Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?

[cosmictraveler]

Why can't survival of the fittest mean a stronger animal vs a weaker one?

When speaking of lower animal life you would be correct in saying that however when talking about humans that doesn't always prove factual.

 

[S.A.M.]

If we are discussing the phrase in the context of biological evolution, there is no reason to beleive that physical strength could not be the primary selection criteria for an individual species - however natural selection is more usually complex that this and it is equally likely that a multitude of other survival factors are at play.

If we are discussing the phrase in terms of human society, I don't think it applies at all, as even the most brutish and laissez faire of societies have at least some capacity to care for the weak/sick/poor/disabled members.

ps - I think you missed my questions to you from a previous post - please enlighten me:

what are your assumptions exactly?

Have they been proven to be correct?

How have they proven to be correct?

You can discuss this any way you like.

Its a blinded study.

When speaking of lower animal life you would be correct in saying that however when talking about humans that doesn't always prove factual.

So in human beings the weak rise to the same position as the strong?

 

[cosmictraveler]

So in human beings the weak rise to the same position as the strong?

It is certainly possible when citizens are given the right to succeed and no limits are put upon them. With education anyone can learn how things work and rise to be the ruler of the land or the president of a company. Only when education is suppressed is when it cannot happen. Education means an open study about everything and anything with freedom of speech being paramount.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

You can discuss this any way you like.

Its a blinded study.



So in human beings the weak rise to the same position as the strong?

ps - I think you missed my questions to you from a previous post - please enlighten me:

what are your assumptions exactly?

Have they been proven to be correct?

How have they proven to be correct?

 

[Enmos]

When speaking of lower animal life you would be correct in saying that

Not if by 'stronger' and 'weaker' she's referring to physical strength.

 

[S.A.M.]

Since some people cannot move on without my opinion, here it is

1. Survival of the fittest is a silly phrase: of course the fittest survive! I mean, if it was survival of the weakest, it would be a revelation.

2. Second, in my opinion, the concept, while not moral in and of itself, shows that what is may not be what is right, ie the fittest does not mean the best, just what is most likely to win the competition. So if the majority believe in oppression of the minority, that is the most likely outcome, if they do not, that is the most likely outcome. So survival of the fittest, in a way, undermines moral standards by setting standards of right or wrong in which the weak have no options.

3. survival of the fittest is exemplified by the do as I say not as I do policies that the most "secular" countries impose on the rest of the disadvantaged world. In that it is a basis of colonialism, slavery, structural adjustment policies, eugenics and social Darwinism.

Now as for the rest, my assumptions and inferences are incidental; my aim is to ask you what you think of it, without any input from me. If that is an impossible position for you, clearly you are wasting both our times.

 

[Enmos]

Since some people cannot move on without my opinion, here it is

1. Survival of the fittest is a silly phrase: of course the fittest survive! I mean, if it was survival of the weakest, it would be a revelation.

2. Second, in my opinion, the concept, while not moral in and of itself, shows that what is may not be what is right, ie the fittest does not mean the best, just what is most likely to win the competition. So if the majority believe in oppression of the minority, that is the most likely outcome, if they do not, that is the most likely outcome. So survival of the fittest, in a way, undermines moral standards by setting standards of right or wrong in which the weak have no options.

3. survival of the fittest is exemplified by the do as I say not as I do policies that the most "secular" countries impose on the rest of the disadvantaged world. In that it is a basis of colonialism, slavery, structural adjustment policies, eugenics and social Darwinism.

"ie the fittest does not mean the best, just what is most likely to win the competition"
Which is the best.
By the way, evolution is not as black and white as you make it look.

"So survival of the fittest, in a way, undermines moral standards by setting standards of right or wrong in which the weak have no options."
It certainly does not.. the process evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with concepts such as morality. Evolution does not set standards.
The 'weak' have all the same options the 'strong' have.


Your problem with the concept of evolution is that you only try to apply it to humanity, and then project the conclusions onto animal evolution.
These projections you then use to make your point.

It is flawed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly you suffer from reading comprehension problems. I have no desire to examine my position. Only to hear yours.

 

[Enmos]

Now as for the rest, my assumptions and inferences are incidental; my aim is to ask you what you think of it, without any input from me. If that is an impossible position for you, clearly you are wasting both our times.

So we are to answer your questions without questioning your premises or understanding of the subject ? :bugeye:

 

[Enmos]

Clearly you suffer from reading comprehension problems. I have no desire to examine my position. Only to hear yours.

What did I misread ?

I gave mine already. What else do you want to hear ?

 

[S.A.M.]

So we are to answer your questions without questioning your premises or understanding of the subject ? :bugeye:

If it is possible for you to have an independent opinion on a subject that is not derived from the assumptions of other people.

What did I misread ?

I gave mine already. What else do you want to hear ?

Then you're done.

 

[Enmos]

If it is possible for you to have an independent opinion on a subject that is not derived from the assumptions of other people.

Well, what opinion do you want to hear ?
The one using how you (mis)understand the concepts you use, or the one on the established concepts ?

Then you're done.

No reply ? I thought you didn't answer me because you thought I didn't get it.
Did I get it ? Or didn't I ?

You see, I like to know what exactly I'm answering to.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, what opinion do you want to hear ?
The one using how you (mis)understand the concepts you use, or the one on the established concepts ?


No reply ? I thought you didn't answer me because you thought I didn't get it.
Did I get it ? Or didn't I ?

If you notice I am the one who follows the established definitions.

For example in your discussion of my post above, you rambled on about evolution, while I used the standard definition of survival of the fittest, one I had already given to you and which effectively ruled out its use for defining natural selection as nothing more than a metaphor.

In case you forgot:
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance

I'm not responsible for how you interpret my posts.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Clearly you suffer from reading comprehension problems. I have no desire to examine my position. Only to hear yours.

so in other words regardless of the answers you receive on what atheists belive about social darwinism, eugenics, slavery, colonialism and biological evolution, you will refuse to examine your own preconceived notions on what you think they beleive.

or to put it even more succinctly - you are a self-confessed troll

Mods - about time you stepped in here?

 

[S.A.M.]

I see reading incomprehension is endemic here.

I am free not to explore my position in a thread that addresses atheists specifically.

 

[Enmos]

If you notice I am the one who follows the established definitions.

For example in your discussion of my post above, you rambled on about evolution, while I used the standard definition of survival of the fittest, one I had already given to you and which effectively ruled out natural selection as anything more than a metaphor.

In case you forgot:
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance

I'm not responsible for how you interpret my posts.

I'm confused.. are you saying that "Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with evolution ?
And are you saying that natural selection isn't anything more than a metaphor ?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm confused..

Now you get it.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I see reading incomprehension is endemic here.

I am free not to explore my position in a thread that addresses atheists specifically.

nice example of casting the first stone there SAM

Clearly reading comprehension is not high up on your list of faculties either - despite the fact that this thread has engendered the sum total of zero support for either abandoning altruism, or for eugenics at the far end of the scale.
And yet despite this evidence that contradicts your views, you continue to spout them.
You had no intention of learning from what atheists think, and asking these questions in this thread was a completely pointless exercise on your part- you are therefore a troll - case closed

 

[Enmos]

Now you get it.

I'd appreciate it if you would answer those questions though.

 

[S.A.M.]

You could just go back and read the thread.