According to ATHEISTS, evolution is how humans came about, however.....?

Question

evolution requires survival of the fittest. Therefore it is against nature to save babies who are born weak and diseased, as they would be a threat to the human gene pool in later life. What stops us from killing them? Well, it's our morals. And many people often obtain these morals thorough the guidance of religion. Is that such a bad thing?

Answer 1

Religion gets its morals from society, then pushes for tighter control as far as society will allow it to push.

Answer 2

I think you're molding together two points that are very different. Survival of the fittest would say that these babies will not survive, however, that doesn't mean we should kill me. If that were the case, then what would stop us from killing anyone? You could argue that they were not fit, but killing anyone, even weak babies, is going against nature, by those standards. I think the question should be, why, then, do we save these babies? By following evolution, we would not save babies that are born with diseases, since they are not "fit." But the reason we don't in the US is because the country was founded on religious beliefs, and therefore it goes without saying that we are to save lives if at all possible. We were not founded on the theories of evolution, although many people (not me) follow them strictly. Please take note that I am a strong Christian and I have a strong code of morals, so I am not suggesting that we cease the saving of premature babies that are weak, I am merely suggesting a better suited question.

Answer 3

Actually, the ATHEISTS have no position on evolution. The only standpoint Atheists have is that they do not believe there is a god. Do you see the phrase "evolution theory is right" in there? No? Why not? Because IT'S NOT THERE.

I think you're asking about the position of Evolutionists, or rather, a subgroup called Social Darwinists, who are generally deplored by most Evolutionists for taking a scientific theory and using it to employ unethical social policies.

Furthermore, why do you seem to think Atheists (and Evolutionists??) have no morals? Does not believing in god mean you have no morals? I don't see a connection at all. I'm an Atheist and my morals actually are against any harm to others, from killing other people to emotional abuse. Last I checks, Christians had no rules against child abuse. I do. Of course, I can only speak for myself, since being an "Atheist" says nothing about each individual's actual moral standpoints. Or maybe I don't understand your definition of "morals."

Oh yeah, and I shouldn't have mentioned the Social Darwinists, because they would NEVER kill the babies- they would just let the babies succumb to the diseases. Killing someone who looks like they won't survive violates survival of the fittest. Now that I think about it, your question seems to be about Nazis.

Answer 4

No, morals through religion are fine. Religion has helped a lot of people act morally. However, there are plenty of people who claim to have a religious standard of morality and they clearly don't act morally. I, as an atheist, have my own moral standard that have nothing to do with a supreme diety such as god. So morality and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Plus, your thoughts on evolution are incorrect.

1. Evolution does not REQUIRE anything, let alone survival of the fittest. That was just Darwin's theory. Theories that scientist put forth focus on evolution through genetic processes.

2. Even if we were to accept Darwin's survival of the fittest, it wouldn't be against nature to kill anything or to not save diseased babies.

Answer 5

Atheists are talking about evolution bring man about at a time when it was survival of the fittest.
Nowadays, it is true that this no longer applies.

I do not see how your arguments proves them wrong. Atheists do not believe in God, you are justifying religion on Moral grounds, not on the fact that a Divine being exists.

Again, the trouble with this, is that religion has caused far more killings, wars, suicide bombers etc, than atheism ever has.

I cannot see any way that your argument holds water.

I am agnostic myself, but my morals are very much in place thank you. I have only ever had 2 fights in my 42 years on Earth, both at school defending against bullies. I have never cheated, siwndled, had affairs, stolen etc.I believe that you should be accountable in this life for your actions, morally for your own self being. I have more problems with religions that allow you to wipe the slate clean by confession. It is almost like, DO NOT STEAL/KILL etc, but if you do, don't worry, say a few hail Mary's and you will be forgiven.

Answer 6

Simple answer.

In the beginning, something happened, and that brought about the first cell/cells. Then, those cells evolved and that is evolution. Understand that you can believe that a superior god created the first cell and then used evolution and you still believe in evolution.

So you can believe in evolution and have religious morals.

Also note, the very strict evolution supporting atheists aren't saying evolution is always right, and good and nice, unlike how people see their religious superior being, we just say that it exists and happens.

Also, just because you are atheist doesn't mean you believe in evolution. You could believe everything popped out of nowhere exactly how it is today without a superior being. Sure, it isn't too smart of a theory, but still, atheism and evolution don't have to go together.

So overall, you can be very religious and believe in evolution,
and you can be the biggest atheist in the world, but not believe a word of the theory of evolution.

Answer 7

Many societies in the Past such as the Ancient Greeks and Spartans did leave deformed babies on the mountains to die.

However, evolutions strongest motivation is to replicate oneself; that means, no matter what, your children are more important than other peoples.

Morals are not guided by religion but compassion.

Answer 8

First - a lot of people including atheists believe in evolution. Many of those people are true believers.

Second - humans are a lot better than bettles and we can have the compassion to help the sick and the weak.

Third - morals can come from religion but they don't have to.

Fourth - certain religions have been rather big on killing babies. Consider the death of the first born in Exodus and the massive genocide in The Flood.

Answer 9

You are wrong. "Survival of the fittest" means "survival of those who are most suited (fitted) to their environment and are therefore more likely to survive to reproductive age". Babies who are born diseased are generally not left out to die any more, so it is not true to say that they are weak or a threat to the human gene pool, as their environment includes medical help that can enable them to survive. If for some reason babies born with a certain disability were more likely to survive in their environment than those born healthy, then the disabled people would survive and the non-disabled would die out

Answer 10

Be your logic, atheists have no morals. Just because you believe survival of the fittest created us, doesn't mean we need to force it on our population. You can still have morals without religion. And I would argue they are more genuine morals, since they are forced or taught be a religion.

Answer 11

Wrong. The moral imperative humans have to care for their young is based on an inherited trait developed through the evolutionary process. Animals care for their young too, and often for the weak as well as the strong. Some animals even sacrifice themselves to defend their young. Obviously, they did not learn this instinct from religion.