Would Atheists support welfare? Why?

[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.

[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.

[mediumaevum]

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.

[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.

[PopeyesPappy]

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.

[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.

[Moriarty]

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]

[mediumaevum]

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.

[Shiranu]

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.

[Mermaid]

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

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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

[the_antithesis]

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.

[Moralnihilist]

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

[aileron]

... given Darwinian evolution says that those unfit to live, should die off.

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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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."