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

[Gaber]

How about your re-phrase this so it’s not a convoluted run-on sentence? (I say this with all respect. ) And I think I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t want to try too hard to decipher your meaning.

I made a statement questioning the common understanding of martyrdom.

You replied by defying me to hypothetically not convert upon witnessing an event neither of us was present for.

I’m already a Catholic by definition of Baptism and excellent parochial and high school courses in catechism, religion, and theology. I got honors at all levels of study.

You presumed, it would seem, that I would have exactly your mind set upon witnessing said event. I could not, nor want to have it.

You presumed that having that, or something similar, I would find the event a reason, if I wasn’t already Catholic, to convert to the Faith because of the conviction of the poor souls who were so horribly treated.

So in a way you legitimize the Faith by the degree of conviction of those who died for it and you do it in a way, it seems to me, that makes their conviction a reason for me revising or accepting a line of belief–without examining the legitimacy of that line either from within, but especially from without its structure.

I asked if that is a reasonable thing to do, given that on the basis of conviction, I might as well convert to some other religion, given the horrific deaths some of those folks were subject to. For instance, I might convert to whatever it was that the indigenous people believed on the grounds that Columbus dismanuated. raped, and hung and burned by thirteens, because he wanted to honor the Lord and His twelve. Look up dismanuate, if you have a stomach to.

So I am saying that though your faith in a belief system is admirable as a degree of conviction, someone else’s conviction in a belief, however great, is not, for me, a sufficient reason to adopt as an overlay any particular system. That is so even if you think for yourself that it is the OHCA truth. In a bigger picture, that you likely don’t admit of, it may not be completely what you think. That’s all.

 

[PRmerger]

I got honors at all levels of study.

Very, very good, Gaber! :clapping:

Not sure of what relevance it is to this discussion, but if you want to share that data, go for it.

It is about as apposite to our discussion as my saying, “I am fluent in 3 languages”, but okay.

You presumed, it would seem, that I would have exactly your mind set upon witnessing said event. I could not, nor want to have it.

Actually, I think it’s* impossible* for anyone to have exactly my mind set.

You presumed that having that, or something similar, I would find the event a reason, if I wasn’t already Catholic, to convert to the Faith because of the conviction of the poor souls who were so horribly treated.

Nope. Not because of the conviction.

As I already stated, the presupposition is that the Gospel was witnessed to you either before or after said martyrdom.

So I am saying that though your faith in a belief system is admirable as a degree of conviction, someone else’s conviction in a belief, however great, is not, for me, a sufficient reason to adopt as an overlay any particular system.

On this we are agreed.

That is so even if you think for yourself that it is the OHCA truth. In a bigger picture, that you likely don’t admit of, it may not be completely what you think. That’s all.

Huh?

 

[tonyrey]

Savings. For the time being. When they run out, I don’t know what I’ll do.

Isn’t that facility provided in public libraries or by organisations which help the poor or the unemployed when they are looking for a job?

 

[Sair]

Well, Sair, that’s begging the question, isn’t it?

Actually, no - it’s not begging the question, which is to assume the premise of your own argument as the proof of your own conclusion. You are doing that - I was offering an alternative premise.

'Tis true that there are plenty of Christians who would not do such a thing.

However, it does not follow that it’s false to say that this kind of sacrifice requires Christianity.

Yes, it does - it obviously requires something other than or in addition to Christianity to bring about the motivation for sacrifice - just as the determination and dogged training of an Olympic hopeful might also require the luck of the day to bring about success for the individual involved.

And it also must be asked - again, not to denigrate the courage of someone like Kolbe, who did everything he could possibly have done to bring about a good outcome - but in real terms, is giving up one’s life in place of one other person actually a better thing to do than to work towards saving multiple people, if you possibly can, even without sacrificing one’s own life? Would you really say that someone like Oskar Schindler (a Catholic by upbringing, but not a particularly committed one) did less for his fellow humans than Kolbe?

