Margaret Meade making dumb conclusions about stuff they really don't understand. Such as why would a theist like me arrive at the astrological foundation of my Christian walk 34 years ago before I even had read the Bible, before Acharya or you probably were out of grade school? How I found EL as the rightful head of the Canaanite Divine Assembly in 1998 and arrived at the conclusion there would inevitably be why I called then, an "Armageddon Choice" because once Christians know there were two gods in the Jewish Godhead (at least) and they could only serve one faithfully, EL or Yahweh, choosing EL would eventually topple their traditional (Pauline) Christian beliefs. For I do take prophesy seriously and that "Armageddon" spiritual war in Revelation has come true but as always, when prophesy comes true, it comes true in ways believers never expect. Thus while I was being spiritually guided by God to find EL and EL's relationship to Jesus, as reestablishing the Father-Son true relationship that defines Christianity, in 1998, completely unknown to me Israeli archeologist Israel Finkelstein and historian Neil Silberman were finding through their digs at Megiddo that the writers of the Bible were proto-Hollywood Scriptwriters writing most excellent Scripts for their times, ones swallowed to this very day hook, line, and sinker by billions of people. "Armageddon" is the Greek translation of the Canaanite name for the Divine Assembly where EL ruled as God Most High. "Megiddo" is named after that same Canaanite Divine Assembly. So God led me correctly in 1998 through spiritual revelation to the historical science foundation why the Abrahamic religions will be debunked as spiritual authority. The Bible Unearthed was published three years later and I've never read it, just seen the recent video put out in 2011 I think.

Another example of spiritual revelation informing prior to scholarship such as Acharya's is the Egyptian connection I was put on as another "Ham" (Egypt) spiritual descendant (daring to peek at Noah in his drunken state of mind) in 1979 and finding out in 1980 when the Nag Ham-madi Library was published in English I was in the Gnostic Christian camp with my particular unorthodox revelation based new Christian beliefs. Then in mid 2000's I start getting the Egyptian/astrological connection revelations and in 2011 find Acharya's Christ in Egypt that confirms my spiritually led missions as being quite in line with astrologically based Christ theology where Aquarius (Son) Christ/Messiah-Yahweh is coupled to Saturn (Father) EL Elyon, as I am a double Aquarius and seem to be acting out the Aquarian Archetype unconsciously until I learned these last couple of years about the astrological connections in detail. So I am content with spiritually led advancement in knowledge as in my life it is keeping my spiritual receptive mind in the prophetic future where my work is to be revealed for future generations looking at my words now in 2013. I am confident that future generations will be able to see the trail of revelation of the Christ Aquarius Humanitarian Model going from ancient Near East to our times and into their times as historical evidence of human knowledge being advanced by spiritual revelation vs. intellectual effort. If the Humanitarian Model fails to materialize as a universal goal for all ethical people to recognize and desire to see in human social reality then our goose's are cooked anyway..the Celestial Torah Christianity path is how God is uniting science with religion finally to establish a revelatory base for the Christ goal of changing human beings into humane beings. I like my God-centered spiritually active world and all the wondrous things that happen in it. I could never contemplate going back to a lesser consciousness.

[Chris OConnor]

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.

I really MUST remember this. LOL Superb stuff.

[Chris OConnor]

I will almost bet there will be another round of prejudice against spiritual revelation pitting Tulip as a higher "authority" on astrology because he arrives at his ideas through the accepted secular way, research scholarship, like Acharya, both producing their books as adults when as children I was being spiritually instructed to follow the same astrological embeddings in Scriptures.

There is a really good reason why educated rational people discount "spiritual revelation" and instead form their conclusions based on secular, empirical science. Not doing so is a surefire recipe for being tricked, deceived, abused, manipulated, and/or cheated.

How can we KNOW that you had a true, genuine and authentic "spiritual revelation" when ALL claims to spiritual revelation could also possibly be...

1. Lies
2. Delusions
3. Misunderstandings

I'm not arguing that all spiritual revelations ARE either lies, delusions or misunderstandings (OK, I really am) but there is absolutely NO means for an outsider to analyze a claim of spiritual revelation and be able to differentiate the claim from a possible lie, delusion or misunderstanding. They all look identical to the outsider. People like you are expecting us to just trust your words and judgement. Why should we do this? Haven't you been exposed to charlatans, liars, cheats, idiots, swindlers and uneducated nuts throughout your life? Do you just trust them by default? Do you give their claims equal credibility as secular, empirically testable claims? Where do you draw the line? When do you say, "I call bullshit" and demand they prove their "spiritual experience" wasn't really a delusion or a lie or a misunderstanding of what actually has a natural explanation?

