Hey guys,

I was wondering how you all felt about this topic.

If I didn't believe in God, it seems to me that I would adopt this belief so I was curious how those those that really don't believe in God feel.

So please let me know what you think. Is it right or wrong and why?

Although I mentioned God above, my intention is not to discuss the existence of God or moral ontology.

Why would you adopt the 'belief' in Social Darwinism if you didn't have your belief in "God"? You're speaking in non sequiturs. I myself do not believe in your god, yet I don't feel the need to adopt any sort of extreme views. I know for a fact that I'm not unique in this. I apologise in advance for the following observation, but based on what you've been sharing around here you remind me of an hypothesis I came across a long time ago. Consider the old valve radio sets. If we remove one valve, and the radio starts howling, do we conclude that the purpose of the valve is to prevent the howling? Similarly, on what basis are we to assume that the removal of a belief in gods will lead inevitably to societal breakdown?

Countdown to mention of Nazi Germany begins in 5 4 3 2.....

I didn't intend for this to be a thread that focused on me. I'm curious what you guys think.

---

There have been a few threads lately that ask Christians what they believe on a topic and why...I'm simply doing the same for atheists.

Much as I feel that some sort of social engineering may be beneficial I don't trust the people in power to do it in a compassionate way.
It is a minefield issue like euthanasia.

Jeff, the problem with your question is that there is no clear definition as to what "Social Darwinism" entails. In fact, the term has been applied to several ideological viewpoints that are mutually exclusive.

You're going to need to be more precise to have any kind of meaningful discourse.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Jeff, the problem with your question is that there is no clear definition as to what "Social Darwinism" entails. In fact, the term has been applied to several ideological viewpoints that are mutually exclusive.

You're going to need to be more precise to have any kind of meaningful discourse.

Good point. Let's go with Wiki for now.

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.

"Social Darwinism" actually isn't Darwinism. This may come as a surprise to those of you who don't know much about the theory of evolution, but eugenics are the opposite of the survival of the fittest: eugenics supporters actively select some trait, going against natural selection.

So the eugenics program and social engineering in general should be renamed "Social Intelligent Design".

That would be 'artificial selection' applied to humans then, it's still not design.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:59 pm)Kirbmarc Wrote: So the eugenics program and social engineering in general should be renamed "Social Intelligent Design".

Or social meddling, I seem to recall that the times in the past when it has been tried there has always been some unpleasant underlying agenda.

If there was a way to erradicate congenital diseases by not allowing the carrier to reproduce would it be beneficial or would we risk losing other genes that would help overall?

Wouldn't it be better to cure the disease?