Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Poseidon]

Fair enough.

As you are an atheist who relies heavily upon evidence**, please provide some for the existence of this [Phantom] Atheistic Kolbe. * Agape* love is the criterion here, okay?

**

(bold mine)

Now, Poseidon, please tell me what evidence you have that convinces you that this [Phantom] Atheistic Kolbe exists?

I am willing to bet my forum count here that, up to now, *you have never examined **a single shred of evidence ***that such a person exists, yet here you are on this forum defending his very existence!

Ah, the irony!

Now, to be sure, there will be many an atheist feverishly researching “acts of love” and “atheists” and “sacrifice” on Google tonight, in an attempt to find an atheist who has performed a sublime act of sacrificial agape for another…

That’s fine.

But remember, up to this point you have been defending the existence of a guy without a single scientific piece of data.

Think about that next time you object to a Believer’s faith without “evidence”.

Just sayin’…

You misunderstand me. I never said that this atheist exists, although I personally think there’s a very good chance that he/she does (but it’s just a guess). My issue is with your statement that there is positively no atheist who has performed an act of love like Kolbe’s. It’s simply impossible to prove, so we have to either prove that there is, by finding a definite example, or say that there is probably no atheist who has done this.

It’s like my nonbelief in God. I don’t go around saying that there is definitely not a God. I say that there is probably not a God. So I’d have no issue with you saying that this person probably doesn’t exist, as long as you have good reason to believe this, it’s when you throw in the definitely that I cry foul.

 

[Poseidon]

I apologise. There have been so many posts by different individuals on this thread I thought you were referring to a previous post from me. On this particular occasion you are exonerated - but you’re not immune to that temptation. (We all have our weaknesses… and I’m certainly not immune to other failings.)

No worries, I’ve made the same mistake.

 

[PRmerger]

I realize there’s since been three pages of debate on this single post, but I’ll put in my two cents. First of all, none of us were there, so we can’t really say for sure whether we would have all been converted by the conviction of the martyrs

Well, we can say that the, er, *evidence * seems to indicate that since there are Christians in Japan today, and there were more Christians in Japan after the martyrdom than before the martyrs, the evidence says that the martyrdom did indeed convert folks.

Maybe we’d take note and say “wow, those guys are really sure of what they’re doing and** have a ton of conviction!**” but I don’t think that I’d necessarily go and convert to Christianity right away (and like Gaber I was also a Catholic at one point, so I’m coming from a position where I know at least a little of what I’m talking about).

Since you’re the second person to go with this “you think people would convert based on their conviction” paradigm I will have to accept that the fault lies with me in not conveying my paradigm clearly.

My position:

The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, ONLY when accompanied by evangelization.

It is not at all one’s earnestness or conviction that converts.

Rather, the Gospel message audibly received, then visually presented (or vice versa) is what converts, in a heart amenable to truth.

And my problem with this conversion (if it indeed took place) is that it’s entirely emotional.

That would be a valid objection, if that were my paradigm.

However, as I stated above, the visual presentation of a martyrdom is not what converts. It is the Gospel spread through word of mouth PLUS the supreme act of martyrdom that has the power to move hearts, souls and minds.

That’s really what I think keeps religion alive - the fact that people are bound to it emotionally, and this emotion clouds their logic and reason and thus is what produces such profound faith that you see in many people. Emotion is a powerful thing, but it’s not a very good tool for discovering truth.

Certainly no Catholic here ought to be advocating for an emotion-only conversion.

With most Catholic paradigms it’s typically not either/or but both/and.

That’s what makes it so hard to refute Catholics–we don’t have to say, “It’s either A or B!” We can agree with you that it’s A. Just not that it’s only A.

 

[PRmerger]

You misunderstand me. I never said that this atheist exists,

Fair enough.

although I personally think there’s a very good chance that he/she does (but it’s just a guess).

I dunno, that sounds like faith to me.

My issue is with your statement that there is positively no atheist who has performed an act of love like Kolbe’s. It’s simply impossible to prove, so we have to either prove that there is, by finding a definite example, or say that there is probably no atheist who has done this.

When someone can provide the evidence that there is this [Phantom] Atheistic Kolbe, I’ll convert!

It’s like my nonbelief in God. I don’t go around saying that there is definitely not a God. I say that there is probably not a God. So I’d have no issue with you saying that this person probably doesn’t exist, as long as you have good reason to believe this, it’s when you throw in the definitely that I cry foul.

As I stated, I’m the agnostic. Right now, there’s no evidence for this Phantom to exist, so until then I don’t believe in him.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for what might appear as the sarcasm, but I only wished to establish that according to the standards of catechesis and religious study I partook in, I had a working knowledge of RC theology.

