Why aren't atheists racist bigots?

[cj.23]

Atheists tend to believe in Evolution as espoused by Darwin:


At some future period,not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.




Atheists certainly do believe they are superior, they tend to deny God and they definitely go for being called Brights. So, if the little chimp-kissers are so clever and sure of their facts, why don't we see them holding Darwin's beliefs consistently?

then TH Huxley, Darwin's poodle, the chimp-lover says:


"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."


cj x

[cj.23]

( By the way this post is satire. If you are outraged by this, check out -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131135 -- my reply is respectfully dedicated to David Wong who made the point that such nonsense is wrong no matter which side spouts it! This post is satire, all I did was took the other OP and change the quotes and terms round a little, to set up an equally ridiculous strawman!. I tried to include all the same errors and gratuitous insults in my piece. :) )

[Safe-Keeper]

By the way this post is satire.Thought there was something odd;).

[cj.23]

Yeah, Darwin was actually extremely enlightened on racial issues - as reading almost any of his work and letters shows, and certainly not a racist or champion of what became Eugenics, or Social Darwinism for that matter. I just took one quote wildly out of context to set up a straw man. Huxley did hold the opinions given - and was very wrong - but so did Hume as it happens. And none of this has anything to do with the beliefs of evolutionists today - its the genetic fallacy, that a thing is what the originators may have intended. The rest of the post follows the same structure, just playfully inverting the original post. :) I am after all an evolutionist myself, and certainly not consciously racist!

OK, I was bored! Sorry!

cj x

[ponderingturtle]

Troll.

[cj.23]

Troll.

Iz it cos I iz Danish? How would you like it if I called you a Brownie? See you are just racist against us poor Scandinavians!

Seriously I don't think I'm a troll. I hold a few minority positions, but not in a dogmatic way. Feel free to disagree. :)

cj x

[Safe-Keeper]

Troll.Parody thread≠Troll.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

OK, I was bored! Sorry!

cj x

Go to church. I'm sure the vicar can amuse you with some fairy stories.

:boggled:

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why aren't atheists racist bigots?

The dues are too high. Plus we're too busy raping grandmothers, torturing pets and telling 3 year olds there is no Santa Claus this time of year.

[cj.23]

Go to church. I'm sure the vicar can amuse you with some fairy stories.

:boggled:


I can do that quite happily. I have been researching Fairy experiences last couple of weeks, from 9th century to modern day. I'm sort of trying to evaluate the Magonian hypothesis, but I have a fairly direct research goal beyond that. I'm always up for a discussion of Fairyology as it happens. (yes I am being serious!)

cj x

[cj.23]

The dues are too high. Plus we're too busy raping grandmothers, torturing pets and telling 3 year olds there is no Santa Claus this time of year.

Ah, us Anglicans are all way too busy blowing up abortion clinics, converting by the sword and denying Godless evil-lution while burning Catholics to do it either. Mind you, denying that EVIL SECULAR HUMANIST SANTA MYTH is also high on our priorities. :)

cj x

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I can do that quite happily. I have been researching Fairy experiences last couple of weeks, from 9th century to modern day. I'm sort of trying to evaluate the Magonian hypothesis, but I have a fairly direct research goal beyond that. I'm always up for a discussion of Fairyology as it happens. (yes I am being serious!)

cj x


No problem and oh, by the way, that post was satire. :duck:

[Undesired Walrus]

Isn't the difference between this thread and the other thread the fact that no Atheist is obliged to obey the words of Darwin or Huxley, whilst Christians are obliged to obey the Bible?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ah, us Anglicans are all way too busy blowing up abortion clinics, converting by the sword and denying Godless evil-lution while burning Catholics to do it either. Mind you, denying that EVIL SECULAR HUMANIST SANTA MYTH is also high on our priorities. :)

cj x


Converting by the sword? I thought that was a Catholic past-time. Isn't that a bit, oh, I don't know, in frightfully poor taste for an Anglican?

Of course, a good auto-de-fe is always a pleasant Sunday afternoon activity.

[hgc]

Iz it cos I iz Danish? How would you like it if I called you a Brownie? See you are just racist against us poor Scandinavians!

Seriously I don't think I'm a troll. I hold a few minority positions, but not in a dogmatic way. Feel free to disagree. :)

cj x


All Danes are trolls, except for the ones not named Larsen.