So yeah, we're prejudiced against claims that cannot be empirically tested in any way, shape or form. We're biased against people that claim things that MIGHT be spiritual revelation but also could be a lie, delusion or simple misunderstanding. When we, as outsiders, are asked to just "trust" the claimant who says something happened to them we step back and think about it a bit more than people like you think we should.

I'm not going to apologize for being a thinker and demanding more from myself intellectually.

[Interbane]

We theists have at least 40,000 years of human brains paying enormous amounts of their cultural attention to phenomena atheists say is imaginary. Human brains are processing imaginary stimulation..right...

I've used Stephen as an example many times since he was here as biomystic a few years back. The coincidence worshipper returns!

Stephen is an example of someone who misunderstand how the world works, but genuinely believes that other people are the ones who misunderstand.

There have been other people with a similar condition. Color-blind to the workings of the universe, yet claiming everyone else is color-blind and not them. Yet what they see are gradations of grey rather than color, grossly underestimating the complexity of the universe. But educating them is impossible, they insist everyone else is truly lacking the ability to see what they see. It can be no different; the capacities are intrinsic, unchanging.

The key to understanding why is he wrong is that coincidences containing immense personal meaning are mathematically inevitable. An artifact of a clockwork universe. Without the ability to see just how complex the universe truly is, these coincidences are instead believed to be magical/divine.

You aren't processing anything imaginary Stephen, you are just clueless as to why and how it happens.

[Interbane]

That is a foolish, imbicilic, moronic lie.

Ant, I agree completely with your post, but for the love of god temper the emotional language! Simply stating your position is enough to make a point. Adding insulting language will only antagonize and polarize, which you're well aware of.

[ant]

Atheist science.

To make the claim that science is atheistic is to expose one's complete ignorance about the subject itself.

There's nothing polite about your response to the person here that is sharing and discussing their beliefs, Robert.
Your impolite response is aggressive, rude, and reeks of arrogance.
But this is no surprise coming from you.

Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.
Science is a process used to examine the, observable, natural world. It develops hypothesis based on that which can be observed, is testable, and is subject to falsification at any point in time. It is based on empirical evidence. The process does not include the claim "No god exists." You're lying through your front bucktooth by stating science is atheistic. That's YOUR personal worldview, Robert. It isn't science's worldview. Science is a process. Just ask Interbane.

Your impolite response to this poster is shameful and despicable. You're attempting to use science as a club to beat someone over the head who's worldview is different than yours. You always you science in this manner.

So what, Robert.., So what if he believes in god? That doesn't give you license to call him delusional.

If you want a sample of what delusion is, just look at your theory about astrology and star patterns hidden in the Last Supper painting.
Remember that?
Your seeing stars in hands, faces, and torsos that aren't even there. You've developed an illusion to fit your bogus astrology/christianity theory, Robert.
That's delusion.

Metaphysical questions and claims are something that prominent scientists engage in all the time. But it's NOT science. Evidence. observation, testable hypothesis are sometimes IMPOSSIBLE to come by. That is why men who engage in science, philosophy, metaphysics, etc are willing to utilize their intellects beyond what science has to offer. If you take issue with that then you have an issue with an aspect of SCIENCE - your CURRENT IDOL of worship. Go be impolite with those scientists, Robert.

If this person's subjective experience is delusional, so is yours, Robert. Your claim that the nature of reality is close to being known, or that admitted mysteries such as gravity are well known, or that some ancient secret christian society added to and deleted from ancient historical records are all manifestly bogus, irrational (because they all lack conclusive evidence), and DELUSIONAL.

Your rhetorical maneuvering is easy to spot. Stop fooling yourself that your speaking truth, because your not.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, stop deluding yourself, Robert. It's not healthy for you.

Ps

Be more polite.
If not, be ready for impolite responses.

[ant]

That is a foolish, imbicilic, moronic lie.

Ant, I agree completely with your post, but for the love of god temper the emotional language! Simply stating your position is enough to make a point. Adding insulting language will only antagonize and polarize, which you're well aware of.

Bullshit, Interbane.
Robert is being offensive and insulting. He's camouflaging his insults. Just look at some of the words he's used to describe this person's personal beliefs.
This is exactly what I mean by "militant."
And yeah, my response is strong. So what?
I can be just as impolite as an atheist.

[ant]

Sonoman,

Thank you for sharing your views.

Regarding "revelation"

On record are scientists who have claimed to have had "inspirational" moments that have helped them solve difficulties that totally perplexed them until a moment of inexplicable inspiration came to them. There was no rational explanation for it. Nor did they attempt to find one.

Inspiration
Revelation

Who are we, with our limited understanding of nature, to question or doubt the meaning of these moments?