Atheistforums.com

EDIT:
--------------
Given the amount of misunderstanding of this thread, I can tell you that I am NOT a Social Darwinist. This post is showing my concern about accepting Darwin's ideas as
being used in a political context (Social Darwinism) to "improve" society. I am not a proponent of this idea, quite the contrary.
--------------

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

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.

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.

There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

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

The only one I can think of is the Survival of the Fittest argument:
If the "Fittest" becomes "unfit", before he is getting unfit, he would like to have assurance that he could get help, if he should be permanently unfit, sometime in the future.

But this could easily be solved with the Fittest paying for an Insurance himself. This would not include those who are unfit from birth.

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

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

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.

There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

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

One could make a case that those who can get people to support their life styles without having to lift a finger on their own are the ones naturally selected. That goes for both the poor and the rich execs that really don't contribute a fucking thing.

Meaning you're making the assumption that natural selection will always seek out the strongest or most intelligent. When that is faulty at best with humans.

Quote from: "Moriarty"

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

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

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.

There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

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

One could make a case that those who can get people to support their life styles without having to lift a finer on their own are the ones naturally selected. That goes for both the poor and the rich execs that really don't contribute a fucking thing.

Meaning you're making the assumption that natural selection will always seek out the strongest or most intelligent. When that is faulty at best with humans.

But the strongest could, with ease and with little to no effort, abolish the welfare state. They don't, as long as they (or society, or population as a whole) is still holding on to
religious "mumbo-jumbo" with claims that Ethics should play a role. The is nothing in Nature that says that Ethics needs to play a role in society, quite the contrary,
society would be better off without ethics, and only holding on to who has the sword, has the might, he who has the might, has the right, without supporting those who permanently cannot support themselves, according to Darwinian Evolution.

As for the super-rich, they are naturally selected, to be fit. No matter what happens, they have nature with them, in the way that if Welfare is abolished, the Super-Rich would just use their own money to support themselves. And if they were to be taxed, they could just move away, to another country.

Depends on how intelligently you set it up.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Depends on how intelligently you set it up.

I'd like you to provide an example.

No matter how intelligently you setup any type of logical reasoning with predefined variables, you are always going to
follow the course of that logic.

Say for instance A = 1 and B = 2, and we have an equation with two variables added together, then A+B would naturally be 3. There is no way you could change that fact.

Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Depends on how intelligently you set it up.

I'd like you to provide an example.

Not happening on this phone.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Depends on how intelligently you set it up.

Pretty much...


Every human being has something to offer, even if it's playing part of the class system at the bottom.

If you tell me that children starving and dying in Africa are being "naturally selected" out, I would firmly disagree.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

Well then shouldn't you post your question to an evolutionist's board? Seems like you're targeting the wrong group here. Some Atheists are hard core conservatives and do not support welfare.

Quote from: "Moriarty"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Depends on how intelligently you set it up.

Pretty much...


Every human being has something to offer, even if it's playing part of the class system at the bottom.

If you tell me that children starving and dying in Africa are being "naturally selected" out, I would firmly disagree.

You are using the Ethical argument that says that everyone can contribute to society, in one way or the other.

I would like to agree with this, but I can't.

According to logical reasoning, if one cost more to society than one is able to give back, one is worhless.

I  hate that reasoning, and I would like to have it proven untrue, but that's the reason for this thread.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

So what is it about Darwinian evolution that you think rules out human compassion?

Quote from: "Moriarty"

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

Well then shouldn't you post your question to an evolutionist's board? Seems like you're targeting the wrong group here. Some Atheists are hard core conservatives and do not support welfare.

Evolutionism is a natural consequence of Atheism.
All Atheists should be evolutionists, according to Atheism, saying there is no God, only Evolution.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Evolutionism is a natural consequence of Atheism.
All Atheists should be evolutionists, according to Atheism, saying there is no God but Evolution.

So people who say there is no god declared Evolution to be a god? Damn, you must have been the runt of your litter.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Your argument is a bullshit strawman. Atheists do not believe "Atheism would mean the weak should die off, either by forced suicide, execution (forced euthanasia) or by hunger." Atheists do not believe in god. Period. End of shared atheistic beliefs.