[Egg]

I can do that quite happily. I have been researching Fairy experiences last couple of weeks, from 9th century to modern day. I'm sort of trying to evaluate the Magonian hypothesis, but I have a fairly direct research goal beyond that. I'm always up for a discussion of Fairyology as it happens. (yes I am being serious!)

cj x

Is the Magonian hypothesis to do with the similarities reported between UFO abductions and Faerie abductions? I'd join you in such a discussion :).

[cj.23]

Isn't the difference between this thread and the other thread the fact that no Atheist is obliged to obey the words of Darwin or Huxley, whilst Christians are obliged to obey the Bible?

Not that I ever noticed. I have so far singularly failed to cross the Jordan and pout every living thing I find there to the sword. Why on earth do people presume that Christianity = adherance to the Bible? Which came first, the Church or the Bible? :) Answer thta correctly and you might see my point.

And the rel difference is that I did not mean a single word of my OP it was deliberately a straw man, and constructed as such. :) To do otherwise would rather destroy the point of my parody!

cj x

[Undesired Walrus]

Not that I ever noticed. I have so far singularly failed to cross the Jordan and pout every living thing I find there to the sword. Why on earth do people presume that Christianity = adherance to the Bible? Which came first, the Church or the Bible? :) Answer thta correctly and you might see my point.

Are you saying the Church decides what to pick from the texts?

Why do you decide to reject certain teachings? For example, why are the 10 Commandments held up in such awe but the very next page of the Bible is ignored?

[cj.23]

Is the Magonian hypothesis to do with the similarities reported between UFO abductions and Faerie abductions? I'd join you in such a discussion :).


Yes, exactly that. Jacques Vallee first proposed it in a book called Passport to Magonia - it's a reference to the tenth century flying ships (I think 10th C anyway), one of whose occupants said they came from Magonia. Magonians are usually exponents of the psycho-social school of UFOlogists and duel with te ETH nuts n bolts types. :)

Basically I'm trying for a grounded study of the experiences, to derive some research questions for further study. Be great to discuss it - new thread later!

cj x

[cj.23]

Are you saying the Church decides what to pick from the texts?

I'm saying the contents of the Bible were in fact decided by the Church, not vice versa. I see many posts on here that seem to suggest the centre of Christian belief is the Bible. I find that odd. The centre of Christian belief is the idea of God revealing himself through Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and His death on the Cross redeeming the sinner and recreating the universe. I won't bother to cite the Nicene Creed here, I'm sure you all know it.

The Bible is one of four ways in which traditionally Christians believe we can have knowledge of God...

The four sources usually mentioned are

1. Natural Theology - drawing conclusions about the need for or attributes of the Creator from the Creation. All natural sciences were therefore seen as part of the theological endeavour. You clearly engage in this, by looking at the Universe and seeing an absence of proof, but from Isaiah onwards the Bible does make clear that we are meant to be able to see vestiges of the Creator in the fallen Creation - or God's footprints in the world. Reason and logic are also considered part of this - Paul claims Christianity is a rationally defensible faith.

2. Church Tradition - often overlooked, Christians also draw upon traditions of how things have been done and "what we have always believed". This includes stuff like Creeds, Councils, sacramental systems, worship styles, traditional interpretations, canon law, etc. We must recall that the New Testament canon was set in line with the existing Church practice - the earliest couple of centuries of Christians had no New Testament just what we now call the Old Testament - yet clearly that was not the "manual" of their faith. This Tradition is believed shaped by God's intervention directly in the life and development of the Church. An very extreme development of this is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which I personally do not hold, not being a Roman Catholic.)

3. Religious Experience - vitally, the Christian church claims that any believer can directly encounter God, in a number of ways, and have their life changed by that religious experience. Prayer is by far the most common personal way of interacting with the Divine, but others exist. A lot of my own academic work was on analyzing different types of religious experience and its impacts. You can do this quite objectively - see the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, comparison studies like my work on psychedelic experience and mystical experience, or Persinger's (highly questionable) neurological experiments attempting to generate religious experience 'artificially'. Furthermore a large number of studies have been conducted on prayer and it efficacy or lack thereof. Furthermore, you can test it yourself on a personal subjective level, by prayer and asking for God to enter your life.