That you can explain the Catholic faith better than the average lump-in-the-pew Catholic, I have no doubt.

That you can provide any kind of reasoned answer to those who object to Catholicism, well, of that I am rather skeptical.

 

[Carrie1]

very nice!http://www.cleaningcassette.com

 

[Sair]

Could you please offer a name of someone who’s clinically insane and done this? (And please cite your source.)

There’s a fair amount of evidence that Joan of Arc was suffering some kind of psychosis - and I say this as someone who took her as my patron saint for my confirmation…

You are not the first to muse that there is a Phantom Atheistic Kolbe who’s just had the misfortune of performing this great act of love without any witnesses…

but I find that paradigm highly ironic coming from atheists who, on every other matter religious, demand proof for one’s beliefs.

Fully aware that I am daring the disapproval of the moderators who “temporarily” banned discussion of atheism, what I will say in response is that your belief in god and my belief in the possibility of heroic acts of love on the part of unbelievers are qualitatively different phenomena. For one thing, my lack of belief in a personal god does not depend upon there having been an atheist who has willingly given their life for another person. I have also offered explanations as to why there is not a known example of such an unbeliever, but there is no reason there should be no reliable evidence of a god who created the world and intervenes in it.

More importantly, you have unflinchingly declared it to be “impossible” for an atheist to demonstrate selfless love in the manner of someone like Kolbe. Yet your only basis for this declaration is your already established belief in the effects of Christian faith - not an absence of known cases. For all I know, it may well be impossible for an atheist to willingly give up her life in order that another person should be spared death at a given time. But that may have nothing whatsoever to do with selfless love - it may, in fact, have more to do with the conviction that heaven awaits all martyrs, and is not, in fact, the end of conscious experience. So in that sense, it may well require the kinds of beliefs imparted by Christianity to make such a sacrifice, since those beliefs make it appear to be much less of a sacrifice.

Indeed, a greater sacrifice, for a Christian, may be to commit a mortal sin on behalf of another person, and thus give up, effectively, their immortal soul - by consigning it to eternal damnation. How much more selfless could any act of love possibly be?

It’s important to remember that love, in all its guises and with all its diverse effects, is a fundamentally human emotion, from which atheists are very far from immune. Your insistence upon the impossibility of heroic sacrifice, a la Kolbe, on the part of atheists, is premature; and your claim that the actions of one such as Schindler were the result of divine grace, rather than a personal desire to help fellow beings, is just arrogant.

 

[Sair]

And in case my point about lack of publicity didn’t hit home, here’s an article dealing with that very issue, amongst others:

usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-02-22/black-atheists-civil-rights/53211196/1

 

[tonyrey]

Your insistence upon the impossibility of heroic sacrifice, a la Kolbe, on the part of atheists, is premature; and your claim that the actions of one such as Schindler were the result of divine grace, rather than a personal desire to help fellow beings, is just arrogant.

The rejection of the claim that heroic sacrifices like Kolbe’s are not the result of divine grace - and solely due to a personal desire to help a person one doesn’t know - is implausible in view of the evidence that non-believers are prepared to sacrifice a stranger for an animal (unless the latter are seriously misguided).

One thing is certain: those who would make such a sacrifice implicitly accept the teaching of Christ and there is no reason to suppose such non-believers never receive divine grace. What counts most is what we are prepared to do rather than what we profess…

 

[Sair]

The rejection of the claim that heroic sacrifices like Kolbe’s are not the result of divine grace - and solely due to a personal desire to help a person one doesn’t know - is implausible in view of the evidence that non-believers are prepared to sacrifice a stranger for an animal (unless the latter are seriously misguided).

One thing is certain: those who would make such a sacrifice implicitly accept the teaching of Christ and there is no reason to suppose such non-believers never receive divine grace. What counts most is what we are prepared to do rather than what we profess…

Both the stranger and the “animal” are animals - or had you forgotten that? I notice you don’t ask whether I would have given up my life for my dog…

The primary reason for supposing that nonbelievers do not receive divine grace - or believers, either, for that matter - is that there is no reason to believe there is any divine grace to be given!

 

[Gaber]

That you can explain the Catholic faith better than the average lump-in-the-pew Catholic, I have no doubt.

That you can provide any kind of reasoned answer to those who object to Catholicism, well, of that I am rather skeptical.

Why wouldn’t you be? My experience of Catholicism would not have me recommend it to anyone, despite whatever good that institution may do for some. I am, as some others have phrased it, a recovering cathaholic. I was supremely fortunate, I found a way beyond belief.

