Originally posted by ivanhoeLove is a choice. It can be either reason or faith based. Love based o n reason is something I (and I bet ALL) other freethinkers believe in.
Is Love reason or faith ?
I consider this a very important question in the Freethinkers against Religion debate.
Joe
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
1 edit
Originally posted by Feivel
Love is a choice. It can be either reason or faith based. Love based o n reason is something I (and I bet ALL) other freethinkers believe in.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Love based on reason. Isn't that just pragmatism ?
If it's not, then what is it ? I really don't know what you mean.
I mean how do you deal with that when you fall in love ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI almost fell off the chair when I read this.
Is Love reason or faith ?
I consider this a very important question in the Freethinkers against Religion debate.
Joe
Love is "Love"
Reason is "Reason"
Faith is "Faith"
Three words... three ideas. Three meanings. "Is Love reason or faith?"
No. Love is Love. Reason is Reason. Faith is faith. If not we would have words like "Leason" and "Fove" and "Raith" How in the world can you misconstrue these three simple words?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think he's going to give the "non-English native" defense, which is certainly not applicable here. I sort of smell an agenda.
I almost fell off the chair when I read this.
Love is "Love"
Reason is "Reason"
Faith is "Faith"
Three words... three ideas. Three meanings. "Is Love reason or faith?"
No. Love is Love. Reason is Reason. Faith is faith. If not we would have words like "Leason" and "Fove" and "Raith" How in the world can you misconstrue these three simple words?
You clearly agree with one particular side of said debate.
If a person tells you that "love is faith", then you will be able to say:
"Either you, a reasoning freethinker are incapable of love, or you do love but cannot explain when free thought is or is not applicable."
If he says "love is reason", then you can floor him with examples of why he is wrong:
"People do not think before falling in love" etc.
Either way, you win. However, you would only present the side of this argument affecting the response of the person.
But really, as Mike said, it is not a good question.
Originally posted by royalchicken
You clearly agree with one particular side of said debate.
If a person tells you that "love is faith", then you will be able to say:
"Either you, a reasoning freethinker are incapable of love, or you do love but cannot explain when free thought is or is not applicable."
If he says "love is reason", then you can floor him with examples of ...[text shortened]... affecting the response of the person.
But really, as Mike said, it is not a good question.
What you described in your post is maybe what some people would do, but certainly not what I had in mind. A debater who has such an agenda is not trying to search for the truth, but he is eager to score points. He's looking for a fight ! He wants to be the winner of the fight !
First of all, you are absolutely right about the fact that the question "Is Love reason or faith" is not a good question !!
That question referred to another question, which I consider to be in the same category : "Is revealed religion reason or faith". You can read that question in another post.That question referred in its turn to again another question:"Why is the field of revealed religion forbidden territory for freethinkers". Following and understanding the discussion is necessary to understand the people that are discussing the subject in question. Unless that is not the intention of the debater ...
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsn't faith an integral part of religion?
What you described in your post is maybe what some people would do, but certainly not what I had in mind. A debater who has such an agenda is not trying to search for the truth, but he is eager to score points. He's looking for a fight ! He wants to be the winner of the fight !
First of all, you are absolutely right about the fact that the question ...[text shortened]... iscussing the subject in question. Unless that is not the intention of the debater ...
IvanH.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenYes, and so is reason. There is an inner logic in religion (I'm talking about Roman Catholicism), but not in the way there is logic in science, but in the way there is an inner logic in a work of art.
Isn't faith an integral part of religion?
What I really wanted to know was why revealed religion is forbidden territory for freethinkers.
Originally posted by ivanhoeArt does have an inner logic, but I find that that is a part of the art--subordinate to it. The inner logic doesn't seem to create the art. Music is more of a mix. When I write music, it is to some extent dictated by the ideas I am trying to put across, but the inner logic seems to govern it more.
Yes, and so is reason. There is an inner logic in religion (I'm talking about Roman Catholicism), but not in the way there is logic in science, but in the way there is an inner logic in a work of art.
What I really wanted to know was why revealed religion is forbidden territory for freethinkers.
Religion has an inner logic certainly, but in order to accept religion one needn't see this structure. Faith is imperative however.
I don't see what motivates your original question though.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchicken
Art does have an inner logic, but I find that that is a part of the art--subordinate to it. The inner logic doesn't seem to create the art. Music is more of a mix. When I write music, it is to some extent dictated by the ideas I am ...[text shortened]... ver.
I don't see what motivates your original question though.
Let me put it this way:
As I understand things correctly, Freethinker thinking is not supposed to be an ideology. An ideology is in some way a closed system, with a set of rules, of opinions, of methods. What I've read in the threads dealing with freethinking, you can only be a member if you as it were pass the exams. You have to know what to think as a freethinker. It is in fact a self proclaimed intellectual elite. Not everybody who thinks freely can join the club. Now this is a bit confusing to me. It claims to be free thinking, but what I hear does not reflect the idea of free thinking in my view. Free also means to be free of ... and not only to be free to ... I guess when you change fundamentally in your thinking during the time you are a member of this club, than it is impossible to stay a member and you'd have to leave the "party".
The untouchable authorities of free thinking are "ratio" and "logic". The reasoning contains too much formalism to my liking. Thats why I wanted to know more about how you guys look upon non-science things such as love, art and life as it reveales itself to us as not being logical at all.
Maybe this kind of freethinking can be helpful in the realm of science, but in the realm of dayly real life it might be very restricting in experiencing what life is all about.
So Freethinking is not supposed to be an ideology, but in the end it sure is.
Joe
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you really want to know more about freethinkers and freethought, then visit the following two websites. They both give brief, succinct explanations of it:
Let me put it this way:
As I understand things correctly, Freethinker thinking is not supposed to be an ideology. An ideology is in some way a closed system, with a set of rules, of opinions, of methods. What I've read in the threads dealing with freethinking, you can only be a member if you as it were pass the exams. You have to know what to think a ...[text shortened]... all about.
So Freethinking is not supposed to be an ideology, but in the end it sure is.
Joe
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.html
http://church.freethought.org/whatis.html
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoehttp://www.ffrf.org/pennstation/hitler.html
I'll check them out.
It is very hard for me as a European citizen to take this article seriously. It deals with what the author calls "Hilters religion".
This is really very very sad indeed. If you want to know what demagogy is, read this article .......
It was written by a freethinker called Anne Nicol Gaylor.
I don't think anybody, freethinkers included, wants to defend the contents of this article.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoehttp://church.freethought.org/whatis.html
I'll check them out.
" Freethinkers also acknowledge that there is an inner, private, subjective world of human experience. But they also recognize that our feelings and emotions cannot and should not be the basis of what we believe about the reality of the world which all human beings share." The North Texas Church of Freethought.
So, what about falling in love. How do you deal with that.
How do you believe that you've fallen in love. I mean how do you establish that, how can you be sure in a rational way that you're in love. Is there any substantial proof that can be accepted by other freethinkers as well to proove that you're in love.
Isn't that incompatible with the belief that "feelings and emotions cannot and should(!) not be the basis of ....... etc." ?
IvanH.