Not Fully Human

[Kane Augustus]

I would like this cardinal and sgttomas, if they wouldn't mind, to point to something transcendent. People state they have transcendent moments of joy, when what they really mean is that they experienced a lot of joy. People state that their sex last night was transcendent, when what they really meant was that it felt really damned good. People look at art and suggest that it has a transcendent quality, when what they really mean is that this-or-that piece of art identified with something within people.

When it comes to religion, people suggest God, and certain spiritual experiences are transcendent. I think this begs the question: if you're detecting a thing, how is it in any way transcendent? In the same way, when people refer to the supernatural, how are they accounting for what they think they're experiencing not being part of what is natural?

So, when it comes to ad hominems meant to appeal to the in-groups of certain religious people, saying that a person who doesn't subscribe to such-and-such a religious view is less than human is really nothing more than an opportunity to flatter oneself: the religious person considers his/herself more fully human, better-off, or somehow more completely human than those who disagree with their subscription to supernaturalism. Or to put it differently:

Theist: "I believe in God. Those who don't believe in God are less human."
Non-theist: "We've got all the same body parts, all the same biology, all the same passions and reachings; I think I'm just as human as you."
Theist: "You don't know what you're talking about. You deny God. You're less than me."

White, European colonialists felt the same way toward Africans: they considered them less than human because they had different cultural values, and different coloured skin. Any theist thinking a non-theist is less than human is on level with white, European slavers.

[mdsimpson92]

sgttomas told me about two days ago that he is taking a break from going on forums for now. I don't think the cardinal has an account. Regardless would it be alright if I answer even though I disagree with them? Or if Meta wishes to answer I will defer to him. I can't answer at the moment because I have to go to work in an hour. Apologies.

[mdsimpson92]

that's poppy cock. Do you have the original statement to go by?

No, I am afraid I do not. I was just drawing a conclusion from the quote that you posted. Sorry if I misinterpreted.


"Later, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone.

He said saying that "supposedly faithless societies" ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for "terror and oppression"."

[mdsimpson92]

When it comes to religion, people suggest God, and certain spiritual experiences are transcendent. I think this begs the question: if you're detecting a thing, how is it in any way transcendent? In the same way, when people refer to the supernatural, how are they accounting for what they think they're experiencing not being part of what is natural?

Well, that's actually a funny thing. Transcendent usually means either beyond or otherly. On another note, I myself have largely dropped the term "supernatural" because its meaning has become so wide and diluted with other assumptions that it doesn't really matter anymore practically. Of course, if that is the case then most of the time the word "natural" has also become irrelevent to me. I believe Meta writing an article that essentially made the concept of the supernatural as being a higher form of nature, not something seperate. The closest example would be like Spinoza's Naturing Nature would have some similarity with the original concept. Though it was Spinoza that convinced me to drop the term for the most part.

[Metacrock]

that's poppy cock. Do you have the original statement to go by?

No, I am afraid I do not. I was just drawing a conclusion from the quote that you posted. Sorry if I misinterpreted.


"Later, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone.

He said saying that "supposedly faithless societies" ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for "terror and oppression"."

that doesn't say atheists are Hitler and Stalin it says the danger of not using emotions in thinking is that you wind up like them. hermit is making the assumption that he mean to say atheist are Hitlers because that's what he wants to bleieve.

[Metacrock]

Kane Augustus wrote:When it comes to religion, people suggest God, and certain spiritual experiences are transcendent. I think this begs the question: if you're detecting a thing, how is it in any way transcendent? In the same way, when people refer to the supernatural, how are they accounting for what they think they're experiencing not being part of what is natural?

transcendent doesn't just mean removed from it also means extending out of. for example a ball floating in water transcends the water even though half the ball is in the water, the other half is sticking out it. The space shuttle could be said to transcend the earth's "bonds" or "atmosphere" or whatever even though it starts out on the ground and travels up through the atmosphere.

Actually I got that ball things from a book. The more I think about it most balls float on top of the water, or they sink like a base ball, but I think you see what I mean.