Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?

[Enmos]

Well Darwin isn't posting on this board, so he can neither answer your posts nor defend himself - so you're still irrelevant and off topic.

You should know better than using flimsy ad hominem attacks to apply your own value judgements and predjudices about a dead christian, to living atheists.

It seems that you are not being very open handed with either your questioning or your poll (and I'm being extremely kind and restrained in the way I'm phrasing that)- it seems what you actually want to do is confirm your own predjudice that combining an understanding of evolution with atheism leads to an obligation to defend racism and eugenics.

If you want to know the truth why not simply ask that question straight out instead of trying to hide your motives?

That's what I thought her agenda was..

 

[synthesizer-patel]

That's what I thought her agenda was..

I had my suspicions - but when no-one took her bait forcing her to leap wildly to personal attacks on Charles Darwin (like we care) and bring up the subject of eugenics all by herself, it pretty much confirmed it.

But seeing as she had to bring up the subject on her own, she may as well have just had the conversation with herself all along :crazy:

 

[S.A.M.]

I had my suspicions - but when no-one took her bait forcing her to leap wildly to personal attacks on Charles Darwin (like we care) and bring up the subject of eugenics all by herself, it pretty much confirmed it.

But seeing as she had to bring up the subject on her own, she may as well have just had the conversation with herself all along :crazy:

Uh no, I brought up the eugenics as a response to your "social engineering" comments.

And I have been discussing the survival of the fittest all along, it seems that most atheists here are shy about giving an opinion on it. :shrug:

It seems that you are not being very open handed with either your questioning or your poll (and I'm being extremely kind and restrained in the way I'm phrasing that)- it seems what you actually want to do is confirm your own predjudice that combining an understanding of evolution with atheism leads to an obligation to defend racism and eugenics.

I just wanted to see if anyone would notice I was NOT talking about evolution, hence the poll. Guess not. Talk about prejudice. Everyone is too busy discussing my agenda and fitness as a mod, not to mention the deleterious effects of my theistic conditioning to see beyond the light shining out of their arses.

 

[Enmos]

Uh no, I brought up the eugenics as a response to your "social engineering" comments.

And I have been discussing the survival of the fittest all along, it seems that most atheists here are shy about giving an opinion on it. :shrug:

I gave my opinion but you didn't reply.

 

[Enmos]

I just wanted to see if anyone would notice I was NOT talking about evolution, hence the poll. Guess not. Talk about prejudice.

You said you weren't talking about anything, that you were just asking.. :bugeye:

And how is it prejudice to assume that "Survival of the fittest" is about evolution ?

 

[Enmos]

Everyone is too busy discussing my.. ..fitness as a mod

Huh ? Who ? Where ?

 

[Enmos]

And if there's anyone that is prejudiced it's you SAM, against atheists.

Besides, I thought you were going to adopt a new obsession ?

 

[S.A.M.]

A list of first responses on what survival of the fittest means to these atheists.

I really, really think you are confusing atheists with evolutionists..

Well the phrase was coined by a guy called Herbert Spencer who was looking to apply what he saw (and somewhat misunderstood) as evolutionary principles to his ideas on economics.

As such social and ecomonic Darwinism aren't adequate analogues of natural selection, and indeed from a political sense are more closely alligned with the right wing, religious, anti-evolution crowd's ideologies than they are to a humanistic outlook.

Does that answer your question?

I believe that the strong should always help the weak, not take advantage of them like many religions, governments and businesses do. It seems that many see trying to help others is somehow a siggn of weakness while I see it as a very high value in my life. I help when I can and where I can. I lend my experiance, wisdom, kindness and time with those who need it and aren't trying to just "use" me.

In the long run, the fittest or most well adapted to a given environment are the ones that survive. It's axiomatic. The unit of selection isn't the individual however, it's the gene. This explains why some forms of self-sacrifice qualify as fitness.

SAM,

Hungry big fish who doesn't care whether little fish die or not.

Can't imagine a big deliberately feeding a little fish.

And no fishing here. Huh?

What the heck are you on about?

SAM:

Are you aware of the difference between evolutionary theory and Social Darwinism?

I agree with you about the likelihood of anything useful coming out of such misbegotten confusion, but I question whether SAM is "playing stupid". I think she thinks she has a real question here, behind the provocation.

Never underestimate the influence of a strong theistic intellectual foundation, a deep inculcation of ultimate purpose and underlying design in one's worldview, on the comprehension of something like evolutionary theory.

