The Instigator
IrishWolverine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jevinigh
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The Atheist, Evolutionary Theory Defeats the Social Welfare Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jevinigh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 56505
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

IrishWolverine

Pro

Evolution is posited on the idea of all living organisms getting to where there are by way of violence and chance. In this argument, there is no God, there is only the Big Bang which gives birth to matter and substances which will gradually grow into plants and animals. Now, if this is the case, then we must accept that human beings(us) are nothing more than advanced animals, with an intellect, emotions and self-awareness that came about for the sole purpose of ensuring our survival. We do not owe any morality or basic decency to an all powerful creator God, because he does not exist; there is only the evolutionary process. Therefore, it is truly every many for himself. If we DO end up helping others, it is either because a) we feel an emotional attachment to other human animals that only exists as an evolutionary byproduct or b) we believe strategically, selectively helping others in society will benefit US in the long run, therefore it is self-serving and part of our evolutionary drive to survive.

If this is the case, then it is impossible for an atheist to support any type of social welfare or security program that is implemented by the state. For an atheistic evolutionary must believe that there is little to no self-benefit to helping the millions of disabled, non-contributing members of society; they exist only to survive off the contributions of others, and thus are an impediment to the idea of every man for himself. Evolution demands that only the strongest and smartest live long, while the sickest and weakest must die off to make room for the true survivors.

Show me why the atheist evolutionist should care for and support "useless" human animals that do not contribute to his own quest for survival.
Jevinigh

Con


A few things your rashly over generalizing, one is that evolution is jsut some giant mosh pitt, in truth there are many mechanics of evolution we are still not sure about. This over generalization leads you into the point that Because its just one big moshpitt, the social welfare theory... which I will instead refer as the Common Good, is invalid but in justfying this argument you defeat you're own point in the same breath.

And I qoute "If we DO end up helping others, it is either because a) we feel an emotional attachment to other human animals that only exists as an evolutionary byproduct or b) we believe strategically, selectively helping others in society will benefit US in the long run, therefore it is self-serving and part of our evolutionary drive to survive."

So pointed out effectively that chemical reactions responcible for cauing us to feel empathy are selected evolutions that allow(ed) us to function as social creatures. It is this social trait that has ruly amde us a dominate species, enabling our technology in a way that would not have been possible with out a cooperative nature, enabled by thwe evolutonary responces mentioned above.

So actually it is baffling to think fo an Athiest not supporting collectivist policies, since our entire civilization which is an engineered evolution made possible by our biological capacity for empathy, is based on accumulation fo collective knowledge as well as the acumulation of collective efforts. Secondary motivations here such as " I will benefit from helping you" are not relevant to your case in truth, they are just another set of evolved chemical responces in the brain.

Debate Round No. 1
IrishWolverine

Pro

You will forgive me if I have a hard time replying to your argument; the grammatical errors make it tricky enough but I'm not sure you fully grasp what my claim is, or if you do, you appear to go off on numerous tangents(I think). So I will do my best. I know you commented that you "wrote that really fast since I am heading out the door" and hence "din't proof read it", which is fine, but I implore you: there is no rush on this, so perhaps this round you will take all the time you need. There are 72 hours for each round, and as you can see, I took several days to reply, due to work. I am looking forward to this being a good debate.

--" A few things your rashly over generalizing, one is that evolution is jsut some giant mosh pitt, in truth there are many mechanics of evolution we are still not sure about. This over generalization leads you into the point that Because its just one big moshpitt, the social welfare theory... which I will instead refer as the Common Good, is invalid but in justfying this argument you defeat you're own point in the same breath" --

I take it here that you are simply stating your position, which is fine. I believe you are contending that because I "over generalize" evolution, it makes my argument invalid. How exactly have I over generalized it? I never contended that evolution doesn't have many different facets. I am simply choosing to focus on its basic premise: All humans evolved by way of chance, trial and error, and gradual, often violent change. Is this not the basic premise of evolution?

--"So pointed out effectively that chemical reactions responcible for cauing us to feel empathy are selected evolutions that allow(ed) us to function as social creatures. It is this social trait that has ruly amde us a dominate species, enabling our technology in a way that would not have been possible with out a cooperative nature, enabled by thwe evolutonary responces mentioned above. So actually it is baffling to think fo an Athiest not supporting collectivist policies, since our entire civilization which is an engineered evolution made possible by our biological capacity for empathy, is based on accumulation fo collective knowledge as well as the acumulation of collective efforts. Secondary motivations here such as " I will benefit from helping you" are not relevant to your case in truth, they are just another set of evolved chemical responces in the brain." --

OK, so here, I think you are just reiterating my point about social interaction being part of our evolutionary process, and how it has contributed to our dominance of the planet. What I am attempting to distinguish between, however, is "useful" empathy and "hindersome" empathy, if you will. I contend that there is such a thing as empathy that directly inhibits a species' ability to move forward. The evolutionist argues that we came to where we are by being the "fittest." Only the fittest survive. The fittest will realize which of his fellow humans are also fit, that is, which are useful to survival and which are not, or which hinder survival. Those that hinder survival are the old, the sick, the weak, the ones who can't contribute. If we are to believe the theory of survival of the fittest, then we must believe that "hindersome" empathy is a useless byproduct of the evolutionary process. It compels us to feel sorrow and pity for fellow humans who can not help us in any way, shape or form, even though this is directly contrary to the creed of survival. The evolutionist might even argue further that, because we are still evolving, in the future humans might weed out this hindersome empathy and become robot like, more calculating, determining which of our fellow humans are worth saving and which have outlived their usefulness.
Jevinigh

