Atheists...

Someone give this guy a cookie! I now have a new hero

:a-ok:

Common sense is not faith? I guess we could argue about the definitions of 'common sense' and 'faith', but it seems to me that 'faith' is more common than not having faith.

Thomas,

Is a leap of faith common sense, I was told one had to leave reason behind to believe---Catholic priest. Common sense is reasoned thought. Common and common sense, two different meanings, something common does not necessarily infer that it was come to through common sense.

I think that you're right in that having faith is more common than not. But no, they're not the same thing. The definitions, though they could overlap, are not the same thing.

Yea, this is probably a semantic issue. What is common isn't necessarily common sense (definition). Whether or not faith, "...firm belief for something in which there is no proof" is "...sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" [1] is up for debate.

Important distinction though.


----
[1] There are multiple definitions/meanings listed for "Faith", this one seemed pertinent.
Definitions from Merriam-Webster Online

Actually, I was deriding so called 'common sense'.

But that's fine, I'll take your definition of common sense, "Common sense is reasoned thought" and work from there.



Why leave reason behind? Reason is an immense tool and should never be abandoned. Instead, reason as a tool should be understood. Most importantly, we have to understand that reason relies on experience.

A leap of faith is neither reasonable nor empirically sound. I do not suggest anyone follow Kierkegaard's advice on the matter, though I do respect him as a profound thinker.

Instead, faith should be founded upon experience, which is precisely the same foundation as reason. As Hume pointed out, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is rationally absurd. Instead, we take the matter on faith, which is empirically sound given the probability, and probability is derived from our great tool, reason.



Hitting your head against the wall is futile, man. Save your skull for the real headaches of thinking this stuff through.

----------

Okay, if you really want to I'll engage the semantic debate:



'Common', in the case of 'common sense', is an adjective, a descriptive word. Thus, 'common' in the case of 'common sense' describes the nature of the 'sense' being discussed.

You are right in that something common is not necessarily common sense; however, the phrase 'common sense' does, in English, refer to something that is indeed common.

:)Mr Bill Robinson is Mr Bojangles, excellent soft shoe though Thomas, Mr Bojangles--------- dance!!:rolleyes: edit: You may have a point after all, I remember Joseph Campbell saying, "All human life is mythologically compelled", it seems to be the one universal idea of mankind.

Yes, Mr. Campbell was a pretty smart guy. He recognized that spirituality was an essential part of human life, as essential as socializing with other humans (not quite as important as food or water). Spirituality has many manifestations, and I think the variety is great. People each have their own path.

What would you personally describe as spirituality, Thomas? Just curious ^_^

Personally? I'm a terrible writer, and have a... meager spiritual practice, I suppose you could say. So, I'm not sure I'm in a position to give a personal account of what spirituality is, though I have no problem drawing on other explanations.

You might read the Book of Kings from the Old Testament, or just about any other scripture from any faith tradition, really. Maybe get some of Rumi's poetry. Plenty of resources out there.

Didymos Thomas,

I think the man is asking you a personal question there Thomas, take your time. I too would be most interested as well on your personal perspective on what is spirituality. It is a difficult question I know, I have just start pondering what my own reply would be. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING THOMAS!!! just yanking your chain Thomas, I would find it a difficult question too.

Dang, I wanted to hear it. :Glasses:

In all seriousness though, I'm going to have to think on this one. It's such a broad term - so many possibilities - it's almost so vague that one shouldn't ought use it at all.

*thinking cap time*

Khethil,

Perhaps it is not all that elusive, again I quote that late great master of mythology Joseph Campbell, he said, " I do not think that what people are looking for is a meaning to life, I think what they want is to experience the rapture of being alive." I think most people living the civil ordinary life miss it, at best, we have moments, certainly if you let the fear of your own mortality limit your possibilties, you are missing it. Life is not something to be clung to, that said, it expresses a certain attitude towards life, train, take proper safety precautions, but, climb that dam mountain which beckons so!!

Common sense is objective sense. It is true that it is common sense we have faith, but our introspect and intuitive experiences are different from others.

I don't believe the results of faith can even make complete sense to somebody else anyways. So I guess I still don't know what you mean.

How about this guys. We all set up a time when we post simultaneously , our own perspectives of spirituality. There'd be no arguing or copying or fixing to make it perfect based on other ideas. We could extend it to be a couple days until a formal reply, because it is hard. And you all probably have the advantage, because I don't own (only because I say I don't) any books like you do on this stuff.

Hi Y'all! enjoy!!!

Richard Dawkins!

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Favourite Professor Dawkins Youtube moment...

True we shouldn't use common sence to when involving faith. I could go on and on about common sence and faith but I won't bother.

MITech,

It has been said that all life is mythologically compelled, but is it not conditioned by the knowledge of ones times, in ancient times it was perhaps understandable that certain unfounded things were believed, so little was known of the science of the earth and the cosmos, this then in those times was common sense. To ignore the knowledge of your own time in order to believe something as supernatural, this is not common sense, this is not sense at all, this is an affront to common sense, and is anti-intellectual. It is not science and religion which are at odds today, it is the science of today verses the science of two thousand years ago-------straight from the mouth of a talking snake!!

There is no harm in looking surely or is that the agnostic in me? The swing of the pendulum from the fundie athiest to the nutty believer has to settle somewhere and why not in the middle where we can say its worth looking..Science can never deny nor should it...

Boagie: Well put, that 2nd sentence is nice; it needs to go on a bumper sticker and mailed out like boxes of Tide was back in the 70's.

Xris: No, there's nothing wrong with examining different points of view. Quite the contrary! No matter how 'embarrassing' or 'unseemly' it feels to seriously consider any possibility, it's only be honestly testing - via a critical-thinking mindset - that once can achieve any real insight (or so this pauper believes).

One other point on this Xris, that you hit upon, is the rancid "reputation" that "Believers" and "Atheists" have to put up with. In fact, most folks are more in the middle than either of these two suggest. Not all believers burn witches in their backyard and most atheists don't have tails. We tend to not want to take on these labels because much of society has such a bad taste in their mouth about them. The result: It's Fashionable to Declare Agnosticism (which is a nice way of saying "I choose to not decide whatever it is I believe). And it's no wonder, look what happens. Case in point: [INDENT] When I was in my mid-30's I decided to trust a friend at my then-duty station about being an atheist (I never thought that a bad thing, really). Word of this "rat in the corn" got up to high-level management. I was called in, asked about this and then; over time, I paid dearly... very dearly.
[/INDENT]In any case, it's not until folks can 1) Thoughtfully understand themselves in what they believe (or don't) -then- 2) Be ok asserting oneself in a polite and considerate manner that we can get back to terminology that's absent of such insidious overtones.

Dang... I went off again didn't I. Sorry guys; I'll go get those dishes done.

Thanks

Well i get annoyed at not being accepted as a free thinker because im not so definite in my opinions...Ive lived for so many years , for me to say i believe in any bleeding thing is the kiss of death...but then im guilty of not caring too much for those who are so definite in their opinions..The fundies see me as an atheist the atheist see me as a closet believer..i cant win..

http://www.sfwchan.com/pics/47477417.jpg

How can faith be correct?