Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 08, 2014, 20:36 (3668 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. 
> 
> That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.
>-The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing. 
 
> TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.
> 
>DHW: I couldn't understand why you had suddenly abandoned our rational discussion, ignoring the detailed responses I had given to your objections - nearly all of which are covered by theistic evolution. I'm relieved that you were not offended, but dismayed by the actual reason for your pulling out. Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.-
I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory. It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it. Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply.-
People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.