You need a "survival of the most adaptable" choice.

well big fish DO eat little fish, unless they eat algy or coral or invertabriates or planton or a hundred other things. However this doesnt mean they are more "fit" than the little fish. Just like any preditor\prey relationship the prey arnt compeating against the preditor they are compeating against others of the same species. This is because they are the ones who use the same resorces as they need. Take birds and cats for instance. If the cats eat ALL the birds in there teritory then they die out so they have to eat only a percentage of the birds in order to out compeat other cats. As for the birds, its those birds who can avoid being eatten better that reproduce so there aim is to be better at this than the rest of the birds who "win".

Another example of this would be cars and kangroos. If a kangroo jumps infront of a car it doesnt breed so its those kangroos who are smart enough not to jump infront of cars who "win"

 

[Crunchy Cat]

How is that different from survival of the fittest?

Being 'fit' is a state of being well-suited for a specific environment. Being adaptable is a potential for becoming well suited for other environements.

Still wondering what atheists who are not evolutionists, believe.

Ask draqon. He's a self-proclaimed atheist but certainly no evolutionist.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Uh no, I brought up the eugenics as a response to your "social engineering" comments.

Indeed and there's a difference between the two - economic and social policies are not interchangeable terms with ethnic or racial cleansing.

And I have been discussing the survival of the fittest all along, it seems that most atheists here are shy about giving an opinion on it. :shrug:

Just had a quick scan back through the posts - seems you got plenty of opinions - followed by no discussion from you - simply one line answers repeating the question for the most part

- blinded by predjudice? posessed by morton's demon perhaps?

I just wanted to see if anyone would notice I was NOT talking about evolution, hence the poll. Guess not.

again - seems like it was pointed out to you plenty of times

- blinded by predjudice? posessed by morton's demon perhaps?

Guess not. Talk about prejudice. Everyone is too busy discussing my agenda and fitness as a mod, not to mention the deleterious effects of my theistic conditioning to see beyond the light shining out of their arses.

I can't speak for everyone else here but if you read back through my posts you'll see a genuine effort on my part to clarify the issues and answer your questions in good faith - in short I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

that was until of course you leapt wildly off topic with you ad hom rants against a dead theist and attempts to bring eugenics into the discussion - you pinned your colours firmly to the flag at that point - and I for one aint saluting ( one of my better mixed metaphors there )

 

[Enmos]

A list of first responses on what survival of the fittest means to these atheists.

Maybe you should be aware of your reputation SAM.. it might have something to do with some of the responses.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah yes, clearly everyone felt the need to point out to me that I was not talking about evolution.

 

[Enmos]

Ah yes, clearly everyone felt the need to point out to me that I was not talking about evolution.

And ?

 

[S.A.M.]

It seems more people were concerned with what I thought was "survival of the fittest" than what they thought it was.

 

[Enmos]

It seems more people were concerned with what I thought was "survival of the fittest" than what they thought it was.

Because it was unclear what you meant.
In part because of your reputation, and in part because you were being unclear about it on purpose.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because it was unclear what you meant.
In part because of your reputation, and in part because you were being unclear about it on purpose.

I would hate to define what you think for you. That would defeat the purpose. Hence my OP question.

As for reputation, if a white supremacist theist can propose a theory that is accepted by rational people, including athiests, inspite of his "misunderstood social Darwinism", I'd say the inability to look beyond my reputation is not my problem, its yours.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

It seems more people were concerned with what I thought was "survival of the fittest" than what they thought it was.

Firstly - where's the problem with that? - an ambiguous phrase like that deserves a definition, or at least a clarification of the ambiguity, prior to a comprehensive answer - and I take it you wanted more than a simple yes or no.

Consider also that those questions were, in the main, asked later in the thread after you had already received a number of answers, and it was becoming apparent that you were looking for a way to load the dice in such a way that it would lead nicely into the topic that you REALLY wanted to discuss.

 

[Enmos]

I would hate to define what you think for you. That would defeat the purpose.

As for reputation, if a white supremacist theist can propose a theory that is accepted by rational people, including athiests, inspite of his "misunderstood social Darwinism", I'd say the inability to look beyond my reputation is not my problem, its yours.

Yes, in this case it was somewhat of a problem. It made it difficult to see what you were getting at. Although I almost immediately suspected what you agenda was.. and apparently I was right.
My bigger problem (apparently) is that I tend to take people seriously, even you.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, in this case it was somewhat of a problem. It made it difficult to see what you were getting at. Although I almost immediately suspected what you agenda was.. and apparently I was right.
My bigger problem (apparently) is that I tend to take people seriously, even you.

Hmm so asking people to define what an ambiguous concept means to them is an agenda?

 

[Enmos]

Hmm so asking people to define what an ambiguous concept means to them is an agenda?

You deny you had an agenda ??