Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Why would a non-Buddhist care about Buddhist texts, other than in a scholarly way?
Buddhist sacred texts are for spiritual seekers with a learning disability.
I exaggerate. I guess you have to start somewhere.
The question is a non sequitur.
"Survival of the fittest", as it pertains to the theory of evolution, is a scientific concept. Atheism, on the other hand, is a position on whether God exists.
"Survival of the fittest", to those educated in evolutionary theory, would mean exactly the same thing, regardless of whether you were an atheist or a theist. It isn't a religious concept; it's a scientific concept.
Maybe you need to start by explaining what you think it might mean to atheists, and why you think there might be a difference between the atheistic conception and the theistic one of the same concept.
Then, we'll have a better idea what the point of your question is.
It is idiotic statements such as the above that makes this thread nothing more than theist delusional rants.
Being the queen of the intellectually dishonest does not mean you're able to recognize dishonesty. Clearly, you don't.
Your threads are always full of what you thought something was, but wasn't, hence needed everything spoon fed to you.
Now that is an interesting post.
Why do you think survival of the fittest is a scientific concept?
Isn't it a metaphor for natural selection? And a rather inadequate one at that?
Sam is a researcher and I'm the dark Sith Lord.
Hi everybody, just some comment to put forward the discussion
Survival of the fittest is a tautology because the fitness can only be defined afterward in term of what properties are present in the one who survived!
The basic problem is the postulated difference between environment and organism that is not clear when we look in physics or even biology (work of Varela, Maturana).
Evolution theory is just a particular view of changes that happen in the world of biological entities
It is not about creation so it is completely compatible with the idea of a god
Note: In computer science, genetic algorithm that mimic evolutionary theory, a fitness function has to be defined by the human (creation).
One problem with the theory of evolution is to define which entities are the one who are selected: is it organism? (bu then what about altruism?) is it gene?, species?
No one has perfect answer for that.
Survival of the fittest is a tautology because the fitness can only be defined afterward in term of what properties are present in the one who survived!
The basic problem is the postulated difference between environment and organism that is not clear when we look in physics or even biology (work of Varela, Maturana).
Evolution theory is just a particular view of changes that happen in the world of biological entities
It is not about creation so it is completely compatible with the idea of a god
Note: In computer science, genetic algorithm that mimic evolutionary theory, a fitness function has to be defined by the human (creation).
One problem with the theory of evolution is to define which entities are the one who are selected: is it organism? (bu then what about altruism?) is it gene?, species?
No one has perfect answer for that.
Last edited:
Because the term was invented in the context of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Yes. Exactly.
So, will you answer my question now?
I did. I think its an ambiguous concept and I'm curious to see how its interpreted.
Sort of. If you must blame individuals, try Darwin's half-cousin.S.A.M. said:
Have to say that they were innocent days though, and the idea (one amongst many - he was apparently a very busy man) offered in a spirit of improvement. The Nazis changed all that.
I admit to having skim read the posts on this thread, so some of what I say may have been said implicitly or explicitly by others. Having said that, this thread seems to have become a mess for the following reasons.
First, the question regarding atheists and the survival of the fittest is meaningless. Why not ask how an atheist understands algebra or anything else one can think of. The question is predicated on the erroneous notion that atheists are in a different class from non-atheists in every respect. The only difference is that one group believes in God; the other doesn't
Next, the survival of the fittest, as spoken of by evolutionists, has nothing to do with animals eating each other or anything of the kind. It is commonly misunderstood by those who know nothing of evolutionary theory and that includes Hitler and his ilk.
Finally, what an atheist takes the survival of the fittest to mean is a matter of whether he understands evolutionary theory or not. In this respect he is no different from a theist.
First, the question regarding atheists and the survival of the fittest is meaningless. Why not ask how an atheist understands algebra or anything else one can think of. The question is predicated on the erroneous notion that atheists are in a different class from non-atheists in every respect. The only difference is that one group believes in God; the other doesn't
Next, the survival of the fittest, as spoken of by evolutionists, has nothing to do with animals eating each other or anything of the kind. It is commonly misunderstood by those who know nothing of evolutionary theory and that includes Hitler and his ilk.
Finally, what an atheist takes the survival of the fittest to mean is a matter of whether he understands evolutionary theory or not. In this respect he is no different from a theist.
All kinds of different things, depending on the person, few of which are "believed in" in any useful sense of the word.SAM said:
Adding the question of whether someone "believes in " something like that is of course trolling with an agenda.
What are we to suppose a hardcore theist means by "believe in" ?