Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[atheistgirl]

What is PAK, by the way?

Phantom Atheist Kolbe or something close to that.

What is in my opinion a very disrespectful abusing and demeaning of a very good man’s name to make what is by now a well discredited point.

In fact a man declared a Saint, and thus in heaven, by the Catholic Church.

I doubt the poster concerned who so proudly coined the term, would use something equally disrespectful to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Were I to refer to someone, a nun for example, as a PVM (Pseudo Virgin Mary) there would be uproar here, rightly, and I would have infractions (rightly) for showing such a level of disrespect to someone held in such high esteem and venerated by Catholics.

I find the term to be not just disrespectful to the man, but somewhat churlish.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

. Hahaha…

TEPO likes.

shaw:

I have been enjoying the dialogue immensely.

It does give me great pleasure indeed pointing this inconsistency to atheists.

There is great faith in the PAK’s existence here. By atheists. Ironic, eh?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Phantom Atheist Kolbe or something close to that.

What is in my opinion a very disrespectful abusing and demeaning of a very good man’s name to make what is by now a well discredited point.

In fact a man declared a Saint, and thus in heaven, by the Catholic Church.

I doubt the poster concerned who so proudly coined the term, would use something equally disrespectful to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Were I to refer to someone, a nun for example, as a PVM (Pseudo Virgin Mary) there would be uproar here, rightly, and I would have infractions (rightly) for showing such a level of disrespect to someone help in such high esteem and venerated by Catholics.

I find the term to be not just disrespectful to the man, but somewhat churlish.

Sarah x

Seriously? That’s what this is about? Maybe I was smart to have been ignoring it.

We’re saying that because a saint acted unselfishly and that nobody with the same exact story except self-proclaimed atheist (that we know of), that nobody who isn’t a Christian can? I hope that isn’t right, because if it is that’s about the silliest thing I’ve heard today. :whacky:

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

Seriously? That’s what this is about? Maybe I was smart to have been ignoring it. Alan

I knew you were a smart guy

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I hope that isn’t right, because if it is that’s about the silliest thing I’ve heard today. :whacky:

Alan

Well, I’m not sure where it’s up to now, because as each claim has been discredited, the markers keep getting moved.

We’ve gone from saying no atheist could do that, to sure, an atheist could do that, but then the mind of the atheist was questioned, the implication being they weren’t really an atheist

Last I heard, we were now making some comparisons between a high and low bord diving competition :hypno:

Rather than letting a very interesting and valuable conversation develop, with the ensuing exploration of ideas, from which everyone can learn something, and who knows, some minds might even be given pause for thought, some are determined at all costs to keep things bogged down with the discredited PAK.

Shame really.

I don’t know about others, but when something is discredited, it doesn’t give me much pause for thought.

Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Rather than letting a very interesting and valuable conversation develop, with the ensuing exploration of ideas, from which everyone can learn something, and who knows, some minds might even be given pause for thought,

Let’s show how it’s done. What about this is not self-evident and would make an interesting discussion?

We could talk about the source of love, the qualities of love, what is called love by various populations? I don’t know. Try something.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Were I to refer to someone, a nun for example, as a PVM (Pseudo Virgin Mary) there would be uproar here, rightly, and I would have infractions (rightly) for showing such a level of disrespect to someone held in such high esteem and venerated by Catholics.

Actually, the correct parallel would be to take an atheistic hero, say, Richard Dawkins, and ask for proof of a PCRD (Pseudo Catholic Richard Dawkins).

I don’t think any Catholic would be offended by that.

And then the Catholic would be able to offer some evidence for the PCRD: any of the professional Catholic apologists: Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray, John Martignoni, who, like Richard Dawkins, provide apologia for their theological POV.

Upon which we would change the acronym from PCRD to ACRD (Actual Catholic Richard Dawkins).