4. Scriptures - The Bible -- yep, the Bible as cited. Yet the historic Christian tradition has been to draw on all four trends, and to attempt to understand God in the light of the whole picture. Sublation is a commonly used principle in interpreting the Bible - so the "God of Love and Grace" trumps the genocidal motifs of the earlier Scriptures in Christian theology. The Bible is a document detailing an evolution of religious thought - I think it is clear to any objective reader it sets out not one consistent theology, but an unfolding chronological series of insights and developments? If not, we would all be still practising the Ancient Jewish faith?

I'm not sure if this clarifies at all, but I think it is important. Bear in mind that many of the Sacraments can not be explictly found in the Bible - Eucharist/Communion/Mass and Baptism being the exceptions as far as i can recall, and I guess marriage. The Trinity was fomulated from the Bible. Historically adherence to the Creeds has been the test of orthodoxy.


Why do you decide to reject certain teachings? For example, why are the 10 Commandments held up in such awe but the very next page of the Bible is ignored?

The answer is in the Pauline concept of the Law being fulfilled in Jesus - sublation. Christians do not believe they are under the Law - this is what differentites them from say Jews? (and modern Judaism does not read the Hebrew Scriptures literally either?)

cj x

[Egg]

Yes, exactly that. Jacques Vallee first proposed it in a book called Passport to Magonia - it's a reference to the tenth century flying ships (I think 10th C anyway), one of whose occupants said they came from Magonia. Magonians are usually exponents of the psycho-social school of UFOlogists and duel with te ETH nuts n bolts types. :)

Basically I'm trying for a grounded study of the experiences, to derive some research questions for further study. Be great to discuss it - new thread later!

cj x

Sounds interesting. I came across the comparison is Graham Hancock's Supernatural book, which (if you've not read already) could probably point you towards some related studies. Could you let me know when you start the thread?

[George]

( By the way this post is satire. If you are outraged by this, check out -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131135 -- my reply is respectfully dedicated to David Wong who made the point that such nonsense is wrong no matter which side spouts it! This post is satire, all I did was took the other OP and change the quotes and terms round a little, to set up an equally ridiculous strawman!. I tried to include all the same errors and gratuitous insults in my piece. :) )

So why didn't you flag it as satire in you're opening post? There are two minutes between your op and your disclaimer. Or was your mouse playing up again?

Cj.
You aren't particularly good at this troll caper are you? Look to "American". For guidance, he was a master.
4/10 for effort.

[cj.23]

So why didn't you flag it as satire in you're opening post? There are two minutes between your op and your disclaimer. Or was your mouse playing up again?

Cj.
You aren't particularly good at this troll caper are you? Look to "American". For guidance, he was a master.
4/10 for effort.

Because I cut off the bottom of my post somehow, and so when I noticed I wrote the next post. If you compare it with the post I'm parodying you will notice i missed the bottom three lines of my parody as well. And no, I agree i'm a lousy troll. I tend to respond intelligently after all. :)

cj x

[The Atheist]

Atheists certainly do believe they are superior, they tend to deny God and they definitely go for being called Brights. So, if the little chimp-kissers are so clever and sure of their facts, why don't we see them holding Darwin's beliefs consistently?

then TH Huxley, Darwin's poodle, the chimp-lover says:

What makes you think we aren't all racial supremacists?

I have just had an argument about calling Japs "Japs" and I'm pretty sure I've called you something. No, scratch that, my kid's name is "Dane". That was before I ever heard of CFLarsen, however.

Oddly enough, the most under-utilised forum at Stormfront is the atheist one with a total of about three posters.

In a strange reversal, the racists at Stormfront generally agree with Darwin that people with black skin are a less-evolved form of "anthropoid" than crackers, honkeys, infidels and pakeha.

[cj.23]

Stormfront? Is that a meteorological place?

cj x

[RandFan]

I'm fine with the thread. I understand those who equate it with trolling and that's fine. I don't see it that way. But then I'm not really the atheist spokesperson and my opinion accounts for my opinion and that's about it. :)
Still, I am Batman.

[Silentknight]

Well, it's true that Everyone's a Little Bit Racist (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm), just as Atheists are All a Bit Stalin (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4071647#post4071647) but the categorical overlap between atheists and racism seems to be missing from the logical equation. Let me get back to you on this after I'm done leaving a burnt offering to the gold statue of Charles Darwin I have in my backyard, which should give you ample time to preach to your dog in turn.

