Atheists if altruism is against nature? Why do some atheists still give money to the poor?

Question

Why do you ensure the survival of weakest? Do you still believe in god somewhere at the back of your mind?

Answer 1

This one is easy. Our society praises generous giving and so they praise examples of altruism. We all love to be praised. It gives a boost to our egos/self-esteem and gives us a warm glow all over. Feels good. It's all based upon feel-goodism. This is one way society manipulates our behavior.

Answer 2

You're making a strawman and shooting it down. Please try to get deeper knowledge of people and scientific principles before attacking them. otherwise your credibility and your "logical" arguments just fall apart.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, which is formally distinct from any beliefs on human nature.

And atheism isn't formally tied to any scientific knowledge. There ISN'T even any scientific evidence that altruism is against human nature. On the contrary, altruistic behavior is a subject of evolutionary biology.

Evolution is NOT survival of the fittest per se but is about the transmission of genes. Nor is evolution a moral principle that would be violated if people did not actively "ensure" survival of the fittest.

Atheists are not necesarily amoral or immoral. Nor should we do good things for people just because we are afraid of God or some distant judgment. I'm a Catholic and I love others simply because it's good to do so (Kantian ethics) and because it is a promulgation of God's LOVE, not some legal principle.

Answer 3

You mean you only give money to the poor because you think your god will reward you?

Claim CA001:

Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
Source:

Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I. http://www.unification.net/1990/900327.html
Response:

Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.

Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.
References:

Rotblat, Joseph. 1999. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science 286: 1475.
Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski. 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.
Further Reading:

Huxley, T. H. H. 1894. Evolution and ethics. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/index.html

Answer 4

Different types of altruism, go pick up a psychology text. A lot of altruism isn't true altruism, but is in fact done to benefit us physically and mentally. There's also pack mentality, and things like that to consider.

Answer 5

1) Altruism isn't against nature, you find it in all socially structured mammal from prairie dogs to gorillas.

2) Okay. I'm seriously getting p*ssed off at these people that think "Oh, he believes that nature is cruel, so he must believe that it's okay for humans to be cruel", it's idiotic! Just because someone accepts a scientific theory doesn't mean they have to support ethnic cleansing.

Jeez...

Talk about using non-sequiters against people. It's like saying "Hmm, he believes that Jesus was cricified, and he believes in Jesus, so he must believe that it's okay to crucify people." Does that work out logically in your mind?

Answer 6

Because we believe in ourselves and in our fellow man. Because the poor child we help today could be the doctor who finds a cure for cancer tomorrow. God has nothing to do with any of our motivations. Morality is not an exclusively god given attribute. How moral is Kent Howard, Jim Baker, Rush Limbough ? Plenty of people assume I'm a christian due to my actions and attitude, even though I am not.

Answer 7

Why would altruism be against nature. The Ethic of Reciprosity goes back further than Christianity.

atheist (THINK)

Answer 8

Altruism ISN'T against nature. You find altruism and empathy in every single social mammalian species on the planet.

Do your research.

Answer 9

no. altruism fits perfectly within natural selection..for example you might help a nephew or cousin, even though, strictly speaking they are not your descendants - but they do share some of your genes so you are helping pass some of your genes along.

but really the development of intelligence allows for the development of morality - we make decisions, we are not simply slaves to our genes.

Answer 10

Altruism isn't against nature. False premise.