[Are you suggesting that atheists don't care for the children or something like that? How grotesque of you.]
Well, I don't know of any that atheists have built, so maybe they don't care about others! OTOH, atheists believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, so it seems to me that a true atheist would like to only see healthy folks continue living to help purify the human gene pool! And if God doesn't exist and there's no afterlife, as Hillary so eloquently said, "What difference....does it make?" if a few folks die prematurely?
41 comments
When a politician recently suggested letting the uninsured ill simply die, it was a room filled with conservative Christian teabaggers who responded with thunderous applause and deafening cheers.
I assure you, it isn't the liberals and atheists who want to transform our society into a into a social (so-called) darwinist's wet dream.
These people just can't grasp the concept of "This is the only life we get, so life is precious. But if your quality of life is very poor due to medical reasons, you should have the ability to end your life if that is what you desire ?" Nobody should be forced to live a life of pain, but nobody's advocating euthanizing anyone against their will, either.
survival of the fittest =/= cull the weak.
that is a bloodthirsty chickenhawk mentality and you know it. hell, you could be one of the weak.
atheists in general believe we are humans because we are the fittest to survive as a genetic species. not as an individual basis.
indeed, what difference does it make for a few to die prematurely? we're 7+ billion on this planet. we're running out of room, and remember. it's not just old age that kills us: war, murder, infections, illnesses, plain bad luck, suicide, radiation, animals, drowning... people die. get over it. we know that. does it make the loss more bearable to the next of kin? no. a loss remains a tragic event.
(reading the op's post and then my post makes me feel like some kind of genius in comparison. truly, dunning, meet kruger)
Ummmm, dude, if God doesn't exist and there's no afterlife, then it's absolutely imperative that people DON'T die prematurely, because then, after death, there's nothing. It's if Heaven existed that it wouldn't matter if people died prematurely. In fact, if it existed, it'd be GOOD to die prematurely. Assuming one belongs to the right religion, anyway.
What is it that atheists haven't built? All sane and intelligent people, regardless of religion, accepts evolution and gravity. Survival of the most adapted is a natural process, not a guide line. Atheists mostly care about others, and would like everyone to live as happy and content a life as possible, as this is the only chance we get at life. If this is the only life we have, it matters immensely if a few folks die prematurely, stupid.
"OTOH, atheists believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, so it seems to me that a true atheist would like to only see healthy folks continue living to help purify the human gene pool!"
OTOH, theists supported the Nazi death camps, so it seems to me that a true theist would like to only see theologically correct folks continue living to help spread the gospel of Jesus around the world.
Considering it is the religious that are all too eager to spill blood, even the blood of their own children, in the name of their respective deities, they are in no position to comment on anyone else's respect for life.
Because Christians have NEVER killed anyone in the name of (ideological) purity. The Protestants and Catholics simply held hands, sang Kumbaya, shat rainbows, and gave each other hand jobs throughout their entire history. There was also no such thing as Christian genocide. When the Europeans showed up in the Americas they immediately came here and gave all of the natives hugs, balloons, puppy dogs, and blow jobs.
The last time a strawman that huge was seen, it had an extra-crispy policeman inside it at the time.
Said policeman was a fundie just like you. >:D
[/"The Wicker Man"]
Evolution doesn't require action one way or another. Successful genes will prevail while unsuccessful ones will fade from the gene pool. I can almost guarantee that I care for others more than the average fundie because I don't play favorites. I couldn't care less what, if anything, a person worships and I assume that people are good until proven otherwise. I also set up a private food shelf that doesn't even inquire about a person's means. As long as said person has children we give them what we can.
As for Hillary's statement. She didn't say "what does it matter" if people died in Libya. What she said is that it doesn't matter what the theory was the Sunday after the Benghazi attack. Administration officials were giving their best guess before all the facts were in because people were demanding answers. Some of those answers turned out to be wrong and have now been corrected. What she said is that the thing that matters is that we find out what went wrong and try to prevent it happening again. This freak really should stop getting his "news" from inSeannity. He's a pathological liar.
This is what happens when you believe ridiculous shit. Next thing you know, you move on to to the hard stuff, and start spewing shit. Before you know it, you're completely full of shit.
Warn your children.
Another idiot mistaking what is for what should be.
As an atheist and a student of evolution I don't want the sick to die to make the gene pool stronger. However, what evolution teaches us is that if we want to live in a just and compassionate society we should not expect a lot of help from our biological nature.
Evolution is a real and proven biological principle whether or not an individual believes in it. The fact that it's too complicated to be understood by people who believe in mythology is neither here nor there.
It has nothing to do with human social behaviour but explaining that to the average christian is like trying to teach a dog to write software.
Funny how the Christian America has no real social net, but ebil secular Europe does. Or maybe it's that you bigots have been hijacked by selfish opportunists and their libertarian-y horseshit, because you're so generically stupid that everybody who spouts the same hatefull bullshit-mongering you do, obviously is a trusted source.
@Frostythesnowman
explaining that to the average christian is like trying to teach a dog to write software.
I would say that it would be easier to teach a dog to write software than it would be to teach evolution to the average Christian. After you've taught both groups everything possible about their subject, the dog wouldn't be insisting that the software doesn't exist.
Well, it seem to you WRONG. Just because we don't accept you ridiculous delusions doesn't mean we are anti-social nor heartless.
P.S. Do not try to re-define what an atheist is. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in a deity or deities. That's it. That's all.
"Atheists have no morals", part 12,573
Also, doesn't explain why liberals are the ones pushing healthcare for all, education and welfare for the unfortunate.
Atheists A) understand the distinction between is and ought ; B) have founded several charitable organisations (the first that come to mind are Food Not Bombs, Fred Hollows Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - and the first two of those were even founded by anarchists ), and C) are not fucking idiots (generally at least).
Also, when I did Habitat for Humanity there were plenty of atheists there, so I can say with confidence that atheists have quite literally built. :P
Edit: I sincerely recommend the Fred Hollows Foundation. Not only do they give no part of donations to religious organisations or government "welfare" groups, nearly every cent you donate will go to aid, and even though they're a single-issue organisation, they do truly great work: for a few dollars*, they can restore sight to a blind person in impoverished conditions.
*I think it's about $10 for each operation, but I don't have the numbers on hand. If you're in a position to donate to a charity, look into them.
Well, internet is the building of an atheist man, to begin with but let's go to evolution. If you read Darwin, he insists in that VARIETY is what makes human beings stronger. So, unlike the superficial evaluation of the "survival of the fittest" premise that you think it is, he is actually advocating to let NATURE eliminate, in a natural and progresive way, the traits that don't work. Indeed, the opposite leads to inbreeding, which is a no-no to the survival and perpetuation of the fittest. Think, for example, in old Europe's nobility.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