And even if you *could *provide one (and I’ve been asking ad nauseum on this forum for atheists to provide one, and no one can get closer than, “Maybe an atheist jumped on a grenade sometime?”, which completely and inadequately compares to the profound act of love which Kolbe proffered), this hypothetical heroic atheist would only have been able to do such a profound act of love because he said yes to God’s grace acting in him.

Now you are, indeed, begging the question. A clinically insane person might demonstrate the kind of outwardly visible heroics shown by Kolbe and other nominally Christian martyrs, but not necessarily for a comprehensible outcome. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that a heroic sacrifice will garner any significant measure of publicity - especially when, as I said, there is no organised church hungry for demonstration that will pounce upon any possible vindicating action by a member of its “faithful”. You don’t know that there are no atheists who have offered their lives in return for another’s - you merely assume that such things are not possible, because you cling to the belief that Christianity is the necessary ingredient for personal sacrifice. I will point out again that I am by no means attempting to diminish the actions of any sincere religious martyr - if anything, you might be doing so by claiming that it was their faith that motivated their actions, rather than their own innate courage and commitment.

Well, I would argue that the media is your organization. And if such a man/woman existed your media would run with it and make of him a saint before we could say, “Canonized!”

That is assuming that all atheists exist in the modernised Western world, and perform their heroic sacrifices in highly publicised conflicts. Perhaps you place too much faith in the veracity and the freedom of engagement of the media. I’m sure you would be willing to acknowledge that there are Christians giving their lives - either literally or in committed service - for others, yet who receive no widespread public acknowledgement. Why should it be different for nonbelievers who act upon “mere” human fellow-feeling?

How about give your lives, ala Kolbe, as an act of sacrificial love for a complete stranger, knowing you’re going to die a horrific, slow, death?

Do you mean when there is actually no other option than to watch someone else die needlessly or from the malicious intent of your captors, knowing you could have taken their place and died equally needlessly…or just because you can prove what a committed Christian you really are?

Regardless of the alleged motivation (and how could we prove* that*?), it takes a Christian to do that profound act of sacrificial love. Not an atheist.

Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice strikes me as futile - or, if you are insane, self-indulgent. That seems to be what you are advocating. And I notice that you have shied away from addressing the notion that death, for a believing supernaturalist Christian, is not the ultimate sacrifice, even though it is somewhat disingenuously represented as such. Is there anything for which you would give up your “immortal” soul?

Perhaps this question would be worth pursuing in its own thread, given that it is - as I said - largely irrelevant to the subject of this one.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it does - it obviously requires something other than or in addition to Christianity to bring about the motivation for sacrifice -

Oh, I don’t have a problem with that paradigm. Something “in addition to Christianity” is required to do the profound act of sacrificial love ala Kolbe.

But “other than”? Not so much. :nope:

If that were true then there’d be the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe. Where is he?

And it also must be asked - again, not to denigrate the courage of someone like Kolbe, who did everything he could possibly have done to bring about a good outcome - but in real terms, is giving up one’s life in place of one other person actually a better thing to do than to work towards saving multiple people, if you possibly can, even without sacrificing one’s own life? Would you really say that someone like Oskar Schindler (a Catholic by upbringing, but not a particularly committed one) did less for his fellow humans than Kolbe?

And I don’t have a problem with this paradigm, either. Sure, if we’re going to use the criterion of quantifying how many lives are saved, Schindler did a “better” job than Kolbe.

I’m just saying that there’s no act of love that can be done by an atheist that’s the equivalent of what Kolbe did. That requires a Christian.

Otherwise, where’s the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe?

(Also, please note that Schindler’s good works undoubtedly are the result of God’s grace upon him. His baptism sealed him as a child of God forever, and God claimed him as his own from that moment.)

 

[PRmerger]

Now you are, indeed, begging the question. A clinically insane person might demonstrate the kind of outwardly visible heroics shown by Kolbe and other nominally Christian martyrs,

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

but not necessarily for a comprehensible outcome. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that a heroic sacrifice will garner any significant measure of publicity - especially when, as I said, there is no organised church hungry for demonstration that will pounce upon any possible vindicating action by a member of its “faithful”.

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.

