Would Atheists support welfare? Why?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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

[darsenfeld]

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

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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!  :-|

[Jason78]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[darsenfeld]

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!"....

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[mediumaevum]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Take the Universe.
Take away God.
Nothing changes.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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