I won't speak for others here, but I believe in welfare because I have compassion for my fellow humans. If you personally are lacking compassion for your fellow humans then please continue to cling to your theistic beliefs because fear of your eternal fate is apparently the only reason you have for not treating others like shit.

Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

So what is it about Darwinian evolution that you think rules out human compassion?

When people realize that compassion is harmful to society, they would naturally throw their compassion away.

Example:

The ageing population of European (mainly Scandinavian) Welfare States means there are fewer and fewer people to pay for their welfare (Old Age Pensions, Nusery Homes etc.).

Sometime in the future, these Welfare States would HAVE TO force the old people to undergo Euthanasia, to put a limit to how old people can get, in order to avoid bankruptcy and other crises.

It's not a matter of wether we want it or not. China would also need to kill off a certain percentage of its population, so would India, and many other countries. I believe the UN would, sometime in the future, agree that killing off the weakest and even the poorest is "neccessary evil" to avoid over-population of Earth.

Don't misunderstand me: I hate that idea, but according to logical reasoning, there is no other way out of this problem.
No of what I know of.

I don't want this to happen. I just fear it will happen, because humanity has proven itself horribly good at survival, and is prepared to do ANYTHING to preserve its own specie.

Either we have to throw away compassion, to preserve the Human specie, or, if we choose compassion, humanity should be faced with certain extinction.

I prefer the latter.

Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Evolutionism is a natural consequence of Atheism.
All Atheists should be evolutionists, according to Atheism, saying there is no God but Evolution.

So people who say there is no god declared Evolution to be a god? Damn, you must have been the runt of your litter.

Damn, writing too fast, and my English gets poor... Sorry again:

There is no God, only evolution.

Edited again.

By your own thinking though, man could wipe out every form of life on the planet because it is weaker. We have the nukes to be sure~ We don't because every life form on the planet serves a purpose......either as food or a tool.

Quote from: "Moriarty"By your own thinking though, man could wipe out every form of life on the planet because it is weaker. We have the nukes to be sure~ We don't because every life form on the planet serves a purpose......either as food or a tool.

Except those that serves only the purpose of their very existence, that people are happy to have them living.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "Moriarty"By your own thinking though, man could wipe out every form of life on the planet because it is weaker. We have the nukes to be sure~ We don't because every life form on the planet serves a purpose......either as food or a tool.

Except those that serves only the purpose of their very existence, that people are happy to have them living.

And you don't think the strong humans are happy for the existence of poorer, less strong humans? They serve a purpose. Where would humanity have gotten without slave states? Not that I justify it.  

Your line of thinking would lead to a last man standing end to the species.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Either we have to throw away compassion, to preserve the Human specie, or, if we choose compassion, humanity should be faced with certain extinction.

This argument is a non sequitur. The evidence says compassion is a product of evolution. I suggest you look into reciprocity which most likely often bestowed an advantage in the evolutionary survival of our species.

Darwinism is a model for species evolution, change, die out and survival. It has nothing to do with the moral issue of the human capacity for caring.

That said, without doing any research, I know for a fact there is evidence of species other than human caring for their own kind. Elephants will stand guard over sick or wounded herd mates to protect them. Primates have shown the capacity for empathy and compassion. But to equate that to a Darwinian model is a false application.

Quote from: "stromboli"Darwinism is a model for species evolution, change, die out and survival. It has nothing to do with the moral issue of the human capacity for caring.

That said, without doing any research, I know for a fact there is evidence of species other than human caring for their own kind. Elephants will stand guard over sick or wounded herd mates to protect them. Primates have shown the capacity for empathy and compassion. But to equate that to a Darwinian model is a false application.

Oddly enough I have seen plenty examples of one species taking care of another in the same manner, even ones that tend to be predatory in nature against the one they're protecting.
[youtube:1j67ujqy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owe6_vd9paU[/youtube:1j67ujqy]

Quote from: "stromboli"Darwinism is a model for species evolution, change, die out and survival. It has nothing to do with the moral issue of the human capacity for caring.

That said, without doing any research, I know for a fact there is evidence of species other than human caring for their own kind. Elephants will stand guard over sick or wounded herd mates to protect them. Primates have shown the capacity for empathy and compassion. But to equate that to a Darwinian model is a false application.

