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

[Poseidon]

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.

NO! It’s not 'akin to “I just know in my heart that he exists!” ’ at all. It’s more like “given the enormous number of examples of extraordinary love throughout human history, it is inconceivable that not one of these people was an atheist.” It’s simply common sense, not faith. I’m not saying that this person exists because I have faith that he does, I think he exists because I think chances are in favor of his existence. Reason compels me to believe that he probably does exist.

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

Or rather, the extreme LACK of evidence.

A sample size of one doesn’t really qualify as good evidence to me.

 

[PRmerger]

A sample size of one doesn’t really qualify as good evidence to me.

One? You haven’t even been able to provide that!

And yet you have great faith in his existence.

I don’t begrudge you that faith, Poseidon.

I am just saying that you ought to allow Believers that paradigm as well.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Did you find this in your attempt to google “atheistic equivalent to St. Maximilian Kolbe”?



At any rate, I don’t doubt that there are unreported atheistic heroes, just as there are unreported Christian heroes.

But “heroic” is quite different from the profound act of sacrificial love done by Kolbe. I’m just wondering why atheists don’t do this kind of agape.

 

[PRmerger]

No, with Catholicism.

Could you offer something about Catholicism that bothers you?

I have my excellent studied and especially and overwhelmingly **experiential **reasons for that.

Yes. It’s the “experiential” part that makes me wonder what a Catholic did to you to make you reject Catholicism.

I find that goodness and Truth are independent of religious identification and dogmatization.

And this is very Catholic of you to say, Gaber!

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.

Indeed.

The devil, of course, uses* lots* of methods to lure folks away from Christ’s Church. Insidious means? Yep. Obvious means? Certainly. Subtle means? Sure. Blatant means? Definitely.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Again, no one is denying that atheists can be noble. And no one is denying that there is an atheist in the military who might jump on a grenade.

The question is where is the atheist who has that profound love for a stranger, ala Maximilian Kolbe, who will die a slow, tortured death in his stead?

 

[PRmerger]

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.**

'zactly.

So it’s curious why you hold a greater degree of faith in this doctrine “Joan of Arc was psycho”, given the lack of evidence, than you allow Believers.

Just sayin’…

The difference in criteria you hold for yourself vs Believers is curious indeed.

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.

So you’re using faith and reason to determine that there’s this PAK who exists.

Okay. I’m good with that.

As long as you allow Believers that same paradigm.

I hope in your future discussions with Believers you will not begrudge us our use of faith and reason to determine the existence of God.

For that’s exactly what you are using to declare that there exists the PAK.

 

[PRmerger]

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 here it is. The curious double standard.

(Firstly, there is hardly an educated atheist who will deny the existence of the historical Jesus. That you deny this puts you, IMHO, in the camp of a fundamentalist. It takes almost a fanatical denial of reality to claim that the man Jesus never existed, but I will work with that. )

You believe, based on a few bits of evidence, that Joan of Arc was insane, (AND! NOT A SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE for the existence of this PAK, but rely only on faith and reason) but cannot accept the mountains of evidence for a historical Jesus.

That’s incredulous to me.

You see where you are grossly inconsistent with your demands for evidence?

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.

And yet you cannot provide any evidence for this existence of the PAK.

How is it that you reject the ample evidence for Christ’s existence (documented secular and historical records!) but continue to proclaim the dogma of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[PRmerger]

Reason compels me to believe that he probably does exist

Friend, I do not begrudge you this. You are well within your rights, as a thinking man, to conclude that there exists this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, based on reason. Without any evidence for his existence.

I just hope that you now realize that you are applying the very same paradigm that Believers use: we use reason to declare that God exists.

(And, I might add, there is* great evidence *for His existence, in contrast to the very obvious dearth of evidence for the PAK.)

Thus, you and Believers are in the same camp, when it applies to concluding in the existence of an entity (you apply it to the Phantom being, we apply it to God.)

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You are - understandably - misinterpreting my statement:

The rejection of the claim that heroic sacrifices like Kolbe’s are not the result of divine grace - and are 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).

I did not specify **all **non-believers.My statement is based on an non-believer’s statement that she would save the life of her pet rather than the life of a stranger if only one of them could be saved. It is unlikely to be an isolated case because many lonely people (particularly in the UK) love their pets so much their only thought in a crisis would be to save it - and even die for it.

I agree with you that many non-believers would give up their lives for their friends, relatives and other people they know but how many would do that for some one they have never met? You rightly value all human life but you believe we are all related by an accident of birth. That is a vastly different proposition from believing we are all brothers and sisters with the same Father in heaven.

