Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Survival of the Fittest
 
Natural selection has bad side so align with it for that is your best chance.  Anything such as religion that obscures this truth needs to be abandoned.

Survival of the fittest means fittest not as in necessarily strongest but fittest as in most adaptable.

Its a Darwinist concept and is usually about living creatures being in competition.  Hate fuels competition and helps many win.  Darwinism is presented as a a humanist thing but it is not for humanism condemns hate.  The competition is sometimes one individual against something else but it is more a group thing where the group looks after itself and survives by refusing help to other groups or taking from them.  Hate not love is what makes the most sense in a Darwinian scenario.  Hate is there in the background for the placid creature will hurt and kill in the right circumstances.  Love easily can be turned into something that fuels hate.  Hate is natural and normal and no morality or spouting of moral platitudes changes that.

So that is natural selection in biology but it may be a wider thing even than that. 

Universes may start off as bubble/baby universes. They compete with each other and the most versatile survives. In this scheme, a universe with the power to make life will probably outwit and destroy the other ones. The universe that makes the better life, not just any life, should vanquish the others. This would not be inevitable and the likely does not necessarily happen. So our universe could be here at the expense of one that makes better life than this one does. It is very brutal and cruel.

Most of the universe is extremely hostile to life. Before we came everything was against us and one day it will be again. Overall and generally, the universe is anti-life and we are only surviving for now. It is still as dangerous as ever. It is so anti-life it looks like it tolerates life to eliminate it cruelly.  Us being here does not mean the universe is in any way pro-life!

It is no wonder if biology has to be so brutal when even the non-biological and inanimate is all about taking from something else and destroying it if necessary.

Christianity says that if there were no God life would be about the survival of the fittest instead of kindness.  In fact trying to delude people with pink paint and all this soft soap is only altering their perception and you need keen perception and realism to survive.  It is not better to admit the truth.  The truth is the only option not just a better one.

The fittest means the most adaptable.  A dinosaur being stronger than you is no good to it if you are the one who knows how to trap it.  It is survival of the strongest yes but not in the way you would think.

Survival of the fittest normally goes together with naturalism but it does not have to.

If there is no God or spirits or spirit forces then naturalism is true.  Naturalism is the belief that all things have natural causes. It assumes that there is no supernatural and even if there is we should not even consider it. It says if the natural will explain something then forget the supernatural. Naturalism says nothing non-natural ever happens.
 
Religionists hate naturalism.   They hate the idea that whatever happens is natural and there is nothing really unnatural for that makes murder natural. They fear the notion that all is run by blind forces. They are not telling the whole truth. It does not matter so much that nature is self-sufficient. It does not matter so much if there is or isn't a supernatural. The issue is, "Do blind forces run all things?" These forces could be supernatural or natural. If they are blind then it does not matter if they are supernatural or natural. Belief in the supernatural does not mean that the supernatural is intelligent or non-random. It can be even worse than the natural for being blind and aimless. If you don't want to see nature as being blind then don't hand somebody a key that opens the door to more blind laws - supernatural ones. Many laws force us so how do we know that spirits and gods are not forced as well so that if they have free will it is no good to them? The supernatural is totally anti-science for there is no way to test if it is blind or otherwise.

God is marketed to the gullible and the wishful thinkers as a vaccine against naturalism and reality.  The believers say that naturalism and darwinism as in survival of the fittest is bas which is why they say that belief in God and ingraining it into children is so important. This marks belief in the importance of God as an implicit attack on atheists. It says that if one is to become an atheist one should be a brute and it is luck and not the person if that doesn't happen. Even if the atheist were not as bad as that he or she stands for a position that will encourage others to be so the atheist is still doing great harm merely by being atheist.
 
Even if there were a God, survival of the fittest might still be the law. Christian believers in evolution say that the mutations necessary for evolution to happen did not happen by chance but this process was planned by God. So God was using the survival of the fittest method. He might need it like he supposedly needs human suffering. He might need it for one of his mysterious purposes. Plus most people do not want to live the survival of the fittest kind of life and even those that do don't live it a lot. People want to be kind.
 
Religion says that without God, we can drop moral beliefs altogether and just live by survival of the fittest. But even survival of the fittest is a kind of moral code itself. It seeks to make the strongest and the best win out. So it is clear that dropping God does not mean dropping beliefs about right and wrong. It does not mean dropping morality. The point is that even without belief in God we have some kind of moral code. I am not advocating any might is right philosophy.
 
Survival of the fittest is frequently claimed to be saying that it is the creatures who are best at adapting to change, not the strongest or the smartest, that will survive. But weak creatures exist? They exist for a while so survival of the fittest is about long-term survival. You can still say that survival of the fittest means the strong can survive the best for being adaptable to change is a strength.

Survival of the fittest as in the most adaptable is a fact of life.  You will not survive long if you don't treat others as those who will gain if you lose.  You are strategic even when you are nice.  You are strategic so much that you hardly notice it anymore.

Survival of the fittest or most adaptable is what makes us so dangerous.  When we are good it is because we are lucky and we are still thriving on the blood sweat and tears of those who came before us.  It not only makes us dangerous but it makes us manipulative and hypocritical.

Here are some last thoughts.

Survival of the fittest is not a beautiful doctrine - its red in blood and claw and the good are not so much good as lucky which is why they seem good.  Hostility is more than some raging creature spitting at you.  When the creature is calm and happy it is still ready to attack if necessary. A loaded gun is a threat even if we think its a fine gun to be admired like some kind of prop.

Human beings condemn hostility.  But yet they form into groups.  Each group is in competition with the next one.  Collective hostility is a reality.  A group being nice means they are nice to each other but have a problem with other groups.  Wolves are not nice just because they form into packs. 

Collective hostility is just when enough individuals with individual hostility agree enough to collaborate.  Its really a collection of hostile individuals.

Suppose Tom is not hostile to Mandy.  Mandy is part of nature and nature is a threat to Tom even if he gets some benefits from it.  It is still hostile for it does not really give and he has to take.  So what Mandy is being an "instrument" of is a threat to Tom.

Hostility not love, convenience not principle, is what nature consists of and you are forced to comply for the flea cannot change the elephant.

To pretend survival of the fittest or most adaptable is not a euphemism for hostility and danger is putting yourself at the mercy of nature and the creatures that comprise it.  To be blind and think survival does not apply in your life is putting yourself at the mercy of nature which surpasses any demon or devil in "depravity".

Religion pretends it does not apply to it but it does and is the reason even a religion of peace is still responsible for any trouble that happens because of it. It is just responsible and as it is lying to itself that is another reason it cannot complain when abuses happen for when you lie you have to expect abuses.  You make them possible.