Thanks for the answer, which I am satisfied with.

Darwinian Evolution =/= Social Darwinism. I thought in 2014 this would be common knowledge.

Ethics are a part of the majority of human (and primate and various other animal's) wiring; we are social creatures thanks to Darwinian evolution. So when you ask why do we care for our weaker links when that is contradictory to Social Darwinism (which you mistake for Dar. Evo.), you are asking why does Darwinian Evolution run contrary to Social Darwinism... and the simple answer is that Social Dar. was developed so that the powerful could make excuses for abusing their power and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.

It is just a more modern manifestation of divine right... twisting a completely unrelated field of science (stretching that term, since religion use to be considered science) into an excuse to abuse your power.

Economic circumstances have little or nothing to do with genetics. Selective pressure is about heritable traits, so this question doesn't make any sense.

Because I'm not a massive douchebag and I realize that people occasionally need help due to circumstances beyond their control.

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

Because we are human beings and have empathy for other human beings and because we are not so morally bankrupt that we need the promise of reward or the threat of punishment to be nice to others.

Quote from: "the_antithesis"

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

Because we are human beings and have empathy for other human beings and because we are not so morally bankrupt that we need the promise of reward or the threat of punishment to be nice to others.

Yep

Quote from: "mediumaevum"... given Darwinian evolution says that those unfit to live, should die off.

Should?  Evolution doesn't make subjective determinations about what should happen.

So medium if I drop over to your house and put a bullet in your head because I feel like it, perhaps I just want your shit everyone should sit pacively by and say, "Well that's darwinian evolution for you."

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

Social darwinism in my atheism?  It's more com...quite rare actually.

(//http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz2inoysrF1roh8k6o1_1280.jpg)

Let us think about this like "evolutionists": there are two competing tribes. In one, anyone who is injured or becomes sick or old or widowed or orphaned is on his/her own and likely to die--can't have him/her weighing down society. The other offers [some limited] support for such individuals. Which tribe would you want to be a part of; more to the point, for which tribe would you rather fight in a war or hunt animals or chase lions away from herd animals--all necessary activities with an inherent risk of [serious] injury--? Which tribe is going to get the most effective work out of people doing those jobs? Which tribe is going to have its workers avoiding self risk, even at the expense of tribal harm, most? Which is more likely to create a bunch of desperate people on the fringe of society doing whatever it takes to survive--including banditry? To sum it, which tribe will be more successful?

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

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.

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.

There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

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

The only one I can think of is the Survival of the Fittest argument:
If the "Fittest" becomes "unfit", before he is getting unfit, he would like to have assurance that he could get help, if he should be permanently unfit, sometime in the future.

But this could easily be solved with the Fittest paying for an Insurance himself. This would not include those who are unfit from birth.

Have you actually read Darwin? I don't recall reading anything like this in "Origin Of Species."

While atheism and evolution are two distinctly separate topics, I'm pretty sure evolution's "success" is determined by whether or not a species survives and reproduces. Perhaps our ability to care for our fellow human beings gives us an advantage in these two areas? More people surviving and yes, reproducing.

On a side note, you describe people on welfare with a rather nasty tone, especially by pretty much assuming all welfare recipients will be permanent ones. These are your fellow human beings with similar wants and desires as you who have fallen under hard times. It really doesn't matter what evolution says in determining whether you want to help them.

Quote from: "Lateralus112"On a side note, you describe people on welfare with a rather nasty tone, especially by pretty much assuming all welfare recipients will be permanent ones.

Which is especially odd after all the earlier kvetching about possibly being knocked off welfare or somesuch.

Sounds like a Tea Bagger. "Everybody but me who is on any form of social support is a lazy bastard."

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

Well for a start your premise is flawed.   Darwinian evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.  It doesn't say that "those unfit to live, should die off".  It says that "those unfit to live, do die off".  

Welfare makes us fitter as a group.

Darwinian evolution is an unconscious biological phenomenon. It's fallacious to apply it to things it doesnt address, like human society. It's this fallacy that leads to travesties like social darwinism.

Posted via Tapatalk on tiny smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.

I have a sister who was on welfare many years ago. Perhaps she should have been killed off or died, but as it happened she got a nursing degree back in the late 70s and I couldn't begin to count the lives she has saved and is still saving to this day.

