Evolutionists / Atheists: Why do you worry death & suffering...?

"isn't that how `the species progresses and survives?`"

No, species survives via reproduction

Honestly you should go get some sex ed.

"why worry about cancer? Isn't `nature selecting` to take out the weak"

Cause I am a social animal and anything that weakens the group is bad for the individual, it also is an example of weaknesses in our genetics that we should focus on to fix with our advancing technology to improve the species as a whole.

"why worry about the poor & starving millions in areas of the world where you have no benefit? - clearly the fittest aren't surviving here"

Cause they are part of my species and I would like them to have better lives. They can yet again contribute to the work in progress that is our race given the right opertunity.

There is more to gain by helping them then not.

You arguments are ridicules and imply that one should conform their lives to a fact of nature( taken to an absurd conclusion) regardless of group/indervidual psychology.

Given enough time our technology shall transcend our biology.

Wow, your time in school was certainly short, wasn't it? Or was it only the bus that took you there that was short?

Honestly, there is so much fail here that I barely know where to begin. I don't think I'll bother though, the explanation will only make you furrow your brow in a vain attempt to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

But the funniest part is that your own argument supports your own fallacious argument;

"- why worry about cancer? Isn't `nature selecting` to take out the weak?

- why worry about the poor & starving millions in areas of the world where you have no benefit? - clearly the fittest aren't surviving here.."

Clearly, by your own argument, the fittest ARE surviving and the weak ARE dying.

But that's not how evolution works. Sorry...

something I'd expect from the religious--you evidently take the stance that if your sky monkey wasn't going to spank you for not helping--you'd let everyone die and not care--sounds like your true personality--pretty pathetic really. Atheist care about their fellow human beings--while true that "natural selection" would weed out the weak (would you religious folk survive in an actual natural selection arena?)-nature has evovled intelligence--which means that life on this planet is no longer driven completely by environment and predation. It means that human beings have learned social cooperation--it means that we attempt to cure cancer--attempt to feed the in the third world. You have such a small negative view on life--"where there is no benefit". How do you know a person that's starving might not be the person who invents a "star drive" years from now--or closer to the possible--starving people react to starvation--by feeding that person you may well eliminate the fellow as the one who came to your country to blow up people and property in a holy war against those that have. You have such a miniscule mind and view of life--bout what I'd expect from some religious twit.

Well, if evolution was anything like your implied straw-man, then I'm sure us atheists would not worry.

But you don't know what evolution is, and you've chosen to parade this ignorance around in place of a concerted effort to learn something new.

We work against disease because it threatens our species as a whole. Our intellect has evolved such we are able to do that.

Part of the problem is in your artificial distinction between "natural" and "artificial". Humans are natural...and every product of humanity is also natural. So us fighting against things that wipe out us as a species, that's not us fighting evolution. That IS evolution.

And what's more, a driving force of nature and evolution lies within the fundamental and innate desire of life to sustain itself. We have that in common with EVERY SINGLE other life form on the planet.

You are abusing the term "natural selection" and taking it to mean "the most brutal and/or strong". Which is bullshit. Survival of the fittest for a social species, what would it be? Think about it.

So perhaps after you educate your ignorant a$s we can have a sensible discussion.

Being from a social species I don't like the death or suffering of other people or myself, but nature doesn't really care what I want or like. Life's like that

What a charming stereotype you're laboring under. A person who is not religious does still have morals, you know. Religion and morals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd venture a guess that some deeply religious people have no morals at all, and some avowed atheists do deeply significant humanitarian work.

Your thought processes in this question are just bizarre.

You have a clear theme about natural selection in your question, however it is evident you don't understand it. I suggest you read more books.

"Just unwrapping your thinking, and boy is it dark!"

As for this comment, you have not unwrapped my thinking and you have no idea if it's dark or not.

LOL!!! This question isn't worth an answer! Clearly you dont have the vaguest idea what you are taking about, and you have probably never bothered to educate yourself beyond that fairytale you call Creationism!

Your questions are old, and not very insightful. The suggestion that the fact an atheist is rational also means they have no emotions or should not care about things is childish as much as it is foolish.

And come on...Eugenics? You aren't even TRYING to think here.