CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I think a lot of this "Don't trust common sense" and "Don't rely on human logic" kind of stuff is intended as a sort of jab at atheism (although it obviously backfires and ends up making people look like idiots).

A lot of atheists trumpet common sense and logic as the bane of belief in God, and instead of trying to disprove this erroneous assumption, people just say "ignore logic and common sense".

If it wasn't for logic, I'd actually probably be an atheist right now. The same goes for science, once I started studying science in college, I really started thinking "There's no way this could have all happened by chance." I wasn't an atheist before, I just didn't have very strong faith - and science, reason, and logic (and common sense) all helped to bolster my faith dramatically.

I lack common sense. It doesn't work .

ABlipinTime (post: 1512335) wrote:Thumbs up for Fr. Brown.
----

I thought common sense meant advice not doing something that would get you hurt, make you lose something, or do something that wouldn't benefit you. i.e. Common sense means believing things that would benefit you with respect to self- (and property) preservation. That seems to be the generic idea to it, at least in my opinion.

For example, using the above definition, common sense says don't throw your dog off a cliff if you want to keep it alive. Why? In this situation, it's a preservation of property: The dog, according to the law of gravity, will increase in velocity as it approaches the earth. After the dog has a similar experience as Coyote, you find yourself without a dog. If you wanted the dog, you can't have it anymore because it is now mush. This would make you sad - obviously not beneficial, particularly with respect to your innate desire for pleasure. Hence, common sense says don't throw your dog off a cliff if you want to keep it alive.

Or how about not throwing a dog off a cliff because it's a living, breathing creature and you should have respect for it's life. I don't consider animals property that you can just do what you want with. They are companions and friends.

TopazRaven (post: 1512349) wrote:Or how about not throwing a dog off a cliff because it's a living, breathing creature and you should have respect for it's life. I don't consider animals property that you can just do what you want with. They are companions and friends.

I don't think that was the point of the statement. Bringing the morality of throwing a dog off a cliff isn't in question, it's whether common sense dictates you should do it or not. Though it's also illegal as it constitutes animal cruelty, so that should give one an additional incentive to no do it either.

TopazRaven (post: 1512349) wrote:Or how about not throwing a dog off a cliff because it's a living, breathing creature and you should have respect for it's life. I don't consider animals property that you can just do what you want with. They are companions and friends.

Common sense.

I still find using killing a dog as an example a bit in poor taste. Forgive my over sensitivity please.

What makes a dog different than a spider? People don't have problems killing spiders. Why should we not kill dogs but be allowed to kill spiders? Or pigs? Cows? Size? Grossness? Brain functionality? It's level of sentience? In that case what about dogs or cats with severe brain damage? Or what if there was a breed of dogs which started popping up which held the intelligence level of spiders?

Xeno (post: 1512351) wrote:I don't think that was the point of the statement. Bringing the morality of throwing a dog off a cliff isn't in question, it's whether common sense dictates you should do it or not. Though it's also illegal as it constitutes animal cruelty, so that should give one an additional incentive to no do it either.

The only difference between them is simply because we have a collective opinion that dogs are somehow arbitrarily more valuable than spiders are. Hence, social construction theory. Dogs are only worth saving because we think so. After all, we eat cows whereas the majority of India are vegetarians and consider cows as sacred. Furthermore, the legality is irrelevant because laws are made solely on the basis of what a collective group of people decide what is punishable and what is not in order to attempt to create a functioning society. So while laws and ethics are related, they are not the same.

Btbudz I'm all for keeping dogs alive.

I actually have a problem killing pigs and cows (Piscatarian). I even have issues killing spiders... I may do it... but I don't like to. Flies are an exception to this rule and that's only after they attempt to land in my ear or on my face for the nth billionth time after I've swung at them... Then I break out the electric fly swatter... I've used it on my own hand to try and see how it would feel to be hit by one. I'm hoping that the nerve density on my hand is about comparable to theirs but that's probably a bad comparison . Hopefully it isn't that painful of an end. Anyways, they're not mammals and I don't think they have the potential to feel emotions and hopefully nothing like our experience of severe pain.

So - it's not arbitrary, I don't like killing pigs and cows because they're mammals. But of course I don't like killing chickens too, I'm too convinced that they probably have emotions as well and are 'too-human' to kill. If I ever become convinced that spiders share more common characteristics with human beings then I might of course be convinced never to kill one unless they're attacking me.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1512380) wrote:What makes a dog different than a spider? People don't have problems killing spiders. Why should we not kill dogs but be allowed to kill spiders? Or pigs? Cows? Size? Grossness? Brain functionality? It's level of sentience? In that case what about dogs or cats with severe brain damage? Or what if there was a breed of dogs which started popping up which held the intelligence level of spiders?

The only difference between them is simply because we have a collective opinion that dogs are somehow arbitrarily more valuable than spiders are. Hence, social construction theory. Dogs are only worth saving because we think so. After all, we eat cows whereas the majority of India are vegetarians and consider cows as sacred. Furthermore, the legality is irrelevant because laws are made solely on the basis of what a collective group of people decide what is punishable and what is not in order to attempt to create a functioning society. So while laws and ethics are related, they are not the same.

Btbudz I'm all for keeping dogs alive.

Killing something in a humane manner for food (though unfortunately this often isn't the case) and killing something to be cruel are two entirely different things. And for the record, I love spiders and would never justify killing them. I'm the one running through the house with a cup to catch them before they get murdered by a cat or my mom freaks out and steps on it. Often times the only things that come in my house and suffer death are ants as I can't get them all back outside as hard as I might try. My mom has to be the one to spray them because I can't. I literally feel sick if I kill anything. I had to put a bug out of it's misery once because my cats mutilated it and it was just dragging itself across the floor. I felt like I was going to throw up by the time I finally hit it hard enough with my shoe for it to pass on. I just don't like killing. I've considered becoming a vegetarian in the past plenty of times. ALL animals deserve to be treated with love and respect and be allowed to live with dignity, even if they are later to become food.

Kaligraphic (post: 1512235) wrote:People have known the world was round since antiquity. Christopher Columbus didn't come up with some new idea, he got the math wrong and thought the world was about 2/3 as big as it really is.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Spoken like a true logical yet insane man.