However noble your intentions are (and I don’t doubt for one moment they are noble) you cannot be motivated by the same love for everyone as a Christian. It is not your fault and it is not because we are morally superior to non-believers - who often put us to shame. It is because we have the privilege of believing we belong to a family **which is intended to exist and created out of love **- which we should do our best to emulate.

Like us you believe everyone should treated equally regardless of colour, race, class, nationality or any other factor but you don’t have the same rational foundation for that belief. It is unrealistic to think a non-believer can treat everyone as kith and kin. Even Christians very rarely live up to that ideal because they have all the faults, failings and weaknesses of everyone else but they at least believe it is possible with the help of God’s grace. Self-sacrifice and prayer enable saints to perform feats which are impossible for those whose faith is weak or non-existent.

As a military man you know - far better than I - that united we stand but divided we fall. But Christians have no enemies to stand against - except themselves - because we are taught to forgive, pray for, love - if need be - die for our “enemies”. In the eyes of the world this is sheer lunacy. Yet it is what Jesus did and we should be prepared to do the same. It is a counsel of perfection but

“A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for?” - Robert Browning :

(As he was deeply in love with his wife Elizabeth “man” obviously includes “woman” - unless a woman is thought to need less effort to reach heaven!)

Without any evil in the world there would be no opportunity for nobility of character.
Elizabeth suffered from illness all her life and died before Robert…

 

[PRmerger]

It is unlikely to be an isolated case because many lonely people (particularly in the UK) love their pets so much their only thought in a crisis would be to save it - and even die for it.

Yes. 'Tis a sad testament indeed of the loneliness these tragic figures proclaim. They imbue upon their pets an attachment that rightfully belongs only to humans.

And this comes, no doubt, from being hurt so painfully by human beings. (No degree in psychology is required for this assessment, eh?).

That human beings have hurt these tragic figures so painfully that they choose to love an animal over a human person is another way the devil (subtly? blatantly?) uses to deceive this hapless soul into a false (and rather ludicrous) ideology.

I agree with you that many non-believers would give up their lives for their friends, relatives and other people they know but how many would do that for some one they have never met? You rightly value all human life but you believe we are all related by an accident of birth. That is a vastly different proposition from believing we are all brothers and sisters with the same Father in heaven.

Right. And that paradigm comes from being a Christian.

However noble your intentions are (and I don’t doubt for one moment they are noble) you cannot be motivated by the same love for everyone as a Christian. It is not your fault and it is not because we are morally superior to non-believers - who often put us to shame. It is because we have the privilege of believing we belong to a family **which is intended to exist and created out of love **- which we should do our best to emulate.

:clapping::bowdown:

 

[tonyrey]

It is unlikely to be an isolated case because many lonely people (particularly in the UK) love their pets so much their only thought in a crisis would be to save it - and even die for it.

.
Loneliness can drive anyone to despair unless we believe we are never alone. The mental isolation of a person who lives alone and doesn’t believe in God must be like a foretaste of hell! But unlike hell it is not a self-inflicted punishment.

I agree with you that many non-believers would give up their lives for their friends, relatives and other people they know but how many would do that for some one they have never met? You rightly value all human life but you believe we are all related by an accident of birth

. That is a vastly different proposition from believing we are all brothers and sisters with the same Father in heaven.
Right. And that paradigm comes from being a Christian.

No religion - not even Christianity - brings people into a close relationship with God without the power of prayer. Words have to be converted into action, both physical and spiritual. There is nothing to prevent an unbeliever from praying and many do at a time of crisis, thank God!

However noble your intentions are (and I don’t doubt for one moment they are noble) you cannot be motivated by the same love for everyone as a Christian. It is not your fault and it is not because we are morally superior to non-believers - who often put us to shame. It is because we have the privilege of believing we belong to a family **which is intended to exist and created out of love **- which we should do our best to emulate.

Thank you, PR, for your encouragement. (The problem with writing is that you never know exactly how much of what you write is read because of the sheer number of posts on this website.)

I wanted to stress that we are not superior to non-believers - and are often inferior - but we have the immense advantage of faith in a Source of Love far greater than anything in the universe. What more could we ask?

I believe the purpose of this forum is to give **reasons **for faith because non-believers are not immune to doubt. Faith varies in its intensity and consistency. We too need to be reminded of - and discover - reasons for what we believe, not only to strengthen but also to bring our faith more alive and creative. Probably Catholic posters benefit more than anyone else from this forum. I was tempted to say “I hope so” but then I realised that is being selfish!

 

[Gaber]

Could you offer something about Catholicism that bothers you?

Yes, but why?

Yes. It’s the “experiential” part that makes me wonder what a Catholic did to you to make you reject Catholicism.

No Catholic did anything to make me reject Catholicism.