That’s how it would work if the tables were turned.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re saying that because a saint acted unselfishly and that nobody** with the same exact story **except self-proclaimed atheist (that we know of), that nobody who isn’t a Christian can? I hope that isn’t right, because if it is that’s about the silliest thing I’ve heard today. :whacky:

Alan

No, that’s not what we’re saying here.

But do you have an example of the PAK, with evidence to support your claim? (Sadly, no eye-witness reports will be accepted as that has been discredited as being “notoriously unreliable.”) :coffeeread:

I would be willing to examine the evidence for this PAK. Then we could change the acronym to AAK.

 

[atheistgirl]

We could talk about the source of love

Alan

That’s a good one.

The Christian perspective is God is the source of all love.

Does this include what Goodall and Wechkin have found demonstrated in the gorilla and macaque world?

Macaques have been shown to forego food and treats, if getting them inflicts a shock, or suffering on another macaque.

Selfless love in action?

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I’m not sure where it’s up to now, because as each claim has been discredited, the markers keep getting moved.

Well, the marker only keeps getting moved in the same way that it would in an atheistic dialogue where Christians were attempting to provide arguments for Christianity.

One argument would be proffered by Christians for, say, Jesus’ resurrection. And the atheist would respond, “Okay, but where’s the evidence?”.

Evidence is provided by the Christian and then the atheist says, “Well, eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable.”

More evidence is provided by the Christian and then the atheist says, “Well, there’s a pagan myth that describes a resurrection.”

More evidence is provided by the Christian and then the atheist says… etc etc etc.

So, again, there seems to be a decided bias going on here: atheists get to be skeptics and refute, refute, refute.

But when the Christian delightedly enjoins this paradigm upon the atheists, suddenly it’s all “the markers are getting moved.”

If it’s good enough for atheists, I might just dip into the “maybe it’s just a myth” “I don’t believe eyewitnesses” “it must be re-producible in a lab” bin meself.

 

[ivebeenshown]

That’s a good one.

The Christian perspective is God is the source of all love.

Does this include what Goodall and Wechkin have found demonstrated in the gorilla and macaque world?

Macaques have been shown to forego food and treats, if getting them inflicts a shock, or suffering on another macaque.

Selfless love in action?

Sarah x

Love is based in truth and rationality, and we have no reason to assume that animals are rational rather than instinctual – otherwise, would we not ascribe personhood to them?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Love is based in truth and rationality, and we have no reason to assume that animals are rational rather than instinctual – otherwise, would we not ascribe personhood to them?

While I can understand feelings of love being influenced by information to which a person is exposed I don’t follow you when you say that “[it] is based in truth and rationality.” Can you explain that a bit further? Perhaps I am thinking of a different type of love than what you are referencing.

 

[atheistgirl]

Love is based in truth and rationality, and we have no reason to assume that animals are rational rather than instinctual – otherwise, would we not ascribe personhood to them?

Some do ascribe a non human ‘‘person’’ status to animals

It’s been a long and intersting journey from viewing animals as automatons to sentient beings, capable of feeling and understanding suffering and pain. with certain ‘rights’’ or more properly I suppose, ‘‘protections’’ enshrined in law.

It parallels the journey of slaves, women and gay rights, in a way.

Hard to believe now, but discussions around giving women the ‘‘right’’ to vote, included what on earth we would do with a vote, as we weren’t rational enough to understand such complex things as politics

Some have argued any definition of ‘‘personhood’’ shouldn’t include the ability to reason, as that would exclude babies in the womb, and those with severe mental impairment, and should focus on the ability of a being to suffer pain.

Sarah x

 

[ReapReason]

It parallels the journey of slaves, women and gay rights, in a way.

I’m sorry, but i find that insulting

Animals are not personal beings.

They are nice to look at and they are good for food.

 

[PRmerger]

Some have argued any definition of ‘‘personhood’’ shouldn’t include the ability to reason, as that would exclude babies in the womb, and those with severe mental impairment, and should focus on the ability of a being to suffer pain.

