All Men Are "created" Equal? Hmm...

Are people inherently equal to atheists and agnostics? What say you?

They aren't "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights!"

Also, does atheism lead to Social Darwinism? And is Social Darwinism just Darwinism (part of some elaborate cover-up on the part of science)?

 

it simply means no one is born with a moral advantage over anyone else. nothing anyone believes or doesn't, gives or takes away from how they later choose to act.

"inalinable rights", may in some ways be wishful thinking, they are what everyone would have if everyone behaved in a moral way,
that is to say consistent with the fundimental values of logic, consideration, and honesty.
the lack of universal willingness to do so, is the only reason hierarchy in any form, amongst sapient beings, exists.

 

This is the best representation of that term ive ever heard. Obviously noone is born mentally or physically equal, but we all have the same moral capacity

 

As themnax pointed out inalienable rights really are wishful thinking. To use that phrase is to do nothing more than state strongly that you believe that people ought to have those rights, and governments ought to protect them. I also like the wording "it simply means no one is born with a moral advantage over anyone else". This must be how the statement is meant, as we can see clearly that people are literally not created equal (think of the extreme of a normal infant and a infant with extreme mental retardation).

Atheism does not lead to Social Darwinism. Lacking belief in a god does not compel one to adopt a social view on the basis of reproductive fitness. In fact the ideas are so disconnected that I cannot imagine why one would lead to the other.

Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. They in fact have nothing in common with each other. Darwinism, or as I like to call it the modern Theory of Evolution, is a collection of related scientific theories that attempt to explain the process by which life diversifies and changes across generations. Social Darwinism is a bastardization of that theory in order to support dubious or outright evil intentions. People who believe in Social Darwinism tend to lack any real understanding of Evolutionary Biology. Survival of the fittest, a phrase not coined by Darwin, is almost universally interpreted incorrectly. Finally, the types of evil done in the name of Social Darwinism were being done in the name of ordinary selective breeding techniques prior to the spread of Evolutionary theory. That is to say eugenics was born from animal breeding, not from so called "Darwinism", though the language was later borrowed.

 

"All men are created equal" is stirring Fourth of July rhetoric and something to aspire to (although we really ought to get women in there too). Such ideals can be useful as political postulates expressing fundamental norms. Legally, it has no force. A college student once wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper that his right to smoke pot was included in the phrase "pursuit of happiness." If he ever tried to practice it in this state he could end up in big trouble. What, if anything, it has to do with atheism I'll lead to the atheists to sort out.

As for Social Darwinism, the main problem with that is a misunderstanding of the word "fittest". In evolutionary terms, and organism's fitness is measured by its success in surviving and propagating in its environment. From that standpoint, bacteria and cockroaches are among the most successful species on earth. I think the "Objectivist" followers of Ayn Rand are intellectual heirs to that philosophy, and they tend to be atheists. But most atheists aren't Objectivists.

 

the confusion of "social darwinism" is that it intentionally misinterprets what darwin meant by fitness.
the fitness of a species is how, whether as predator or pray, or sometimes both, it survival as a species bennifits the survival of other species and the perpetuation and preservation of their shaired environment.
in other words how well it 'fits' the diversity of its environment.
its not a concept fanatacism is capable of grasping.
and it has nothing directly to do with effective lethality of individual memebers of it.

it is also a kind of wishful thinking, in this case of those who wish to make excuses for causing needless harm.
pretty much the almost exact opposite of how natural selection actually works.

there was certainly nothing objective about ayn rand. who never practiced hyr own preacing about testing whether a conclusion actually follows from its premis.

 

No, I'm better than most men.

 

Atheism has nothing to say about equality between people, atheists are free to believe whatever they like about equality. You can be a racist atheist, for instance. Thoughts on equality will inevitably have more to do with broad societal changes than with belief in a deity.

The phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is just an attempt to justify a political opinion or stance by implying that it is backed up by a religious text. In this case (I think) the political cause is a good one, but the same reasoning can (and has) been used to justify almost everything, including slavery, the system that this statement is supposed to be in opposition to.

Atheism does not lead to social Darwinism, nor does an understanding of evolution. There seems to be an absurd belief in some quarters that teaching children the theory of evolution will inevitably lead to eugenics and social Darwinism. Why?

Understanding how the natural world functions doesn't rob us of our ability to make moral decisions. We won't go "oh, this is how the natural world functions, therefore it is intrinsically good by default and we should model our society on it". If anything, atheism "teaches" (as in, often leads one to the conclusion that the natural structures of the world LACK and moral or logical oversight. So it wouldn't particularly make sense to (many) atheists to model society in line with the functions of the natural world because an atheist would be less inclined to believe that, simply because something is natural that it therefore is moral and logical.

On the other hand, a religious person, believing that the natural world is ordered, created and maintained by a moral being, might be more inclined to think that modelling our society on it was a logical thing to do.

But they don't. Because, as I say, these things have a lot less to do with religious beliefs than they do with societal changes.

 

I don't have Original Sin (even though numerous people through the years have tried to tell me I do).

Does that make me superior to many other people? ;-)

 

"All men are created equal" is pretty meaningless when you consider that slavery was still an issue back then, women weren't included, and many rights weren't held by any number of people

 

Hmmm quick list of amoral equality amongst humans.
1: Death
2: Life
3: Opinion
4: Humanity
5: Age
6: Instinct
That's all I can think of..... Feel free to brainstorm more

 

Richard Dawkins once said, "No two atheists are ever exactly alike!"


I'm just fucking with you. However, I must confess, I do view agnosticism as atheism with training wheels.

 

In a just society people are entitled to equal treatment before the law, even if they are unequal in abilities, societal status, wealth, intelligence or whatever.

 

Curiously enough: I would put it the other way around.

 

You think atheism is agnosticism with training wheels?

 

Why?

 

Sooner than the other way around at least. I went from atheism in puberty to agnosticism as an adult (if we would narrow it down, it's not like I label myself as an agnost. Technically though it comes the closest). It just makes more sense.

 

Why do you think it makes more sense?

 

It makes more sense to leave it open than conclude there is nothing. If there would be something theistic out there I am certain of one thing: it probably is something different than what we came up with so far

Themnax has worded it well several times in other threads. About all men are equal... I also have to go along with Themnax here.

Especially the first sentence.

 

Well philosophy really isn't my thing. I just can see that societies that don't have equal treatment before the law tend to suck. I think there are four things that the most successful societies on Earth have in common: equality before the law, a means for the people to affect which laws are passed, universal education and freedom of the media.