[The Atheist]

Stormfront? Is that a meteorological place?

cj x

:dl:

Still, I am Batman.

Ok then - what is the deal with you and Robin?

[RandFan]

Ok then - what is the deal with you and Robin?Don't ask, don't tell. :)

[paximperium]

As an equal opportunity racist bigot who hates everyone, I find your stereotyping of atheist racist bigots very unfair.

If you want to hate, hate all equally.

[The Man]

As an agnostic racist bigot I just don’t know whom it is that I should be prejudice against, but they are really in for it when I do figure that out, that is if it is possible to gain that knowledge, which I doubt.

[Darth Rotor]

Troll.

Clueless.

No, wait, just slow ... in the mental sense.

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't the difference between this thread and the other thread the fact that no Atheist is obliged to obey the words of Darwin or Huxley, whilst Christians are obliged to obey the Bible?

No.

When you say "obliged to obey the Bible" you open up the problem of its internal inconsistencies and contradictions. (Which IMO is half the fun)

Which part, my dear Walrus? (As if we have not danced this dance before. ;) )

DR

[Darth Rotor]

As an equal opportunity racist bigot who hates everyone, I find your stereotyping of atheist racist bigots very unfair.

If you want to hate, hate all equally.
1. How dare you presume to tell anyone how to hate or feel? ;) Hate is a special manifestation of "we" versus "they" which is a very old human distinction.

2. If one was to hate "equally" then the thin line between love and hate would vanish, and hate would likewise, along with love. In their place would remain disinterested regard.

Is that the world you want to live in?

DR

[paximperium]

1. How dare you presume to tell anyone how to hate or feel? ;) Hate is a special manifestation of "we" versus "they" which is a very old human distinction.
I hate people who disagree with me.

2. If one was to hate "equally" then the thin line between love and hate would vanish, and hate would likewise, along with love. In their place would remain disinterested regard.I hate not being in love therefore I hate non-love which in turn means I love love...I hate logic...and double negatives...and chickens, their lack of lips is disturbing.

Is that the world you want to live in?
I hate the world.

[Darth Rotor]

I hate people who disagree with me.
All is well in the world.
I hate not being in love therefore I hate non-love which in turn means I love love...I hate logic...and double negatives...and chickens, their lack of lips is disturbing.
Chickens are tasty, Precious.
I hate the world.
Remind me not to hire you for any jobs in the nuke business.

*call to STRATCOM*

"Hey, Dutch, Darth here. Ix-nay on the aximperium-pay."

DR

[Beerina]

Doesn't the OP, so to speak :), presume racism is a religious-only thing?

First came the racism, then came the justification in Da Buybull.

[Radrook]

The answer is in the Pauline concept of the Law being fulfilled in Jesus -....

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. ... I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ...


Strange how they say "Pauline idea" when Jesus himself instituted a new covenant. Perhaps the cause is that the higher biblical criticism is simply taken as fact and repeated without even reading the Bible? Or is there another reason for tagging things taught by Jesus himself as merely Pauline ideas?

Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

So Jesus taught about a new covenant that would make remission of sins possible. Paul repeats it and it is a Pauline idea? Nonsense!

[DC]

this post is satire.

ah thanks, saved me alot of flaming :D

[Beerina]

Hehe, "mere Pauline ideas", kind of like red-letter Bibles where what God or Jesus says directly is in red.

...as if what other people say isn't also "guided by the hand of God"...

[RandFan]

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. ... I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ... As if that actually clarifies anything. So do we kill homosexuals or not? Do we pick and choose which rules of the OT we must follow? How about killing folks who work on the Sabbath? What about the sin of Onan? Religions don't seem to be in agreement when it comes to which laws are no longer practiced but instead "fulfilled".

[Darth Rotor]

Do we pick and choose which rules of the OT we must follow?
Obviously, yes. (I thought cj did a nice job of explaining that)

1. Natural Theology
2. Church Tradition
3. Religious Experience
4. Scriptures - The Bible

Not your cup of tea?

OK, follow another path. May it bring you peace and joy.

Sola Scriptura? It still confronts the person in practice with making choices, thanks to a number of what look to be contradictions and inconsistencies. So, choices are made, and one reaps what one sows.

