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

[geo]

. . . 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.. . .

I am a modern Gnostic Christian visionary and like many Gnostics before me I too have spiritual visions from God. . . .

Chris' post was really well stated, but I wanted to simply add the following.

Is it more likely that Sonoman actually has spiritual visions from God, or that he thinks he has spiritual visions from God?

I can certainly accept that whatever Soloman experienced was deeply meaningful for him. But his interpretation that it was a revelation from God is, of course, very suspicious. People claim to see ghosts, aliens, the Mother Mary in a splotch on the wall. It's actually fairly obvious that these are mere projections of their beliefs. As Chris says, we would be very gullible to accept such reports on faith when we know that humans are highly susceptible to deception, bias, and illusion.

So I saw an alien land in my backyard today. Do you believe me?

[ant]

Chris wrote:

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

And you shouldn't. It is an admirable trait. I agree and respect that.

How often in our daily lives do we live without evidence? Without confirmation?
What do some of us believe in that we will never have evidence for?

We navigate our world as best we can, sometimes with limited information.
We trust that the people who love us will not do us wrong.
We infer based on past behavior that people who love us will continue to love us, that people who call us "friend" will continue to be our trusted friends
But human behavior is complex. Friends and loved ones often disappoint us and sometimes hurt us severely.
What brought us to this point with people that stop giving us the love we desire, after having loved them so dearly?
Why do friends sometimes betray us?
All the historical evidence was there for us to believe, and yet...

Did we base our relationships with these people on evidence or faith that tomorrow would give us the same love and friendship?


I say we all live out our personal lives based on faith that our universe will unfold in an orderly fashion.

Science would NOT be able to practice science if it did not believe that there is order to nature.
If there was no such pre existing belief in the order of nature, the endeavor would be futile.

If we as human beings did not have a pre -existing belief that our tomorrows will be fruitful, then many of us would stay in bed.

Of course it is admirable to prepare ourselves to live fruitful lives. But we all can do only so much.
The rest is based largely on faith that tomorrow will not bring us to a tragic halt

[ant]

I saw an alien land in my backyard today. Do you believe me?

This reminds me..,

Carl Sagan believed that aliens from other worlds almost certainly exist, despite NOT AN OUNCE OF EVIDENCE.
He even admitted that there was no evidence for such a belief. As a scientist, he said he had to admit it based on the methods of science.

Meanwhile..,

He gave full support in funding the search for ET, based entirely on ZERO evidence.
The search was worth the effort.

Do you believe in this great scientist's claim that ET is real?




BAH!!!!!

Let me guess.., you've read Carl Sagan and I haven't, right?
Therefor what I am claiming is false.

[geo]

I saw an alien land in my backyard today. Do you believe me?

This reminds me..,

Carl Sagan believed that aliens from other worlds almost certainly exist, despite NOT AN OUNCE OF EVIDENCE.
He even admitted that there was no evidence for such a belief. As a scientist, he said he had to admit it based on the methods of science.

Meanwhile..,

He gave full support in funding the search for ET, based entirely on ZERO evidence.
The search was worth the effort.

Do you believe in this great scientist's claim that ET is real?




BAH!!!!!

Let me guess.., you've read Carl Sagan and I haven't, right?
Therefor what I am claiming is false.

You can LOL all you want, Ant.

I have always had a very high regard for Carl Sagan and, yes, I've read most of his books. But, in fact, I don't worship the ground he walked on, and I have expressed much skepticism regarding the SETI program right here on BT. Recently I posted an essay by Michael Crichton that is fairly critical of some of Sagan's ideas, particularly his "theory" of a nuclear winter which was mostly just emotionally charged "scientifical" rhetoric that received the consensus treatment by Sagan and other respected scientists.

In fact, Sagan relied on the so-called Drake equation which is a "scientifical" formula about the possibility of extraterrestrial life in the universe. To put it succinctly, the Drake equation is a bunch of bull hockey.

The fact that Sagan considered the Drake Equation at all meaningful is testament to his occasional loopiness and the fact that people, even scientists, are highly susceptible to deception, bias, and illusion. Then again, we can forgive Sagan's enthusiasm which was among his very best qualities as a science educator.

Even so, there is a certain logic to looking for extraterrestrial life, even if I disagree with SETI's methods. Of all the billions and billions of star systems out there, is it plausible that earth is the only planet to produce life? SETI is essentially a shot in the dark, and should be seen as such. More importantly, it shouldn't be justified by using pseudo-scientific formulas intended to give it more credibility.

[ant]

Right

Even brilliant, loopy people are willing to hypothesize WITHOUT a shred of evidence.
I think there are good reasons why they do.
Sagan more likely than not realized that a leap of faith can often lead to wonderful discoveries.

Bad Carl, BAD!!!

[geo]

Right

Even brilliant, loopy people are willing to hypothesize WITHOUT a shred of evidence.
I think there are good reasons why they do.
Sagan more likely than not realized that a leap of faith can often lead to wonderful discoveries.

Bad Carl, BAD!!!

I added a paragraph to the end of my post.

[Chris OConnor]

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

To me this just doesn't make sense. If someone is delusional they're delusional. Just because it isn't sweet and sensitive and politically correct to label someone as delusional they are still delusional if they're delusional.

To believe in something based on imaginary evidence is delusional. Labeling someone as delusional doesn't equate to saying that we don't like them, don't want to be friends or somehow wish them harm. All it is saying is that we believe they have a poor grasp on reality. They aren't properly able to differentiate between fact and fantasy. They might be fun as hell at a party or as a mother, cousin or best friend.

This nonsense about having to pussyfoot around labeling people as delusional, irrational or plain and simply wrong is going to be the downfall of our species.

[ant]

Geo wrote:

SETI is essentially a shot in the dark, and should be seen as such.

A shot in the dark?
Based on what evidence that a target exists?
Because there are "billions and billions" of worlds out there in the dark of which our understanding is just as dark?
What evidence is there that the universal constants that sustain life as we know it are uniform throughout the cosmos?
Last I read, the universe may be patch-work of different constants, more likely than not, unable to sustain carbon life.

Are we searching for non-carbon life as well?
Does a consensus even exist related to the definition of "life."

There are scientists who state we are only able to define life based strictly on our understand of it in the context of our environment.
That would mean we have an incomplete definition of "life" As a result, we are essentially searching for something we can't even define clearly!!
ILLOGICAL to say the least!

[ant]

This nonsense about having to pussyfoot around labeling people as delusional, irrational or plain and simply wrong is going to be the downfall of our species.

The labeling of people by fallible people, who transform personal views into harmful ideologies, can only lead to oppression, segregation, and at worst, subjugation.

[Interbane]

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.

More emotional language. What makes you think two wrongs make a right? My words weren't bullshit ant, save the inflammatory rhetoric. If you see inflammation behind Robert's camoflauge, then call him on it rather than being impertinent.

Your are an order of magnitude more impolite than Robert. Calling science "atheistic" is not impoliteness. It may be wrong, but it's not impolite. You're rationalizing your words ant.

Be more civil please.