So no, there is no religion I would recommend, save, though I can’t stand its theology, Mormonism, I would do that because it is a phenomenally well organized social organization that is very service oriented and survival oriented. If it wasn’t for the faith part, I’d recommend it as a way of life. But then I like the Amish in a way, as well. But if I was in Asia, I’m pretty sure I’d be a Zenner in Japan, or a Taoist. At least those two work, almost as well as something else, on discovering what the nature of the tool that we use, the mind, to look at religion, or anything, with, is. That having been accomplished, there can be some competency in the matter of deciding about matters theological. Before that, all we can hope for is faith and a way out of it.

 

[tonyrey]

*The rejection of the claim that heroic sacrifices like Kolbe’s are not the result of divine grace - and solely due to a personal desire to help a person one doesn’t know - is implausible in view of the evidence that non-believers are prepared to sacrifice a stranger for an animal (unless the latter are seriously misguided).

You are assuming that a person is an animal in every respect - with no more rights than an animal.

I notice you don’t ask whether I would have given up my life for my dog…

To give up one’s life for one’s dog doesn’t justify sacrificing another person’s life for an animal.

The primary reason for supposing that nonbelievers do not receive divine grace - or believers, either, for that matter - is that there is no reason to believe there is any divine grace to be given!

There is no reason from a **materialist’s **point of view but that is an opinion rather than a fact.

 

[PRmerger]

Why wouldn’t you be? My experience of Catholicism would not have me recommend it to anyone, despite whatever good that institution may do for some.

I suspect you mean your experience with Catholics, and not with Catholicism.

And that you had bad experiences with Catholics is sad indeed. That is what the devil uses to lead people away from their home. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

There’s a fair amount of evidence that Joan of Arc was suffering some kind of psychosis - and I say this as someone who took her as my patron saint for my confirmation…

Could you please cite this evidence–and it needs to be, of course, using the standards of atheists, scientific, and first hand. A report by a psychiatrist who examined her would be required for proof of her psychosis.

Otherwise, you are using great faith for this doctrine.

And I, of course, fault you not at all for having faith.

I just hope that this dialogue gives you pause and makes you realize that you are holding yourself to a different standard than Believers. You allow yourself to have faith, without sufficient evidence I’ll warrant, but have objections to Believers who use faith.

 

[Gaber]

I suspect you mean your experience with Catholics, and not with Catholicism.

And that you had bad experiences with Catholics is sad indeed. That is what the devil uses to lead people away from their home. :sad_yes:

No, with Catholicism. I have my excellent studied and especially and overwhelmingly experiential reasons for that. I have many Catholic, Atheist, Mormon, Buddhist, etc, etc, friends, and not friends. I find that goodness and Truth are independent of religious identification and dogmatization. That is why one Zen master had no problem burning his Sutras to make a point. And, sorry to say, the devil is far more insidious than your personalization of such an idea is. Sad indeed, so few on here seem to have a clue about that.

 

[Poseidon]

The rejection of the claim that heroic sacrifices like Kolbe’s are not the result of divine grace - and solely due to a personal desire to help a person one doesn’t know - is implausible in view of the evidence that non-believers are prepared to sacrifice a stranger for an animal (unless the latter are seriously misguided).

One thing is certain: those who would make such a sacrifice implicitly accept the teaching of Christ and there is no reason to suppose such non-believers never receive divine grace. What counts most is what we are prepared to do rather than what we profess…

As a nonbeliever, I would not sacrifice a human life for an animal life. I know that you’re going to ask me why, and my answer is that I’m a speciesist. I value human life more than I value the life of a dog or a cow or a crocodile. I’m a human myself, and it’s simply an instinct of mine.

You seem to take the view that no atheist would ever give up their life for another, but I know that you are wrong. I am an atheist and I am in the military, meaning that I volunteered to give up my life for others if need be. Granted, I don’t want it to happen and chances are it won’t, but if the time comes I will. I know plenty of other atheists in the military as well, and they are more proof that your implication is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

For one thing, my lack of belief in a personal god does not depend upon there having been an atheist who has willingly given their life for another person.

That’s a non-sequitur, Sair. Any student in a basic Logic course would see the error in your logic. You are conflating the two syllogisms.

Take this analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

Now, what you’re doing is attaching Christmas tree to earring. You’re saying, “The analogy is false because Christmas trees do not wear earrings.”

They belong on 2 different sides of the equation.

Basic Logic 101 error you’re doing.

 

[PRmerger]

I have also offered explanations as to why there is not a known example of such an unbeliever, but there is no reason there should be no reliable evidence of a god who created the world and intervenes in it.

And yet you believe in this [Phantom] Atheistic Kolbe without a shred of evidence that he exists!