Jack Sparrow might be more profound than seen at first glance.

DR

[Radrook]

Hehe, "mere Pauline ideas", kind of like red-letter Bibles where what God or Jesus says directly is in red.

...as if what other people say isn't also "guided by the hand of God"...

Actually I find those red-lettered Bible texts exceedingly hard on the eyes. Very annoying. I doubt however that the red lettering is meant to indicate that the rest of the Bible is inferior to the red- lettered portion.

BTW
The expression "mere Pauline" wasn't meant to convey that I believe the other parts are of lesser importance. Is that really what you understood me to say?

[calebprime]

Obviously, yes. (I thought cj did a nice job of explaining that)

1. Natural Theology
2. Church Tradition
3. Religious Experience
4. Scriptures - The Bible

Not your cup of tea?

OK, follow another path. May it bring you peace and joy.

Sola Scriptura? It still confronts the person in practice with making choices, thanks to a number of what look to be contradictions and inconsistencies. So, choices are made, and one reaps what one sows.

Jack Sparrow might be more profound than seen at first glance.

DR


yar? This matey?

In Dead Man’s Chest, Jack Sparrow quips, "Funny what a man will do to forestall final judgment." The reason Jack is interested in putting off his day of reckoning is because he reckons that his moral balance sheet is out of whack. But now, in At World’s End, the time for speculation is over. As the film opens, we discover that Jack is no longer traipsing along the temporal plane. Tia Dalma (the voodoo woman) explains to Pintel and Ragetti – two of the reanimated pirates from the first film – that “Jack Sparrow is taken body and soul to a place not of death, but punishment. The worst fate a person can bring upon himself. Stretching out forever. That’s what awaits at Davy Jones’ Locker.”

[Soapy Sam]

You know, I've heard of "The Nicene Creed" since I was about six. Hadn't the vaguest clue what it actually said.
Googled it. OK. I'd heard that stuff. Just didn't know it was the whatsit.
Does anyone still, you know , recite that with hand on lung , while holding a sword or anything? Is that something that , for example, Rowan Williams might actually sign up to?

[The Atheist]

Is that something that , for example, Rowan Williams might actually sign up to?

Good question, and while I haven't heard him definitively on the Nicene Creed, it might be a bit of a conundrum for him.

On one hand, he's on record as saying that christians need not believe in things like the virgin birth and resurrection, while on the other, he's a stong theologian and therefore likely to see the Creed as close to his personal stance.

I'll try to dig around a bit more on this one, interesting question.

[Soapy Sam]

I can't help wondering what, if anything, the CoE actually do believe.
I rather feel they view faith as somehow bad form. Touch of the charismatics, don't you know?

ETA- In fact, their attitude to belief seems to be somewhat...Zen?

[The Atheist]

I can't help wondering what, if anything, the CoE actually do believe.
I rather feel they view faith as somehow bad form. Touch of the charismatics, don't you know?

ETA- In fact, their attitude to belief seems to be somewhat...Zen?

Probably more Unitarian than Zen, but you're on the right track.

I think this (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/317) sums it up. (If somewhat boringly.) Typical Rowan Williams, typically CoE, have a bob each way. While the speech meanders a bit (compulsory for an ABC) he does point to what I suggested - that he personally believes in the sanctity of the church and creed, but because Anglicans want to be liberal and inclusive, he doesn't demand the same level of faith from adherents - turning up, praying and opening the wallet for tithing is enough for the CoE!

The fascinating thing in all of it is that I would logically expect more liberal churches to be more attractive, when the opposite appears to be true as the CoE is pretty well in its final death throes and after Unitarians, must rank as the most liberal. Meanwhile, hardline fundies are growing, and the new more hardline approach with the left-footers seems to be drawing people back to the Vatican.

What is it Einstein said about never underestimating human stupidity?

[cj.23]

You know, I've heard of "The Nicene Creed" since I was about six. Hadn't the vaguest clue what it actually said.
Googled it. OK. I'd heard that stuff. Just didn't know it was the whatsit.
Does anyone still, you know , recite that with hand on lung , while holding a sword or anything? Is that something that , for example, Rowan Williams might actually sign up to?

Yep, me. And the 39 Articles, which define what the CofE believes
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Also an important perspective to go with the above
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/

Sorry been offline a couple of days

cj x