Would Atheists support welfare? Why?

[Hydra009]

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.

[Poison Tree]

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?

[Jmpty]

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."

[Lateralus112]

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.

[Hydra009]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

[Jason78]

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.

[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.

Posted via Tapatalk on tiny smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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."

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[atheist_in_a_foxhole]

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.

[Deidre32]

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.

[Hydra009]

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.

[Solitary]

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