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

[geo]

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!

The SETI program is based on the premise that there might be life out there. It's as simple as that. What qualifies "intelligent" life, I haven't a clue.

I can't read through your highly charged language, so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. I agree with Interbane that you might want to tone it down a little. You come across as belligerent and angry. Not sure if that's the tone you're going for.

It seems to me that SETI is primarily an exploratory venture, and arguably worth the funding. It takes technical proficiency to shoot a probe into Jupiter's atmosphere, but as to what we'll find there is probably not much better than an educated guess. The scientific process often relies on guesswork and serendipity.

it's man's nature to explore the outer reaches.

I've posted my thoughts on SETI before.

http://www.booktalk.org/post94231.html? ... eti#p94231

[Vishnu]

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.

Not necessarily false, but some citations or quotations would be handy to better assess what he said and to make sure you're not being a bit hyperbolic in your representation of him.

Moreover, we actually do have at least "an ounce" of evidence to suspect and be hopeful that life exists on other planets. That is, of course...

this planet.

ET life aside, we hear these reports coming in recently about the discovery of other "earth-like" planets with the potential to sustain life as we know it. Why did we even start looking for such a planet? What provoked us to do that? And how did we even know how to go about searching for one and know how to identify such a planet?

Because we have this one.

And based on that "ounce" of evidence, the evidence of the existence of this planet, we were clearly justified in suspecting that others like it exist out there. Our search was successful.

The search for ET life, to me, seems like just adding one more attribute to that list of identifying characteristics when searching for "earth-like" planets.
That attribute being- life.

We know other earth-like planets exist out there in space.
We know the raw materials for life exist out there in space.
We have at least one documented case of the those two conditions crossing paths and successfully producing life.
So no, it's not entirely unwarranted to try and see if there's other cases to document as well.

[Robert Tulip]

ant certainly makes me chuckle.

Apparently ant thinks it is foolish, moronic and imbecilic to contend that science is atheistic. Morons were traditionally defined as people with IQ below 70, while imbeciles had an IQ below 50, and idiots had an IQ below 25. And the fool is an interesting cultural figure, often able to say what others really believe, as in King Lear.

But the entire scientific enlightenment, stretching from Hume and Spinoza through to Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein were not fools. They took as a basic premise that we cannot postulate entities for which we have no evidence. And Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity provided a perfectly good scientific explanation of religion as psychological projection. Science is atheist because it rests on Ockham's Razor, the principles of elegance and parsimony. God just does not help us explain anything more simply than science does.

These atheist scientists certainly had IQs above 50. And that is why we have computers, GPS, airplanes, cities and wealth, because modern knowledge is based on science not god. God is only going to get back in the picture if his devotees become far more humble and accept he has a subordinate imaginary position beneath logic and evidence.

Imagining things that don't exist is a recipe for stagnation, stupidity and fanaticism. We should have evolved culturally beyond the need to make things up. The Son of Man may have nowhere to lay his head, but that is no basis to assert certainty for claims which lack evidence and logic. We can still read the Bible and enjoy it as meaningful and ethical, but it is dangerous to see it as a critique of scientific method.

On SETI, I thought the idea was just to look, ie "search". Nothing unscientific in that. And the Drake Equation is just pointing out how big the universe is, something that most people find very hard to get their head around.

On The Last Supper, I maintain as a rigorous scientific hypothesis that Leonardo da Vinci used the stars of the sky as his template for the positions of the figures. I am not imagining it like seeing figures in clouds. I am happy to revisit the evidence for that argument if people can be polite about it.

I agree with Chris that a discussion on whether something is delusional can be conducted politely. As I said, I think Sonoman is far less crazy than true believers in conventional Christianity. But his assertion that atheists fear revelation is plain wrong.

Sonoman/biomystic was previously banned because he had insulted a guest author. Since we are not discussing that book now, it seems okay that he has slipped back through the sock puppet cracks.