You don’t know that there are no atheists who have offered their lives in return for another’s - you merely assume that such things are not possible, because you cling to the belief that Christianity is the necessary ingredient for personal sacrifice

So where’s the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe?

That is assuming that all atheists exist in the modernised Western world, and perform their heroic sacrifices in highly publicised conflicts.

This is great faith you have in something that there is no evidence for.

If only you applied this faith to your theology you might see things differently.

Do you mean when there is actually no other option than to watch someone else die needlessly or from the malicious intent of your captors, knowing you could have taken their place and died equally needlessly…or just because you can prove what a committed Christian you really are?

No. I haven’t said there’s “actually no other option.”

Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice strikes me as futile -

Me, too.

That seems to be what you are advocating.

Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is what I am advocating?

Here it comes…the icon that I rarely use. But only when it’s deserved…

 

[Poseidon]

Oh, I am certain that there are many atheist heroes.

But I am also certain that there are no atheists who have given their lives in the same way that Maximilian Kolbe did, offering to suffer a horrific death in the place of a complete stranger, out of love.

That requires a Christian.

You don’t know that, you’re just saying it because you want it to be true and it seems right to you.

 

[Gaber]

Very, very good, Gaber! :clapping:

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.

…It is about as apposite to our discussion as my saying, “I am fluent in 3 languages”, but okay.

It only means I have a degree of fluency in the language pertaining to our discussion.

Actually, I think it’s* impossible* for anyone to have exactly my mind set.

Precisely. So why would you defy me to not convert???

Nope. Not because of the conviction.

As I already stated, the presupposition is that the Gospel was witnessed to you either before or after said martyrdom.

Had I converted on those grounds, and learned discovered later what I did early on about the Nature of human awareness, I’d again be at the standpoint I now am.

On this we are agreed.

Yes, but you are agree from the standpoint of the alleged infallibility of the paradigm you took on as a belief, and applying it to anything which in your eyes is non Catholic, yes?

Huh?

You take the tenets and dogma of the Church as you understand them to be a 1/1 correspondence to Reality. Yes? And on that basis you evaluate statements and stands of others, intellectual, emotional, or exegised from experience, yes? Allowing that each one must work with some paradigm until they wake up, how do you yet arrive at the point that you seem to feel that your personal understanding is right and useful for someone else? Or are you just stating your position for our edification? I’m asking because you defied me to convert, given a particular scenario, ironically, I having already been baptized in the faith.

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t know that, you’re just saying it because you want it to be true and it seems right to you.

Another argumentum ad hominem…

 

[Poseidon]

Another argumentum ad hominem…

No it’s not. An argument ad hominem would be if I said something along the lines of “you aren’t credible because you’re a liberal.” This isn’t an argument ad hominem.

 

[Poseidon]

I defy you to have been one of the pagans watching the 26 martyrs of Japan die horrific deaths with the joy of Christ on their lips and not convert.

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. I’m inclined to think that we wouldn’t necessarily have been converted by it. 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).

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

 

[tonyrey]

No it’s not. An argument ad hominem would be if I said something along the lines of “you aren’t credible because you’re a liberal.” This isn’t an argument ad hominem.

“You don’t know that, you’re just saying it **because you want it to be true **and it seems right to you” is a classic example of an argument ad hominem:

***Argumentum ad Hominem ***(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

The real test is whether a statement refers to the topic and advances the discussion.

 

[Poseidon]

“You don’t know that, you’re just saying it **because you want it to be true **and it seems right to you” is a classic example of an argument ad hominem:

The real test is whether a statement refers to the topic and advances the discussion.

My point was that he was putting forward an opinion as fact, not that he wasn’t credible. “You are saying it because you want it to be true” isn’t an attack on his character, it’s an attack on his facts (or lack thereof). However, this little exchange isn’t adding to the discussion at all, so let’s just drop it.

 

[Gaber]

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. I’m inclined to think that we wouldn’t necessarily have been converted by it. 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).

