Well, I think that says more about you, as a person, than it does about atheism.
Here’s the thing. Anyone who knows a thing or two about genetics will tell you that in order to effectively set up a eugenics program, you’d have to create the kind of society that almost no one would want to live in. So, why would you do this? It’s a sort of “we had to destroy the village to save the village” mentality.
Yes; it tends to make people amoral, ruthless, and destructive.
More silliness. That’s not even how evolution works; if people are around and have had children, then they are a Darwinian success regardless of how “unfit” you think they are. Nor is it a “system” any more than gravity is a system; it’s just a description of how the world works.
Nor does a lack of belief in an afterlife logically lead to a lack of compassion; belief in an afterlife does, however. Civilized people at most play lip service to the concept of an afterlife, and in practice act as if it doesn’t exist regardless of what they say they believe; that’s something of a prerequisite for civilized behavior. People who genuinely believe in afterlives are more prone to “kill them all and let God sort them out”, or to fly planes into skyscrapers.
What prompts your leap of logic from “good of the planet” to “genocide” or "sterilization?
You talk about “hard choices,” as though atheists would necessarily choose the ones that you would, (presumably as a believer), reject. This really makes no sense.
You need to provide an example where an “atheist” position favors genocide “for the good of the planet.” None of the most stark recent examples of genocide have been undertaken for “the good of the planet,” and only one of them was undertaken by an atheist government. The WWII Holocaust was carried out as an extreme example of religious bigotry, not for “the good of the planet.” It was also carried out by a Christian nation. (The Nazis were a mixed bag of unbelievers, neo-pagans, and Christians, but they were not resolutely atheist and the German people (and the non-Germans they recruited to help them), were overwhelmingly Christian. The Cambodian tragedy was carried out by atheists, but hardly for “the good of the planet.” The Rwandan massacres were carried out by Christians. The ethnic cleansing of the former Yugoslavia was not carried out “for the good of the planet” and was often carried out by Christians.
Similarly, forced sterilizations have been carried out by religious people at least as often as by unbelievers, (not even, necessarily, atheists). So your claim appears to be nothing but speculation about how you perceive atheists might act without any basis in fact.
On the contrary, I have a great value for all living things, I am not religious in any fashion. When I see a situation out of my control I simply have blind faith that a power greater than myself will handle it and I don’t question how he handles it, I just accept it. If I did not believe their was a power in charge even if it just meant an evolving force of some kind I would not hesitate to do what I felt was needed for the better of the good. I would not loose any sleep over it either. I have to believe that athiests are not being honest about what they would really do if they were in charge.
THen your decisions would be influenced by your ignorance of genetics and evolution, not on your lack of belief in God.
I ran those two sentences together. Bad genetics was supposed to be another reason for elimination.
As I said earlier, I know plenty of athiests who are close friends, they are all fine compassionate people, I just don’t understand why?
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with killing anyone. The phrase refers to populations that are best able to produce new generations in a particular environment. While it “does not work for individuals,” it also does not rely on the elimination of individuals to succeed.
Applying an ignorance of science to a misunderstood ethical situation is a poor way to make an argument.
Faith? Greater power? That IS a religious belief. And if you put “a great value for all living things” you wouldn’t be claiming that genocide is a good idea (somehow).
Atheists aren’t monsters, however badly you want to believe they are. And you’ve yet to explain why mass murder and forced sterilization would be “good”.
Because they have no reason not to be? If anything, being an atheist makes them more likely to be compassionate, not less.
Mass murder and sterilization could unify the globe once and for all and instantly solve a big share of problems society has to deal with. Perfect solution!
No it couldn’t. That’s a ridiculous statement.
:rolleyes: You mean like World War II unified the globe and instantly solved all sorts of problems?
Never in all my lfe have I asked myself “should I commit genocide?”
Personally I prefer sentences of life without parole, as you can make someone whole if they’ve been wrongly imprisoned. Wrongly executed, yeah, not so much. There’s also more closure for victims and their to have a solid verdict and sentence few years after the fact instead of 25 years of appeals and then countless challenges and postponements and the chance for a midnight stay of execution.
What you’re describing is not survival of the fittest, you’re describing eugenic extermination. It seems to me that the most well known historical incident of eugenic extermination was the holocaust, which was led by Adolph Hitler who self identified as a Christian.
As a kid I grew up in nature, pretty much an introvert. I studied the ponds that would form durring the seasons first rains. I watched how life started and then how it would become incredibly cruel toward the end of the pond cycle. Tad poles would be eating each other. The water fleas would eventualy overpopulate and wipe everything out, the pond would dry up and next year the cycle would start over. I have to imagine indigenous people have a much more realistic view of life and death than what we do as civilized humans. Our ego’s lie to us.
All these tribes had superstition and as many gods as they needed to explain how life worked. Today we have more understanding than they do but do we really have enough understanding to eliminate God from the equation?
Empathy, which leads to solidarity. Compassion doesn’t need a reason to be. In fact, I would argue that compassion that is born out of fear of consequences isn’t true compassion at all.
None of this has anything to do with genocide and forced sterilization- are you changing the subject to whether we should believe in god?
Yes. God adds nothing; it adds no more understanding, grants no more information to insert “god” into an explanation of anything. And there’s no evidence at all for gods being possible, much less existing.
If people need a belief in god to keep them from committing genocide, forced sterilization, and elimination of people with bad genetics, there is something terribly wrong with them. If they were athiests, they’d still do it. If they believe in god they would use their religious belief as a justification to do those things (see a million examples from history). The common factor here is that there is something wrong with their brain that makes them think harming others is a good idea.
It’s about being intellectually honest. If you don’t understand how something works, putting ‘god’ into the gap isn’t going to help find the real answer. Religions have been around for a long time, so they provide people with a well established explanation for things, which gives them an air of credibility. But it’s only a mirage, it’s not a real answer. It’s like Star Wars fans explaining plot errors by saying ‘the force did it’.
We’re not so different, you’re atheist too. You’ve just got one more to go.
None of this has anything to do with genocide and forced sterilization- are you changing the subject to whether we should believe in god?
On the contrary, it has a lot to do wit those things. We have become too sterile in our thinking. Afraid to face tough decisons. What are we afraid of? Nature deals with things we can’t face instantly and doesn’t look back. We have evolved to where we are today and we are part of nature, we are capable of doing a lot of things we have not yet done because we have intellect and conscience. Intellect tells us that their may be consequences, consience I believe is part of a higher non physical plane we inhabit. Athiests are generaly good people just like most chritsians are basical good people because we all have a consience.