Atheists can be spiritual too

[Syne]

Again, you're completely ignoring the other two definition YOU QUOTED.  
Is that transparent intellectual dishonesty or honest attentional bias? I would think it would be hard to copy/paste something you're completely unaware of.
Again, for the umpteenth time, appreciation for nature is only humbling or awe inspiring. It is not "beyond the limits of possible experience", "beyond human knowledge", or "existing apart from the material universe".

An honest and humble person could acknowledge that their use of the word transcendent is obviously limited. But that's just it. You're too busy defending your ego to even countenance the other definition...much less make any attempt to justify that you experience them. You might as well just be parroting secular "spiritual" dogma.  

No..Since I obviously don't believe in God, transcendence has no meaning beyond the first two definitions, which are as surpassing and excelling the human ego. That is the essence of the spiritual. There is no other definition for me that makes sense. I don't need your theistic fairy tales to make sense of my experience.

So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience", right? So why have you not described anything except completely possible experience? O_o
Or by "the first two", do you only mean "surpassing; excelling"? If so, then nothing extraordinary at all. Only proving what I said, that your "transcendence" is merely "mundane".

There is no other definition for me that makes sense.

Because you are incapable of understanding...all the while you protest that your limited transcendence is just as good as anyone else's.
Sounds like blind faith to me.

[Leigha]

I believe the term ''transcendent'' is used mainly when referring to the spiritual world (beyond the physical world), in terms of a deity. But, immanence is where divinity can be experienced and ''seen'' through nature and all of humanity.

When it comes to my own faith beliefs, transcendent isn't really a term I use to describe it, because when a term starts to take on too many definitions, it eventually loses its meaning, completely. Ever notice that?

[Magical Realist]

So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience", right? So why have you not described anything except completely possible experience?

LOL. Because I'm not discussing transcendent in the philosophical sense now. I'm discussing transcendent in the everyday sense of nature and the universe. You can't be this stupid.

[Secular Sanity]

My two cents...

My question to you is, why do you use the pronoun "he" when referring to God?

Probably just a byproduct/habit from my childhood upbringing of how to consider God. I've left faith and come back recently, and I believe that God embodies both female and male attributes. Not necessarily in a human condition kind of way, but that God represents both male and female. ''We'' were created in that likeness. I think ''he'' is a common way of referring to God, as ''it'' sounds impersonal, perhaps?

It sounds impersonal because it is impersonal. The Shakespearean sonnet, [all the world’s a stage] is tough to deny. There’s an ever lurking concern for our image. I think that when we attempt to apply human traits, emotions, and intentions to 'life' itself, we’re seeking acceptance and approval, which is contrary to what we really need—to be known and understood.

Nietzsche said, "Who has not for the sake of his reputation – sacrificed himself?" "The false opposites…have always been dangerous hindrances to the advance of truth."

All of these artificial dualities, mind/body, appearance/reality, human/nature, and good/evil lead to self-deception. What I’ve had to ask myself is, is there anything wrong with unrequited love? Can you love without being loved in return?

As I’ve said before, Nietzsche used 'WOMAN' as a metaphor for life, truth, and wisdom, but not in an anthropomorphic sense, e.g., a goddess.

She [LIFE] was jealous of his wisdom but said that she would leave him if his wisdom ever departed. Why do think that is, wegs? Why do you think that [LIFE] would leave Nietzsche if his mistress [WISDOM] left him?

I fear thee near, I love thee far; thy flight allureth me, thy seeking secureth me:—I suffer, but for thee, what would I not gladly bear!
Who would not hate thee, thou great bindress, in-windress, temptress, seekress, findress! Who would not love thee, thou innocent, impatient, wind-swift, child-eyed sinner!
Whither pullest thou me now, thou paragon and tomboy? And now foolest thou me fleeing; thou sweet romp dost annoy!
I dance after thee, I follow even faint traces lonely. Where art thou? Give me thy hand! Or thy finger only!
Oh, that cursed, nimble, supple serpent and lurking-witch! Where art thou gone? But in my face do I feel through thy hand, two spots and red blotches itch!
I am verily weary of it, ever thy sheepish shepherd to be. Thou witch, if I have hitherto sung unto thee, now shalt thou—cry unto me!
To the rhythm of my whip shalt thou dance and cry! I forget not my whip?—Not I!"—

Then did Life answer me thus, and kept thereby her fine ears closed:
"O Zarathustra! Crack not so terribly with thy whip! Thou knowest surely that noise killeth thought,—and just now there came to me such delicate thoughts.
We are both of us genuine ne'er-do-wells and ne'er-do-ills. Beyond good and evil found we our island and our green meadow—we two alone! Therefore must we be friendly to each other!
And even should we not love each other from the bottom of our hearts,—must we then have a grudge against each other if we do not love each other perfectly?
And that I am friendly to thee, and often too friendly, that knowest thou: and the reason is that I am envious of thy Wisdom. Ah, this mad old fool, Wisdom!
If thy Wisdom should one day run away from thee, ah! then would also my love run away from thee quickly."

He whisper something into her ear…

"Yes," I answered hesitantly, "but you also know –" and I whispered something into her ear, right through her tangled yellow foolish tresses.

"You know that, O Zarathustra? Nobody knows that."

His desire for wisdom was his love of life. His will to power was his will to live. Cracking the whip was borrowed from Schopenhauer. He said, that the sound disrupted his thoughts. We can crack our whip all we want, but no matter how much we know, we'll never have a complete understanding, nor control.