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

Amen.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t know that there are no atheists who have offered their lives in return for another’s -

The more I consider this comment, the more astonished I am that this comes from an atheist (or “pantheist”), who demands evidence for every other aspect of faith…yet, curiously, you seem to be proffering a conviction of the same religious faith–without *any *evidence–as those fundamentalists who believe God will save them from a venomous snake. *“I just know that this guy exists, somewhere, because I believe it in my heart!”
*
May I quote you where you place a high degree of demand for “evidence” for beliefs?

A complete lack of evidence tends to point to improbability

Rationality is simply the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects. No matter how complex either of these may be, the process is the same. Any area of study, be it philosophy, history, sociology, science, whatever - all of these employ the process of connecting causes with effects, of finding **evidence **to support our theories of reality. Science is a formulation of rationality deliberately structured to minimise the possible intrusion of irrationality by relying upon testable, repeatable observation for its content and (tentative) conclusions. Indeed, so successful has science been in reliably explaining the world and allowing us to operate within it, most other intellectual disciplines have adopted something similar to the scientific method in their focus upon **evidence **and experimentation - testing hypotheses with reference to all available relevant materials. I think it’s fair to say that science is, in essence, the practical application of reason.

It’s difficult to see how it could be rational to be convinced of the existence of an entity for which there is no observable** evidence.** We can certainly speculate about probable causes for events that we observe, but until there is concrete evidence, speculation is all we have. It may be rational to suppose that there was a first cause (although cosmology is tending towards the possibility that this may not have been required) but there seems no rationality to the insistence, in the absence of testable evidence, that this first cause was certainly a personal god - that appears to be simply a matter of preference.

Now, apply this paradigm to your Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, and perhaps you can see the irony as I see it?

And just to be clear, to address the labels correctly, you, Sair are being a religious fundamentalist in the area of existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe–belief without any evidence whatsoever.

I am more of the agnostic regarding the existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe. Perhaps he does exist. I just don’t see any evidence anywhere to convince me of his existence.

 

[PRmerger]

And I notice that you have shied away from addressing the notion that death, for a believing supernaturalist Christian, is not the ultimate sacrifice, even though it is somewhat disingenuously represented as such.

Actually, I did address it. I said, “Perhaps”.

Is there anything for which you would give up your “immortal” soul?

I don’t understand the question. How does a person give up one’s immortal soul?

Perhaps this question would be worth pursuing in its own thread, given that it is - as I said - largely irrelevant to the subject of this one.

If you start a thread I might consider joining you there.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t know that, you’re just saying it because you want it to be true and it seems right to you.

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?

**

This is also what science shows us…there’s no **evidence **for a Garden of Eden

I However, the reason I don’t believe in God isn’t that I hate him or want to be a rebel, it’s that I honestly don’t see evidence that convinces me that he is real.

(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’…

 

[tonyrey]

My point was that he was putting forward an opinion as fact, not that he wasn’t credible. “You are saying it because you want it to be true” isn’t an attack on his character, it’s an attack on his facts (or lack thereof). However, this little exchange isn’t adding to the discussion at all, so let’s just drop it.

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.)

 

[PRmerger]

Precisely. So why would you defy me to not convert???

Thousands of people *did *convert, Gaber, and did not have exactly my mindset, so the evidence seems to indicate that the blood of martyrs did indeed catalyze conversion.

Had I converted on those grounds, and learned discovered later what I did early on about the Nature of human awareness, I’d again be at the standpoint I now am.

This is too nebulous for me to respond to.

 

[PRmerger]

You take the tenets and dogma of the Church as you understand them to be a 1/1 correspondence to Reality. Yes? And on that basis you evaluate statements and stands of others, intellectual, emotional, or exegised from experience, yes? Allowing that each one must work with some paradigm until they wake up, how do you yet arrive at the point that you seem to feel that your personal understanding is right and useful for someone else?

Because I believe in objective truth, Gaber.

Or are you just stating your position for our edification?

No, I am stating my position to provide apologia for the Faith.

I’m asking because you defied me to convert, given a particular scenario, ironically, I having already been baptized in the faith.

If you had been living in pagan Japan during the time of the 26 martyrs, you would have been pagan.

If you had been Catholic already, well, then, their martyrdom would have sealed you in your faith, to be sure!

At least if you had a heart and soul amenable to agape.