[ant]

"Moreover, we actually do have at least "an ounce" of evidence to suspect and be hopeful that life exists on other planets. That is, of course..."

To affirm our own existence as an implication that life must also exist elsewhere is of course a silly truism , used as a rhetorical device to maneuver around what is at issue here - life existing elsewhere in the universe.
Conscious life, actually.
We won't be able to ask a microbe on Mars if it believes in God.

And if we ever do find conscious life elsewhere, lets hope it's not a colony of Tulips.
For Tulips tend to both misrepresent science and add false narratives to historical records

I'm going to read what mischief Robert is up to now. From the looks of it, he's now in the prices of expunging aspects of history for the purpose of promoting his personal beliefs.
I need another good laugh from him.

[ant]

By the way,

Lets say we do find "intelligent" life elsewhere in the universe and it professes a belief in a creator, would it be because our memes infected them as well or they just infected themselves?

Naturally someone here will no doubt step forward and claim that the laws of evolution would be similar for an alien race because laws are laws everywhere!

Come on, ET! Stop hiding and show yourselves!

[Interbane]

Lets say we do find "intelligent" life elsewhere in the universe and it professes a belief in a creator, would it be because our memes infected them as well or they just infected themselves?

Think of memes as sticky or viral ideas. If we do at one point encounter other sentience, I doubt they would assimilate any of our religions. Let's say the tables are turned and during conversations we discover the aliens have their own religion whose texts claim the aliens are created in the image of god, and that their planet is uniquely blessed by a creator. From an Earthling's religious perspective, that's bordering on blasphemy.

If there is sentient life elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if they believe in a higher power. Unless that life is like the Primes from Peter F. Hamilton's "Pandora's Star" books. Excellent books BTW.

As far as the proof of life on other planets, it's of course merely speculative. There is no evidence let alone any proof. The speculation rests on reasoning, not evidence. I don't see abiogenesis as something that would only happen on one planet amongst a countless number of H-congruous planets. If it happened once, it can likely happen again elsewhere. Not proof, just reasoning.

The key point to consider is how gargantuan the number of possible life supporting planets is. Even if abiogenesis is an extremely rare event, happening on just one in a billion planets, then there would be hundreds or thousands of planets with life.

It's a matter of large numbers. The universe is so immense that it would be unreasonable to assume life wouldn't arise elsewhere. Does such speculation justify investing in a program like SETI? I wouldn't make that argument. But it's like purchasing a lottery ticket. An investment that could potentially lead to the largest discovery in history.

[youkrst]

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.

how do you know there aren't people here who have had "spiritual experiences" so powerful their lives have been changed as a result.

Robert may well have had such an experience or perhaps several such experiences.

it's ludicrous to those of us whose brains are not spiritually disabled.

congratulations! apparently your brain is not spiritually disabled.

In short, until atheists have spiritual experience they are not qualified to analysis or judge spiritual phenomena.

Sam Harris is very interested in "spiritual experience"

Hitch talks about the numinous experience.

what precludes atheists from judging or analysing, i would think their input would be valuable because they are less likely to be swept up in the "subjectiveness of it all" i mean they are going to push you to make sense rather than just say, "oh, my 'Christ Aquarius Humanitarian Model' must be off."

Whatever I experienced

yes, whatever YOU experienced

that made me and Muhammad sweat like like pigs every time it came through our minds

interesting side effect

is something our experts in such phenomena say doesn't exist.

no-one is saying phenomena dont exist, it's the interpretation of the phenomena that is open for discussion, or could be.

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.

ok, this just sounds like crazy talk to me.

can you slow it down and start at the beginning with precept one. once we have established mutual understanding on precept one we can move to precept two etc etc who knows i may end up joining the "Canaanite Divine Assembly"

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.

could you define the "Christ Aquarius Humanitarian Model" ?

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.

ok, we better start with precept one before we unpack "Celestial Torah Christianity path" and "God"

I could never contemplate going back to a lesser consciousness.

could you contemplate being wrong about any of this, could it be possible that your interpretation is open to improvement?

