Would Atheists support welfare? Why?

[zarus tathra]

Define "natural selection" in the context of society. Those are two very contradictory concepts, it's hard to mix the two without completely twisting/tainting the concept of natural selection.

Even fascism isn't really about natural selection. If unions decide that destroying the capitalists and seizing their wealth was what was best, and they have a very good chance of succeeding without the interference of the state, then if the state interferes to prevent strikes like it does under fascism, it's arguable that the state is standing in the way of "natural" selection. Using force and propaganda to protect "tradition" isn't natural selection, it is about as artificial as you can get.

[Shol'va]

Many theists struggle with coming to terms what an atheist is and how an atheist functions and what stance an atheist would take on an issue because they have been lied to for so long.
A lack of belief in a god in no way inescapably lead to a certain position on numerous topics.
I think the biggest struggle is with realizing that atheism is not a world view, since a lot of baggage and preconceived notions have been attributed to atheists. We see that very thing here in this thread.
It all goes back to theists spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to other theists to keep them in the fold. It's how religion strives.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Natural selection has nothing to do with social Darwinism despite the claims of the proponents of that aberration. 

[zarus tathra]

"Natural" is such a bullshit term in the context of politics. Just like every other term in a political context.

[darsenfeld]

OPs argument is illogical.


We atheists merely don't believe in the existence of God, period. 


It doesn't necessitate ANY moral, ideological, or social standpoint.


In contemporary society, only sociopaths and neo-Nazis perhaps don't believe in welfare.  Even pre-liberal democratic states endorsed some form of welfare.  Medieval Europe during feudalism, ancient Rome, etc. had certain forms of welfare provision.  It's really human, and perhaps necessary for structure of society (poor people with no means may steal or kill from those richer, even if the richer people honestly worked for their possessions/position...think about it..;))


OP needs to understand basic human mechanics, since the concept/action of assisting the infirm predates homo sapiens (homo erectus is believed to have done it), and is seen in extant and extinct species (,e.g. Smilidon).

[Solitary]

OPs argument is illogical.


We atheists merely don't believe in the existence of God, period. 
Nice to see you do have intelligent things to say.  Congratulations! Solitary

It doesn't necessitate ANY moral, ideological, or social standpoint.


In contemporary society, only sociopaths and neo-Nazis perhaps don't believe in welfare.  Even pre-liberal democratic states endorsed some form of welfare.  Medieval Europe during feudalism, ancient Rome, etc. had certain forms of welfare provision.  It's really human, and perhaps necessary for structure of society (poor people with no means may steal or kill from those richer, even if the richer people honestly worked for their possessions/position...think about it..;))


OP needs to understand basic human mechanics, since the concept/action of assisting the infirm predates homo sapiens (homo erectus is believed to have done it), and is seen in extant and extinct species (,e.g. Smilidon).

[Solitary]

Nice to see you do have intelligence things to say for a change.  :icon_super: He! He! Solitary

[VladK]

Give me some reasons why Atheists should support welfare, given Darwinian evolution says that those unfit to live, should die off.

Simple. Evolution says nothing about politics anymore than gravity.

Atheists are free to support or not support welfare. Personally, if I were to create a country from scratch I would not allow welfare, except maybe as a last resort after family, community, private NGO whatever failed to help you provide the basic necessities. Right now the US and other countries are spending WAY too much money and are in serious debt, the US alone has 17 trillion, it can't go on forever and it should have never reached this point.

[Solitary]

New born babies are worthless, should they be killed off to support natural selection? Natural selection and what we as humans do should be based on our humanity, not logic, which can't tell you what the truth is. The strong should support the weak because that is how we have survived as a species, and it is our duty as human beings and not wild animals, and not by killing off the weak. Jesus H. Christ! Solitary

[Plu]

Personally, if I were to create a country from scratch I would not allow welfare, except maybe as a last resort after family, community, private NGO whatever failed to help you provide the basic necessities.

That'd probably be a pretty empty country, if you gave people a choice about living there.

[VladK]

If that were true, the US would never have existed. You had little to no welfare back then yet people went there for the economic freedoms. There are plenty of people who would be drawn to such a country, for example libertarian-minded people who distrust government as a solution to most problems or don't want high taxes because they want to keep more of what they earn. (And if you keep more you are able to save up for rainy days, pensions etc. You will also be more inclined to donate to private charity.)

Such a country would also be unlikely to go into trillions of debt or to have an increasing number of people dependent on the state on unsustainable quasi-ponzi schemes that sooner or later will fail. The small size of such a government would also limit its corruption and companies that were inefficient would actually fail rather than be bailed out by the state with money they didn't deserve and continue their inefficient ways.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The debt isn't because of welfare programs. It's because we have an oligarchy hell bent on creating their own private thiefdoms and have convinced certain stupid mother fuckers they'll share and donate to worthwhile causes to benefit societies.