Sarah x

The best criterion for personhood is that proffered by Christianity: that creature made in the image and likeness of God, gifted with an immortal soul, destined for union with Him.

 

[ReapReason]

Some have argued any definition of ‘‘personhood’’ shouldn’t include the ability to reason, as that would exclude babies in the womb, and those with severe mental impairment, and should focus on the ability of a being to suffer pain.

Sarah x

if you are an atheist, then you should agree that the concept of person-hood excludes young born babies and people with severe mental impairment. But of course your definition of person-hood is a bit of a straw-man in the eyes of a Christian, not to mention if universal naturalism is true then one must ask if person-hood has any objective value or meaning in the first place. Epistemologically speaking we don’t know that animals “experience” pain in the same sense that we do. You are just assuming that the experiential phenomenon is the same.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m sorry, but i find that insulting

Sorry to hear that. In sharing my position I don’t find it insulting at all.

Animals are not personal beings.

They are nice to look at and they are good for food.

And some of them make nice companions.

if you are an atheist, then you should agree that the concept of person-hood excludes young born babies and people with severe mental impairment.

If “Should” means obligation then I would say that’s not that’s not the case.
If “should” expresses contingency I would also disagree.
Does “should” express “expectation”?

But of course your definition of person-hood is a bit of a straw-man in the eyes of a Christian

It’s possible that we have a different understanding of the concept. My understanding (Which comes from law material) is that it means granting non-human animals (metazoans) the same rights as a person. It’s usually based on there being some reason to think that some of the feelings, emotions, and experiences that humans have are not exclusively human, but can be experienced by other life forms. Is this understanding incompatible with what you have in mind?

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m sorry, but i find that insulting

Animals are not personal beings.

They’re not my definitons. Those definitions are out there. I never said they were personal beings. Philosophers like Peter Singer have a different take on it.

What *is *insulting is people in power, men, not all that long ago, had heated debates as to whether women, other races, and slaves, were ‘‘rational’’ enough to enjoy any rights, or have an education, or be able to vote.

Now that is insulting.

Kant came out with this lovely piece of philosophizing:

The race of the American cannot be educated. It has no motivating force, for it lacks affect and passion. They are not in love, thus they are also not afraid. They hardly speak, do not caress each other, care about nothing and are lazy.

msu.edu/~hacheema/kant2.htm



Since we weren’t white European, we lacked moral agency, and therefor personhood.



I guess when it was finally agreed that we were, after all, real people, it could be safely concluded we could indeed be educated, and love.

Lucky ol us eh?

I wonder, when we weren’t really people, when we weren’t rational, moral agents, was what we were experiencing, real love, or just some non rational, immoral agency fake?

You’ll understand I hope, why I don’t put a lot of store by exclusive group’s definitions, or pay much mind to exclusive groups claiming ownership of, and redefining for their own purposes, words like agape.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, I’m sorry, please excuse me Sir. I’ve misdirected you.

I see from your paperwork, you need the Patronizing Room.

Two floors down, third room on your right.

If I may help you with anything else, please let me know.

The fact remains that you haven’t considered the full implications of living in the materialist’s valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe:

1. Value, purpose and meaning become a human convention.
2. Life becomes a valueless, purposeless and meaningless accident.
3. Camus and Sartre were correct in their view that life is absurd.
4. Freedom, justice and human rights become illusions.
5. For any reasonable person materialism leads inexorably to frustration and desolation at the prospect of losing everything we cherish for all eternity.
6. To anticipate **nothing **after death cannot be a source of inspiration and consolation unless life is regarded as a curse rather than a blessing.
7. Selfless love is impossible for a materialist because persons don’t exist in the scientific scheme of things.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The fact remains that you haven’t considered the full implications of living in the materialist’s valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe…

I don’t agree. I’m open to discussing it. But not in this thread since that sounds like a topic that could radically derail the current discussion.