[youkrst]

What atheist/mythicists don't get is that Celestial Torah Christianity proves that the human idea of the Humanitarian, the Man Face of Aquarius who has the Urn or urns or bucket of Living Waters to pour as consecration for the good human being who righteously follows the good God, EL ELyon, Saturn. This Saturn/Aquarius combination is the secret heart of the Celestial Torah that was taken out of Egypt through the failed Hyksos experience along with a bunch of other Egyptian religious ideas, such as Akhenaton's monotheism which was applied to the Canaanite pantheon, removing all Canaanite deities except EL and Yahweh, both combined into one man-made YHWH, which destroyed the Saturn/Aquarius modality that is always permanently up there in the heavens where God is storing the evolving Humanitarian Model information for all humankind.

i'm not surprised atheists, mythicists or indeed anyone is having trouble getting this. It's very hard to follow all the jargon.

what is precept one?

and if the Saturn/Aquarius modality has been destroyed that musn't make it any easier i guess. at least it sounds bad, right? i've never had anyone come to me in tears crying "my Saturn/Aquarius modality has been destroyed, woe is me!"

[youkrst]

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

What atheist/mythicists don't get is that Celestial Torah Christianity proves that the human idea of the Humanitarian, the Man Face of Aquarius who has the Urn or urns or bucket of Living Waters to pour as consecration for the good human being who righteously follows the good God, EL ELyon, Saturn.

ant, you're not an atheist or a mythicist are you? can you explain the meaning of that text?

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

That is a foolish, imbicilic, moronic lie. Science is not "atheistic" Robert. You are.

[Robert Tulip]

This is such an entertaining thread. I remember once when I was feeling in a particularly messianic mood and tried walking on water but it didn't work and I sank. Yes I have had spiritual experiences, for example when I imagined I was in contact with an awesome energy emanating from the centre of our galaxy. Yes, I did consider that this experience, and others like it, could have been God speaking to me. However, surprisingly enough on reflection I came to the Ockhamite answer that these experiences, rather like those extremely entertaining flying dreams, were entirely products of my own neurochemistry.

Looking at philosophy from first principles, the only things whose existence we have any evidence for whatsoever are material, or things that arise from the spatiotemporal relations between material entities. But that does not rule out metaphysics, which is a product of our perception of relations between things. Through metaphysics the past continues to live in the present by recollection.

What metaphysics does not provide is any plausible argument for non-material entities.

We imagine high eternal Platonic ideas such as love, good, beauty and justice. In every case, these ideas involve human subjectivity imagining or constructing symbolic connections between things. These symbolic connections are often real, but their reality is constructed in human culture, and does not sit in some heaven.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Part of that 'eye' is a genetic attraction to symmetry. The beauty of an object is a product of the relation we have to it. Without us to call it beautiful the description of it as beautiful would not happen. Similarly with God, if we were not here to imagine him he would not exist.

God is a way of describing the human relation to ultimate truth. A theologian I quite like, Pannenberg, argues that in the metaphysics of the trinity, without a son there would be no father, that the existence of the persons of the trinity is intrinsically relational. If we consider Jesus as allegory for the sun, we can then imagine the relation between Jesus and God as like the relation between the sun and the galaxy. This is an imaginative fantasy, but it is not entirely without meaning.

When Son o' Man here speaks about his Aquarian prophetic visions, he is pointing to a sense that religion has to evolve from its previous forms into something new, reflecting an emerging cosmic vision. I agree with that principle, but I think that part of the new form should be a rigorous scientific materialism. Supernaturalism is false. Science has made imaginary spiritual entities obsolete. Evidence is the highest good. Ethical religion should build an alliance with atheism, as part of a common search for truth. The language from earlier myth about imaginary entities can only be redeemed if we see the descriptions as allegory, as metaphor for natural observation. This allegorical approach is in fact quite a productive way to read spiritual writings.