And this is very Catholic of you to say, Gaber!

in the original sense of the word, perhaps.

Indeed.

The devil, of course, uses* lots* of methods to lure folks away from Christ’s Church. Insidious means? Yep. Obvious means? Certainly. Subtle means? Sure. Blatant means? Definitely.

You said nothing about personalization.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but why?

So we can dialogue about your misunderstandings about Catholicism, if you have any.

No Catholic did anything to make me reject Catholicism.

Not even something related to divorce?

Of course, you are under no obligation to reveal anything personal…but I’m just wondering.

in the original sense of the word,

No, Gaber. In the doctrinal sense.

perhaps.You said nothing about personalization.

No, I didn’t say anything about personalization. Of what relevance is that?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you, PR. I wanted and want to stress that we are not superior to non-believers - and are often inferior -

Indeed.

Imagine what we would be like were we not Christians, with no access to the sacraments!

Reminds me of the quote attributed to Walker Percy (or perhaps it was Evelyn Waugh?), a curmudgeonly old Catholic. Apparently, after an encounter with a snippy woman in which he was gruff–and, perhaps rude, boorish, curt–this woman sniffed, “And you call yourself a Catholic!” to which he replied, “My dear, you should imagine what I would be like were I not a Catholic.”

 

[Gaber]

So we can dialogue about your misunderstandings about Catholicism, if you have any.

No, actually, as I might have said, I was quite proficient in Catholic doctrine and the understanding thereof.

Not even something related to divorce?

Of course, you are under no obligation to reveal anything personal…but I’m just wondering.

No, as I said, no action of any Catholic, positive or negative, had an iota to do with what happened.

No, Gaber. In the doctrinal sense.

Call it what you will, what I said was not from doctrine but from observation and experience. When I was a proselytizing Catholic, I couldn’t possibly have allowed myself to be around the people I have been with any degree of comfort.

No, I didn’t say anything about personalization. Of what relevance is that?

No, I didn’t expect you would. but therein is a great key to understanding what is called Satan.
Thanks for your time. I appreciate your effort, but it is wasted on me except as an exercise for you to state your beliefs.

 

[Poseidon]

One? You haven’t even been able to provide that!

And yet you have great faith in his existence.

I don’t begrudge you that faith, Poseidon.

I am just saying that you ought to allow Believers that paradigm as well.

It isn’t faith in his existence, it’s reason to believe that he probably exists. It’s not the same as belief in a higher being. It’s more like me saying “somewhere in the universe there exists a planet of earth-like proportions in the Goldilocks zone where life could possibly appear, other than earth.” I don’t have faith that this planet exists, I have reason to believe in it based on probability. It’s an educated guess.

 

[Sair]

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.

Don’t worry, Poseidon - Tonyrey is actually referring to a couple of much older threads on CAF, in which I made the entirely honest admission that I would have great difficulty in deciding between rescuing my dog and rescuing a human child (one I didn’t know) from a burning building, in the event that I could only rescue one of them.

Fair to say, I am not a speciesist. I also don’t know what I would do in the stated circumstances - most likely, I think, die in an attempt to save both. Be that as it may, rest assured that Tonyrey is not accusing all atheists of being prepared to sacrifice humans for any particular reason (we’ll leave that to the religious believers) but is very fond of using the implication that I would do so, for the sake of another animal, to blacken my name on CAF.

 

[Sair]

It isn’t faith in his existence, it’s reason to believe that he probably exists. It’s not the same as belief in a higher being. It’s more like me saying “somewhere in the universe there exists a planet of earth-like proportions in the Goldilocks zone where life could possibly appear, other than earth.” I don’t have faith that this planet exists, I have reason to believe in it based on probability. It’s an educated guess.

Good call. This is a much more succinct version of what I was attempting to argue

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t worry, Poseidon - Tonyrey is actually referring to a couple of much older threads on CAF, in which I made the entirely honest admission that I would have great difficulty in deciding between rescuing my dog and rescuing a human child (one I didn’t know) from a burning building, in the event that I could only rescue one of them.

Fair to say, I am not a speciesist. I also don’t know what I would do in the stated circumstances - most likely, I think, die in an attempt to save both. Be that as it may, rest assured that Tonyrey is not accusing all atheists of being prepared to sacrifice humans for any particular reason (we’ll leave that to the religious believers) but is very fond of using the implication that I would do so, for the sake of another animal, to blacken my name on CAF.

1. I was careful not to specify who the individual was.
2. You clearly stated - **and even gave reasons why **- you would put the life of your dog before the life of a stranger.
3. If you are honest - and wise - you will retract your calumny.

 

[reconman]

Why would God design some animals to painfully kill and eat others?

Because a good steak makes for a very tasty meal indeed!