[Plu]

If that were true, the US would never have existed. You had little to no welfare back then yet people went there for the economic freedoms.

You had an absolutely huge landmass and you could just go over there, say "this is mine" and it was yours. You didn't need welfare, because the new world was the land of infinite free resources.

(Of course if you look at what "a place where everyone who comes over can get as much stuff as they want/need" most closely resembles, you'd have to conclude that it's basically describing... a welfare state.)

[La Dolce Vita]

I just joined the conversation, so I will start from the very beginning. People have hopefully proven you wrong already, and if that is the case I hope you have apologized for your misconceptions. I'll just tear up your main assumption, which even after edits has no connection with any tangible reality.

Give me some reasons why Atheists should support welfare, given Darwinian evolution says that those unfit to live, should die off.

1. No. Darwinian evolution makes no such claim. Darwinian evolution simply explains the variety of life, and shows that what was fittest given the circumstances survived. It makes no value statements.

2. What you are describing is Social Darwinism, which has no connection to Darwinian evolution what so ever. In fact the most known supporter of Social Darwinism, Adolf Hitler, was a creationist who outlawed the teaching of evolution, demonstrating the degree of which the two component are connected.

3. Even if Darwinian evolution somehow made claims of morality/dogma - which it as a scientific theory rather can't - why would atheists follow it? Why would we respect it? We have gotten to the point that we to a large degree control the natural - so fuck the natural order of things. If a person has bad eye sight, we can do laser surgery, etc. Why should we have cared?

4. What is the connection between Darwinian evolution and Atheism? Of course, evolution is a fact (and you don't need "Darwinian" in there), and people who don't believe theistic creation myths are perhaps more likely to accept such facts, but atheism is not built of evolution. They are not connected in any way. You can be an atheist and not believe in evolution.

It's one of THE main reasons I am still clinging to my beliefs: Darwinian Evolution would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger.

So ... apologize for your misconception and edit your post once more, either removing this, or adding bolded text that you were wrong.

According to Evolution, there really is no need for people in permanent need of welfare. In-fact, Evolution tells us that people in need of permanent welfare, who will always, permanently be more costly than beneficial for society as a whole, should die off.

See above.

I would like to know an Atheist response to this, in favor of Welfare for the permanently needy, based on Atheism.

You cannot base anything on atheist. Huge misconception number 2. Ignoring implicit atheist for simplicity (someone who has not heard of gods/have the cognitive ability to understand and process such ideas) atheist is the result of a position, strain of though, ideology, etc. Atheism in this case is just the stance that we do not believe in any gods ( and not that we believe no gods exist, that's anti-theism).

I do not understand why or how anyone can base welfare or anything else on this stance. There is no connection. Atheism is not and cannot be an ideology (though it may be part of multiple).

I realize many theists don't quite understand this, so here's an example that might explain it to you. Presuming you are a member of a religion not adherent to Zeus, is not believing in Zeus the basis of your ideology? If not, you understand that atheism is not an ideology either. The only way not believing in Zeus could affect your life is if you met someone who did believe in Zeus (they exist). You might then argue with them about it - but it would not play a role in your life. If the majority of your society started worshiping Zeus and made laws based on Zeus, your lack of belief in Zeus might become more important, and you might was to argue for the rights of people not believing in Zeus - but it still wouldn't become your ideology.

Many atheists are humanists, so humanism would be the ideology behind the support of welfare.
(But there are multiple other ideologies atheists can belong to, including dogmatic ideologies and even religions. For example tons of atheists also belong to atheistic religions such as Buddhism. We also have atheists like Ayn Rand, and atheists like Stalin)

Hope that explains atheist to you, and how it has nothing/very little to do with our ideology - and therefor why, again, your first post makes very little sense, aside from Darwinian Evolution not saying what you're stating it's saying.

[La Dolce Vita]

I just ACKNOWLEDGE that Social Darwinist societies are way stronger and more fit to survive than those built purely on compassion.

Really, because I don't really see any of these currently around around, and if so, say, including places like Somalia, they are not doing very well. Look at the welfare states in Scandinavia. They are among the countries doing best in the world, in basically all categories. Every single "social darwinism" state, wether they knew what that meant or not, got destroyed, and that's because empathy always win in the end. People do not want to live like that. And even if Hitler had won WW2, his empire would have been destroyed or reformed, just as any other exploitative empire before or since. It's the natural progression of things. The entire history of our species is of us becoming more and more civilized, less and less murderous, and more and more people living better lives. It is happening all around the world - even the Islamic world is showing progression as a whole. Countries with a strong sense of fairness and empathy might not be as militarily strong (though it might be) but we are winning, even by the standards of evolution. We propagate our ideas to a much greater degree than those on the opposite side. It is ironic, but in the evolutionary pool of ideas Social Darwinism was proven to be the less fit.