I didn’t say you did, but now you’re reading things into things where there ain’t things. I didn’t mention the word “you” in my post at all and specifically chose to word “we” to avoid such development, which is becoming more and more predictable, as biggie pointed out here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=194298&start=50#p2710598
Just quit it and let’s forget it and move on. You’re not in everyone’s crosshairs. “You” is a general word meaning “people in general” and not necessarily you specifically.
Divine merely means “supernatural”, “above nature” or “superior to nature”. “I’m better than nature because I have divine attributes like love.” Clinging to concepts like love is patting ourselves on the back for being better than the simian and is a manifestation of arrogance.
I didn’t say you did, but now that you mention it, if you’re human, yes you do because all humans do it. We’re always trying to find a way to be one-up.
And she found a way to be superior to him by pointing our he’s trying to be superior to the atheists and christians. We’re always trying to be one-up and if you say you’re not, then that’s a manifestation of trying to be one-up (putting yourself on a pedestal). You’re putting yourself on a pedestal by proclaiming that you do not put mankind on a pedestal.
Alan said “Gurus are always putting each other down, so I can say I don’t put other gurus down. You see? That trumps all of them!”
All roads lead to arrogance. Regardless of the topic, we will always end the discussion with the realization of arrogance (or so it seems).
And you’re jumping to conclusions without clarifying what I meant by divine. You’re pedestalizing yourself by proclaiming my insight is a hallucination and my discussion about mankind is an ad hom because you think “we” = “you”, which is itself a hallucination and ad hom straight from Goebbels’ “accuse the other side of what you’re doing” playbook.
You (humans in general) do not need empathy to be arrogant. Psychopaths completely devoid of empathy are some of the most arrogant pricks around.
I guess because the chemicals tell me to. If you want to delude yourself into believing you have attributes that you do not have, then that’s awesome, but if you post it on here, I’m liable to attack it for the same reason I spit out food that doesn’t taste good. This is a philosophy board where we’re supposed to be discerning some truths instead of agreeing to disagree.
Fine. I concede. Living in fantasy land has no negative association. People are free to believe they are gods all they want. They can even try to fly and I encourage all who hold such beliefs to stand on the highest ledge they can find and give it one hell of a shot! Think positively! 
There is no objective good and bad, but there are subjective goods and bads relative to individual goals/aspirations/desires. I think it’s a subjectively good idea for society to guarantee as a right the freedom to pursue one’s desires/goals unless those desires conflict with someone else’s desires. To that end, if people didn’t run about thinking they are gods, we may be a collectively happier species.
Consider this AW bit concerning rascality:
[i]As there is honor among thieves – we’re all thieves, let’s face it – there is a doctrine in the Jewish religion that when God created Adam he put into him a spirit which is called the yetzer hara and that means ‘the wayward spirit’ or what I call ‘the element of irreducible rascality’ – and that is in us all, a little bit. It’s not the whole of us; it’s like just a pinch of salt in the stew – and you don’t want the whole stew to be salt but you have to have just a touch of rascality to be human.
And I find it difficult to get along with people who don’t know that they have it, people who come on that they’re all sincere, all good, all pure, bore me to death and scare me, as they’re unconscious of themselves and therefore they suddenly do terrible things without warning, either to themselves or to others. They make promises that they’re never going to fulfill because they want to talk right and so if I do business with someone who is not really aware that he’s a rascal – I know he is impossible to do business with – he’ll suddenly cheat me completely. But if I’m aware that he’s a bit of a shyster I feel comfortable and I let him know that I am too.
Then we’re human, then we are letting our hair down, then we can say, “Look, let’s work this out, and this is what I want and I know what you want.” And if we can get that clear we can work out a reasonable agreement, we can compromise, we have a little play of give-and-take. But if you don’t have that, you’re absolutely snarled.[/i]
So when we admit we’re selfish pricks, then we can truly get down to business with each other’s interests in mind in a true spirit of honesty and fair play rather than starting with the presumption that we’re righteous.
This hearkens back to Jesus’ remarks concerning the taking of the high-room:
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
So we admit we’re rascals and windup being exalted, but if we start out as righteous, we’re revealed as rascals.
Admitting you cannot love is more productive in a relationship than deluding yourself into thinking you can love because you’ll have more insight and a better understanding as to why you must be attentive to someone else’s needs for the benefit of your own. That’s the philosophy I’m putting forth and holding.