Humans have always tried to exert their control over nature, [Truth]. We chase after it—try to lay claim to it, but in doing so we turn it into something it is not. Nietzsche wanted to love life for what it was, not for what he wanted it to be.

All of this talk about going beyond something that’s contrary to our senses by altering our senses diminishes it—makes it into something it is not.

So, my question to you is, Syne, is this what you’re referring to when you’re talking about transcendence and spirituality? Have you ever taken psychedelics?

I have, and that's why I know the difference.

Sounds like Syne thinks he’s mastered it while under the influence. Remember [The Ring]? It extended Gollum beyond his natural limits but its influence twisted Gollum’s body and mind.

I’m an atheist, but first and foremost, I'm a great ape—nothing more, but nothing less. I don’t need to take drugs or remove myself from the equation [ego death] to appreciate life for what it is. My desire to know more about life and myself doesn’t diminish my will to live at all. If anything, it enhances it. Life will always remain a mystery to me but true love is only possible when we acknowledge that one can never fully know the other. However, that other [the unknown] is just that…the unknown.

[Leigha]

While it's healthy to discuss these ideas, it isn't necessary to ''argue'' over them, imo. If someone's faith ideas isn't your cup of tea, so be it. If their faith beliefs aren't harming anyone, but it brings a sense of peace and joy to their lives, so be it.

On SF, same thing is happening right now...I mention that I'm a believer (again), and everyone wants to tell me that I'm wrong to believe in a god at all.   They don't tell me why, except that there's no ''evidence'' for a god. In thinking through my replies though, it occurred to me that science might not be meant to provide all of life's answers. If it were enough, millions of people wouldn't be seeking answers to their existential questions.

Not suggesting that God becomes the ultimate answer for everyone, but exploring one's questions as far as they can go, is part of the essence of being human.

You've simply arrived at a different conclusion than I have, SS. It doesn't mean either is wrong...it just means we think about the existential aspects of life a little differently, perhaps?

[Secular Sanity]

While it's healthy to discuss these ideas, it isn't necessary to ''argue'' over them, imo. If someone's faith ideas isn't your cup of tea, so be it. If their faith beliefs aren't harming anyone, but it brings a sense of peace and joy to their lives, so be it.

On SF, same thing is happening right now...I mention that I'm a believer (again), and everyone wants to tell me that I'm wrong to believe in a god at all.   They don't tell me why, except that there's no ''evidence'' for a god. In thinking through my replies though, it occurred to me that science might not be meant to provide all of life's answers. If it were enough, millions of people wouldn't be seeking answers to their existential questions.

Not suggesting that God becomes the ultimate answer for everyone, but exploring one's questions as far as they can go, is part of the essence of being human.

You've simply arrived at a different conclusion than I have, SS. It doesn't mean either is wrong...it just means we think about the existential aspects of life a little differently, perhaps?

It’s not an argument, wegs. It’s a disagreement—a difference of opinion.

Hence the...

My two cents...

[Leigha]

While it's healthy to discuss these ideas, it isn't necessary to ''argue'' over them, imo. If someone's faith ideas isn't your cup of tea, so be it. If their faith beliefs aren't harming anyone, but it brings a sense of peace and joy to their lives, so be it.

On SF, same thing is happening right now...I mention that I'm a believer (again), and everyone wants to tell me that I'm wrong to believe in a god at all.   They don't tell me why, except that there's no ''evidence'' for a god. In thinking through my replies though, it occurred to me that science might not be meant to provide all of life's answers. If it were enough, millions of people wouldn't be seeking answers to their existential questions.

Not suggesting that God becomes the ultimate answer for everyone, but exploring one's questions as far as they can go, is part of the essence of being human.

You've simply arrived at a different conclusion than I have, SS. It doesn't mean either is wrong...it just means we think about the existential aspects of life a little differently, perhaps?

It’s not an argument, wegs. It’s a disagreement—a difference of opinion.

Hence the...

My two cents...

Ah, okay. Sorry

[Secular Sanity]

Ah, okay. Sorry

No worries.

[Syne]

So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience", right? So why have you not described anything except completely possible experience?

LOL. Because I'm not discussing transcendent in the philosophical sense now. I'm discussing transcendent in the everyday sense of nature and the universe. You can't be this stupid.

And the intellectually dishonest fails to quote the part that addressed that:

So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience", right? So why have you not described anything except completely possible experience? O_o
Or by "the first two", do you only mean "surpassing; excelling"? If so, then nothing extraordinary at all. Only proving what I said, that your "transcendence" is merely "mundane".

Again, one wonders why you quoted the other definitions of transcendent, unless you were just trying to give the false impression that you were actually talking about spiritual transcendence...where the first definition only covers mundane awe.

You keep arguing, but you keep proving that you're conflating two very different senses of "transcendence".

So, my question to you is, Syne, is this what you’re referring to when you’re talking about transcendence and spirituality? Have you ever taken psychedelics?

I have, and that's why I know the difference.

Sounds like Syne thinks he’s mastered it while under the influence. Remember [The Ring]? It extended Gollum beyond his natural limits but its influence twisted Gollum’s body and mind.

You're making up bullshit again.

No one masters anything on drugs.

[Magical Realist]

So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience"

No idiot. The first definition deals with surpassing and excelling, the second one deals with the limits of possible experience, and the third deals with theology. What aren't you getting about this? 3 separate definitions. And the first one proves me right about transcendence with respect to nature and the universe. The other two definitions are irrelevant to my point.