Quote from: "Atheon"Darwinian evolution is an unconscious biological phenomenon. It's fallacious to apply it to things it doesnt address, like human society. It's this fallacy that leads to travesties like social darwinism.

"But without Darwin you're big bang theory just don't work."

Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Sounds like a Tea Bagger. "Everybody but me who is on any form of social support is a lazy bastard."

Except that mediumaevum isn't American or, for that matter, from either of the Americas. But yeah, same general attitude.

Saying that Darwinian evolution favors the strongest is irrelevant, because no one advocates for a society based on Darwinism. That would be a terrible place to live.

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

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.

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.

There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

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

The only one I can think of is the Survival of the Fittest argument:
If the "Fittest" becomes "unfit", before he is getting unfit, he would like to have assurance that he could get help, if he should be permanently unfit, sometime in the future.

But this could easily be solved with the Fittest paying for an Insurance himself. This would not include those who are unfit from birth.

Charles Darwin also taught about altruism within different species. You might be interested to read up on that. You might also be interested to note that research over the years has shown that atheists contribute more to charities and such than religious people. Compassion is a human quality, not something religion "invented."

Welfare for those who are truly down and out (and not for those who abuse the system) stems from altruism, which stems from evolution.

And for a great example of Darwinian evolution leading to altruism rather than social darwinism, let's take a look at socialist vampire bats.  Like Ozzy Osbourne, they wake up every night to feed on blood.  Unlike Ozzy, they aren't always successful.  Successful members often share their haul with unsuccessful ones.  Sharing blood improves the fitness of the population.

Another case of not understanding modern evolutionary theory. This is the way Nazi Germany thought. It is our duty as "human beings", not as immoral animals to help the weak, not destroy them. Money is power, should only the strong with money inherited survive and everyone else die?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  #-o  Solitary

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

Evolution says that those who are unsuccessful in propagating their genes DO die out. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Just because the Theory of Gravity says things fall doesn't mean you should jump off a cliff.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"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.

Given that skeptical atheists usually don't fall for the Naturalistic Fallacy (it's good because it's natural), you'll need to find another reason to cling to your beliefs. Your vision of what atheists 'ought' to be for could not be more ludicrous.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"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.

Evolution doesn't say any of those things. Evolution says that the alleles of organisms that propagate more successfully will become more common.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"There is a logic in providing temporary welfare for those temporarily
ill or temporarily disabled, in order to make them healthy individuals capable of getting re-included in the workforce, but those who are permanently without ability to work in order to sustain themselves, is not just unworthy, they are a harm to society, according to Darwinian Evolution.

According to Darwinian evolution, preserving genetic diversity tends to preserve the viability of a species. Going through a 'population bottleneck' may speed evolution and speciation, but that's not the same thing as being 'good for the species'.

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

Atheism is not believing in any God or gods. Nothing specific derives from it. Imagine trying to formulate an answer to the same question, only concerning theism. How would you justify welfare based on theism: not Christianity or Buddhism or Islam, just mere theism?

Quote from: "mediumaevum"The only one I can think of is the Survival of the Fittest argument:
If the "Fittest" becomes "unfit", before he is getting unfit, he would like to have assurance that he could get help, if he should be permanently unfit, sometime in the future.

That's one. Instead of limiting yourself to mere atheism, maybe you should check out humanism.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"But this could easily be solved with the Fittest paying for an Insurance himself. This would not include those who are unfit from birth.

You are really getting worked up over nothing. You have to know more about a person than that they are an atheist or a theist to know their stance on such things. You have to know their philosophy or religion, not just their position on the probability of a God or gods really existing.

Odd that rich people die too, huh? During the French Revolution they lost their heads.

We're human.  But yeah, atheists have NO empathy..  lol..

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Sorry, I didn't mean Atheism, I meant Darwinian Evolution. I have edited this in my Original Topic.

I do have compassion for my fellow humans, regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s).

But Darwinian Evolution tells us that compassion is worthless, not to speak of harmful, unless it is about making the individual we have compassion for, capable of being useful to us.

When people realize that compassion is harmful to society, they would naturally throw their compassion away.