Your belief in his existence is akin to “I just know in my heart that he exists!”

I find this simply astonishing, coming from a person who demands evidence for every *other *belief she holds. Simply astonishing.

More importantly, you have unflinchingly declared it to be “impossible” for an atheist to demonstrate selfless love in the manner of someone like Kolbe. Yet your only basis for this declaration is your already established belief in the effects of Christian faith - not an absence of known cases.

Well, the evidence seems to back me up, no?

Or rather, the extreme LACK of evidence.

For all I know, it may well be impossible for an atheist to willingly give up her life* in order that another person should be spared death at a given time

Indeed, it is. Unless he turns towards God, it is indeed impossible. :sad_yes:

*NB: the criterion is, of course, not simply a heroic act of giving up one’s life, but doing so out of agape.

 

[Sair]

Could you please cite this evidence–and it needs to be, of course, using the standards of atheists, scientific, and first hand. A report by a psychiatrist who examined her would be required for proof of her psychosis.

Otherwise, you are using great faith for this doctrine.

And I, of course, fault you not at all for having faith.

This is as close as I can muster on a cursory glance at the available online resources - articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-05-04/features/0205040252_1_joan-of-arc-insanity-alumni-association. It’s worth mentioning, of course, that even at the time, those who interacted with Joan were unable to decisively pronounce whether the voices she claimed to have heard came from God, from the devil, or just from her own imagination.

I just hope that this dialogue gives you pause and makes you realize that you are holding yourself to a different standard than Believers. You allow yourself to have faith, without sufficient evidence I’ll warrant, but have objections to Believers who use faith.

Actually, no, I’m not. What the question boils down to is whether one has reasonable grounds for belief in particular phenomena. We know from numerous demonstrable examples that love exists, and that it motivates people to courageous actions; we also know that mental illnesses exist, to varying degrees of severity, and that in their grip, people will do some extraordinary things. It actually isn’t a great leap of faith to speculate as to whether atheists could be motivated by love to perform selfless acts of sacrifice, or that people who are clinically insane might claim religious motivation; or, conversely, that those who seem highly spiritual may, in fact, be suffering from some form of psychosis.

And it’s important to remember, again, as I suggested before, that my lack of belief in a personal god doesn’t depend upon such circumstances, any more than, as Hitchens was fond of pointing out, considering the philosophies attributed to Socrates to be worthwhile depends upon Socrates having actually existed as a real individual.

By contrast, belief in the divinity of Jesus and his death and actual resurrection does depend upon Jesus having been a real, historical person who said and did all the things he is reported to have said and done, which is by no means a foregone conclusion; and in addition, belief that an increasingly-vaguely-defined god exists for whom we not only have no direct evidence, but not even any exemplary phenomena, any indirect evidence that is not better explained in naturalistic terms.

So, in short, I repudiate your suggestion that my speculative acceptance of the possibilities of atheistic selflessness or religious insanity are in the same category as your insistent belief in divine beings who bestow grace and favour, apparently arbitrarily, upon members of a particular species of primate who evince conformity to a specific set of doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

But that may have nothing whatsoever to do with selfless love - it may, in fact, have more to do with the conviction that heaven awaits all martyrs, and is not, in fact, the end of conscious experience. So in that sense, it may well require the kinds of beliefs imparted by Christianity to make such a sacrifice, since those beliefs make it appear to be much less of a sacrifice.

Perhaps.

It’s an irrelevant argument, because the fact remains that it takes a Christian to perform this selfless act of sacrifice out of pure agape. Not an atheist. Atheists are incapable of this type of love.

Indeed, a greater sacrifice, for a Christian, may be to commit a mortal sin on behalf of another person, and thus give up, effectively, their immortal soul - by consigning it to eternal damnation. How much more selfless could any act of love possibly be?

Perhaps you’ve forgotten this dogma of Catholicism, Sair: we do not do evil that good may come.

It’s important to remember that love, in all its guises and with all its diverse effects, is a fundamentally human emotion, from which atheists are very far from immune. Your insistence upon the impossibility of heroic sacrifice, a la Kolbe, on the part of atheists, is premature

If you can offer me the proof of the existence of the PAK, I will convert. Right now I remain an agnostic. And I am simply using* your *paradigm of hard evidence as a criterion.

and your claim that the actions of one such as Schindler were the result of divine grace, rather than a personal desire to help fellow beings, is just arrogant.

It is part of Catholic theology, Sair, that baptism is an indelible change to the soul. The universe is changed forever at the moment of one’s baptism. So no matter what Oscar Schindler did to deny his faith (if he did at all), he cannot change the indelible mark made to his soul claiming him as a child of God.