Con

You are miss understanding-and-or-misusing that statement "survival of the fittest". I contemplated the response to your misunderstanding but Alfie Kohn, American author and lecturer put it into words better than I can so I will instead present you with the source.

https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
IrishWolverine

Pro

IrishWolverine forfeited this round.
Jevinigh

Con

Pro has chosen to forfeit the round, I will pass as well to keep things even.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by IrishWolverine 2 years ago
IrishWolverine
I apologize to all for not submitting a final round. My wife had our baby over the weekend so I was a bit tied up. I was unable to watching my opponent's video and hence couldn't answer it. I commend Jevinigh for a good debate and hope to meet again in the future.
Posted by Uh-Ha 2 years ago
Uh-Ha
Subjects that matter are far more useful. They can reveal something of yourself and your views at the same time. If you really believe the 'pro' side of this debate, you are a dangerous fool. And if you don't, why argue it? You can't serious suggest that we 'eliminate' those sections of society that are judged to be 'useless' or 'surplus to requirements'. You're a closet Fascist if you seriously believe it. So, expect comments from the gallery to be as un-positive as they are likely to be, given what you are argueing.
Posted by Uh-Ha 2 years ago
Uh-Ha
I couldn't care less what you find 'creepy'. coming from a 25 year old, with an interest in 'firefighting".....? Firestarting, I would think.

Look sonny, if you actually believe what you are debating, as I do, then you won't take on such "intelligent" debates as the one above. As the instigator, you must have some kind of point to prove, otherwise, why argue the point? Debating is all about expanding our minds, not simply going through the motions. But I digress.

If you don't want your personal information looked at by the users on this site, DONT POST IT. Like most people of your generatin, your'e all about political correctness, and short on substance. And if you cannot be bothered replying, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your comments are misinterpreted.

When you've got your head out from behind the cyber door, you might find an entire world out there that couldn't care less what you thought....And if you find that 'creepy', then you are just another thin skinned generation Y, who can't hack it in the real world, and has to retreat into cyber space to feel "whole".

How about a REAL debate on a subject that matters? Not some psuedo-intellectual garbadge like this one!
Posted by IrishWolverine 2 years ago
IrishWolverine
Mr. Uh Ha, I briefly considered replying to your comments in full, but then I realized that I joined this forum to debate with intelligent adults, not rambling teenagers(which means you are on the wrong website entirely). Please stop creeping on my profile for whatever reason, it's weird.

To everyone else, thank you for your interest in this debate. For the record I am NOT personally a believer in this topic, I am simply playing DA.
Posted by Uh-Ha 2 years ago
Uh-Ha
Interests....Firefighting, pipes and cigars, boxing

Rather explains a lot. Other interests....POLITICAL SCIENCE....I doubt you've read a single thing on that subject....and STRATEGY GAMES.....on a computer? There is no such thing as a strategy game on a computer, at least not one that you have to be mentally challenged to play. Real strategy games disappeared with the emergence of the computer twit.

Most firfihters are NON SMOKERS.... the only part of your bio I can swallow is the fact that you may be telling the truth about your marriage.

Are you New York Irish? If so, do some research into Sectarian violence in the old country. SEE what it is to 'eliminate' people on ideological grounds alone. Like I said, I propose we ELIMINATE all sports players who took up college places on useless sports scholarships.
Posted by Uh-Ha 2 years ago
Uh-Ha
Wolverine, I hope your side of the debate is strictly intellectualizing. The opinions you edpouse are firmly in the category of "New Order" Racial superiority. Yep, lets eliminate the weak and useless, whilst the "strong" carry on.

I might point out that in your scenario, Stephen Hawking would have gone to the gas chambers a long time ago.

Our compassion for our fellow man is that which SEPARATES us from our animal past. It took about 1.5 million years of evolution in our homonid form to achieve this, and now you propose to throw all that development away in the blink of an eye? Sounds like the "Sports Jock Theory of Un-Natural selection. I propose, instead, that we eliminate all sports players who didn't finish their education, useless mouths to feed that they are. And while we're at it, lets eliminate welfare cheats and computer game addicts, useless appendages that they are....I mean, where does it all end?

Finally, lets eliminate every Irishman that hasn't got a job....we would certainly garner many millions of useless idiots there.

Is everyone on this site semi-educated like yourself? Seems youve all spent too long staring at a computer screen and relying on Google when you want to find something new. Let me give you the lowdown. Google is unreliable at the best of times, and this computer hasn't, and probably never will, replace conscious study of a subject.

Stop sitting in your room and pulling yourself. Get out there and LEARN something!
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
pardon the typos, I wrote that really fast since I am heading out the door and din't proof read it.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I would SO take this if I wasn't going out of town this weekend -_-
Posted by Sargon 2 years ago
Sargon
I am willing to debate this if we have different debate settings.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
IrishWolverineJevinighTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Survival of the fittest also applies to inclusive fitness of the group, thus cooperative society. Well said con.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
IrishWolverineJevinighTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's second paragraph of round 1 wins.