Compassion is an evolved human trait. It's not as easy to throw away as you might think. It's not hard to limit compassion to the 'in group', but people (in general) will always regard members of their family as the 'in group', handicapped or not.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Example:

The ageing population of European (mainly Scandinavian) Welfare States means there are fewer and fewer people to pay for their welfare (Old Age Pensions, Nusery Homes etc.).

Sometime in the future, these Welfare States would HAVE TO force the old people to undergo Euthanasia, to put a limit to how old people can get, in order to avoid bankruptcy and other crises.

Failure of imagination, I think. You're talking about rough economic times, not an apocalypse. And they can easily 'youthen' their population by easing immigration restrictions. Easier immigration is why the USA will continue to experience population growth as the population of Europe and Japan decline.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"It's not a matter of wether we want it or not. China would also need to kill off a certain percentage of its population, so would India, and many other countries. I believe the UN would, sometime in the future, agree that killing off the weakest and even the poorest is "neccessary evil" to avoid over-population of Earth.

By 2050, every continent but Africa and Antarctica will have neutral or negative population growth. The REASON Europe and Japan have severely aging populations is because of their low birth rates; and Asia and South America are poised to follow suit. The population of Africa will probably continue to grow until 2100; but according to middle-of-the-road UN estimates, global population tops out around 2050 and declines very slowly thereafter for centuries.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Don't misunderstand me: I hate that idea, but according to logical reasoning, there is no other way out of this problem. No of what I know of.

Maybe you should think about problems like this more before giving up.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"I don't want this to happen. I just fear it will happen, because humanity has proven itself horribly good at survival, and is prepared to do ANYTHING to preserve its own specie.

Killing off our old people is unlikely to help much in improving our species. It would be more a species failure to come up with better solutions under conditions of luxury compared to what the majority of humans have dealt with for the majority of our history as a species.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Either we have to throw away compassion, to preserve the Human specie, or, if we choose compassion, humanity should be faced with certain extinction.

I prefer the latter.

Speaking of logic, that's a false dilemma. There are more than two choices.

Quote from: "mediumaevum"

Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"

Quote from: "mediumaevum"Evolutionism is a natural consequence of Atheism.
All Atheists should be evolutionists, according to Atheism, saying there is no God but Evolution.

So people who say there is no god declared Evolution to be a god? Damn, you must have been the runt of your litter.

Damn, writing too fast, and my English gets poor... Sorry again:

There is no God, only evolution.

Edited again.

If there is no God, there is only everything else.

Medium, suppose your grand idea of euthanasia comes to fruition just as you reach the age deemed to old. Will you calmly stand up, void of emotions and offer your head to the chopping block? I seriously doubt it.

mediumaevum, the minorities are taking over the world which means white people are weaker, should they be killed off?  :-k  #-o  Your bigotry and prejudice are standing out like a soar thumb if you are white, if not you must be as rich as Oprah the billionaire.   :rollin: :P  Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"mediumaevum, the minorities are taking over the world which means white people are weaker, should they be killed off?  :-k  #-o  Your bigotry and prejudice are standing out like a soar thumb if you are white, if not you must be as rich as Oprah the billionaire.   :rollin: :P  Solitary

You're showing human emotion. Be more Vulcan-like you punny humanoid thing!  :-|

Quote from: "Solitary"mediumaevum, the minorities are taking over the world which means white people are weaker, should they be killed off?  :-k  #-o  Your bigotry and prejudice are standing out like a soar thumb if you are white, if not you must be as rich as Oprah the billionaire.   :rollin: :P  Solitary

He's not coming back.

He's been around for awhile, I think he's tough enough to take a ribbing and keep on ticking. And he does show signs of being able to absorb what we are saying, despite a language barrier.

Yes, I do support it:

- Compassion
- Empathy
- Social security/wellbeing

Look at it this way.  Most revolutions in humanity's recorded history have been based on the poor, disadvantaged or oppressed saying "fuck this shit!"....

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

Because importing scientific concepts into cultural paradigms is stupid.

Because the worth of an individual cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

Because accepting evolution as a fact doesn't equate to atheism.

Because I'd rather do away with sloppy thinkers than poor folk.

Hope that helps.

