No need to escape anything if you choose not to. Spiritual sense of self? That's pseudo religious bullshit.

I do not think of myself spiritually (unless it is a single malt whisky). The more I look at the word "spirituality" the more I realise that it is a nonsense word. I prefer to look at myself realistically.

@anglophone I am not spiritual, and yet there is a whole class of form that can only be addressed as meanings.. Physical forms have meaning and being, and can be conceived numerically as number is a perfect concept... Moral forms, what some call transcendent concepts cannot really be defined because they are infinites,, and are never conserved.. Look at the quasi concept of Good to which Socrates gave so much time.. He could have given eternity to his attempt in vain... Such moral forms as love, truth, justice, peace, mercy, life and even God can only be approached obliquely in an effort to gain understanding rather than knowledge.. We can say we are matter, and give no thought to spirit, and yet, what we think of as spirit, that is: Soul, is a quality all of humanity, and all of life shares.. We do not know what it is.. As one said: people have made many Gods, but has yet to make its first worm.. We are learning to conceive of worms, but we can never conceive of God... Nor can we conceive of ourselves except spiritually.. How many can conceive of death.. Few can imagine, or care to imagine themselves dead, or as death being an end.. Heaven and hell have the same purpose, and it is to give those who cannot conceive of death a life after life to imagine... But; there is nothing real about life beyond what we leave behind...

@Mofo1953 .. Well yes, but it is all too common, and with good reason.. People know quite little.. Duns Scottus, the churchman most responsible for the virgin birth becoming part of official dogma said that there is an abyss of difference between thought and thing, Heterogeneity, and yet there are areas of agreement, Homogeneity, with the bridge between these two being analogy.. This is true of all of our concepts and moral forms.. We know so little, and all of the various spiritual conceptions of reality were simply a theory which could then be tested.

@Sweeney i stopped reading at yes because that means you agree with my opinion.

I don't think one has to rely on "faith" in these instances. I think it is more appropriate to have "hope."

I don't have "faith" in our justice system. In theory it is a good system; but the system cannot work if individuals subvert it. I certainly hope that true justice will prevail; but that often is not the case.

Also, I don't have "faith" in a scientist's findings. I trust the scientific method. It is the best way we have to uncover facts/truths and to dispel wrong/inaccurate information. Does this mean that a scientist cannot put forth a faulty hypothesis? Of course not; but, if the method is followed, errors will be revealed.

A world without faith does not mean a world without hope.

While it is true that the religious definition of faith has overshadowed the "secular" definition of it, our langiage is so rich that it is better to usr synonyms like Joanne does, which would make your belief, or hope, or confidence in something more descriptive. Some synonyms I can think of right out of my head would be: trust, belief, confidence, hope, etc.

@Joanne " in a scientist's findings" Sorry I did mean ."in scientists' findings".=i.e collective findings -enough to verify.

My point is that we should not let religions hijack the word FAITH for their own ends. Sometimes it is better for humans if we cannot go around checking everything we believe all the time. More importantly religions could overthrow an arguement about the importance of faith if we dismiss a legitimate use of the word in a non religious context.

@Mcflewster I guess I don't need the word "faith." Like the word "spiritual," it carries a theistic or supernatural overtone. I understand that some atheists use those words, for lack of an alternative word, and mean them in a non-theistic/non-supernatural way; but, at their core, they imply something supernatural and always have; for that reason I choose to avoid using both of them.

@JohnnyQB "We RELY on these things, we do not have FAITH in them." i mean listen to yourself if you will?

@bbyrd009 At the moment I am just saying that there is a difference in 'rely on'and 'having faith'.

@Mcflewster imo we are mostly having a semantics discussion now though

@JohnnyQB no offense, but what is the point of even pretending to a discussion with someone who says "case closed?" You are entitled to your own definitions, but they do not necessarily line up with reality, sorry.

@JohnnyQB well to accomplish that all you have to do is shut up, johnnie, right, but fwiw i suggest that maybe Believers have soured you on the very term "faith," which i don't blame you, but understand how that is maybe causing you to be biased?

And bam allow your leaders to inject you and yours with all of the fluoride and mercury you guys can handle, with my blessings, sir. Real immunizations i got no probs with

@Mcflewster Not disagreeing with your previous point there, but we are given Test everything, and keep what is good, Which is anathema to “blind faith” imo

2 days?

and perhaps one other for luck!?

Why does that take "faith?" Experience shows us that it is generally safe to do this. The only time it isn't is if the two vehicles are occupying the same lane; and that is only happens on very rare occasions. It isn't a matter of faith, but of statistics.

@Joanne, @JohnnyQB i would say it takes faith to trust that the other guy will stay in his lane, at least. Faith in a legal agreement basically "i will not cross that line"

although i like the ignorant jet passenger analogy too
although your arguments apply more to it

@JohnnyQB and my arg is that what you are calling "reliability" is the same thing as what the Bible calls "faith." After all the other driver could be asleep, or high as a kite, or drunk, or distracted, having a heart attack, a seizure, etc

@JohnnyQB well, so you say, but this "blind faith" you rail against is wadr nowhere to be found in the Bible, not anywhere, sorry. Believers made that up i guess. And your lighter will run out of gas too

@JohnnyQB johnny, you have already made up your mind, obviously, and i am not inclined to have a pretend conversation with you about this right now, wadr.

Yes, believers read "blind faith" too, but as even your link would demonstrate, it is not in the Bible. "Literally hundreds" is sixty plus, and that is as close to the truth as you have come today. Have a nice day ok

@JohnnyQB and yet you are still talking, hmm