Quote from: Solitary on March 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
mediumaevum, the minorities are taking over the world which means white people are weaker, should they be killed off?  <!-- s:-k -->:-k<!-- s:-k -->  <!-- s#-o -->#-o<!-- s#-o -->  Your bigotry and prejudice are standing out like a soar thumb if you are white, if not you must be as rich as Oprah the billionaire.   <!-- s:rollin: -->:rollin:<!-- s:rollin: --> <!-- s:P --> :P <!-- s:P -->  Solitary

I think you all misunderstood my post. I asked a question, for what it is, a question.

If you want to know my personal opinion, I am FOR welfare, and AGAINST Social Darwinism.

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

That's not to say I support Social Darwinism. I certainly don't.

Had Hitler not been a madman, and actually listened to his advisors, I am sure 1/3 of the world would be speaking German, 1/3 Russian and 1/3 Japanese, and be subject to one of these dictatorships.

And people like me would have been gassed a long time ago.

Quote from: Mister Agenda on March 03, 2014, 02:16:47 PM

Quote from: mediumaevum

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: mediumaevumEvolutionism is a natural consequence of Atheism.
All Atheists should be evolutionists, according to Atheism, saying there is no God but Evolution.

So people who say there is no god declared Evolution to be a god? Damn, you must have been the runt of your litter.

Damn, writing too fast, and my English gets poor... Sorry again:

There is no God, only evolution.

Edited again.

If there is no God, there is only everything else.

Take the Universe.
Take away God.
Nothing changes.

Some atheists would support it, others wouldn't, because the only defining characteristic of atheism is lack of belief in god.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

Quote from: darsenfeld on March 15, 2014, 03:45:38 PM
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).

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

Quote from: mediumaevum on March 02, 2014, 02:18:34 PM
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.

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

QuotePersonally, 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.

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.

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.

QuoteIf 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.)

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.

QuoteGive 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.

QuoteIt'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.

QuoteAccording 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: mediumaevum on March 13, 2014, 01:36:32 PM
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.

Quote from: VladK on March 17, 2014, 10:29:19 AM
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.

But America failed due to it's lack of socialism, it's poorly regulated capitalism, and various ridiculous endeavors, such as trying to uphold their "empire" and invade loads of countries. The countries doing the best in the world are largely socialistic, that is a fact. And why should families be impoverished because a members gets sick? That's inhuman - particularly when socialism can secure them without causing the country to go into debt.

Quote from: VladK on March 17, 2014, 10:29:19 AM
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.

Then what would you do when you eventually became too old and/or infirm to be able to support yourself?

Quote from: mediumaevum on March 02, 2014, 02:48:47 PM

Sometime in the future, these Welfare States would HAVE TO force the old people to undergo Euthanasia, to put a limit to how old people can get, in order to avoid bankruptcy and other crises.

No, you need is to reduce or abolish welfare handouts. Or, allow immigrants into the country.

being that I'm on disability myself this is an issue that hits close to home.

I've always supported socialism even when I could work because with out it the financial world is imbalanced (at least in america). And I also think it's hard to compare the way humans live to the way things happen in nature because humans are very unnatural to start with. When's the last time you saw a rabbit or a fox use deodorant? So basing anything on Darwin's teachings is a stretch when applied to humans.

Also modern evolution does not teach survival of the fittest. It teaches survival of the most fertile. Even a weak species can survive if it out procreates a stronger one.

Could be true in humanity as well.

I'm rated at 100% disabled by the VA due to what one doctor termed "accumulated damage". Without that assistance I'd be living under a bridge somewhere.

Same here. Though I am trying to sculpt ball jointed dolls and hopefully sell them someday.

Cut welfare programs completely and you end up with soaring crime rates. In the perfect world everyone is offered the perfect job and every job pays enough to make it worth getting out of bed in the morning, but we know that's not the case.
Advocating killing off old people or people unable to work or people who live in areas with few jobs? This accomplishes exactly nothing and in fact would lead to far more crime than imaginable. Example,  if you tried to haul my 85 year old dad off for euthanasia I would do everything in my power to kill you first to protect him and so would any sane person so the whole social darwin argument is pure bullshit and based on your bullshit fantasy of being the alpha human.

The fact that this is even being debated is disturbing to me---are we not human? Solitary