Atheism and racism

derchin · 16th July 2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Problem with atheism, is that in most cases it tends to come with a flourishing bouquet of naive liberal ideas, that are more emotionally fueled and based upon vague philosophical concepts of morality, humanity and so forth, than cold and hard scientific fact.

The uncomfortable truth that the militant atheistic icons such as Dawkins and the rest of the gang, tend to glaze over, is that a pure, science-oriented, disillusioned mindset is far harsher than any religious or "bigoted" ideology when it's applied to the state of humanity, and races, today.

Let's not even delve into such slogans and thesis like "everyone is equal" and "human rights are universal", since they are anything, but related to science.
Let's just look at the evolutionary theory to uncover how atheism is really racist. And we won't even delve into the intricate and debatable anthropological issues - just apply the so favored by atheists, logic.

To be short, it boils down to the evolutionary theory, which postulates that organisms adapt to their environment in order to benefit from it as much as they can and ensure reproduction of the specie. Any specie would seek to fill the environmental niche through battle with their competitors, or reach a balance that again, is benefactory.

The successful species would flourish. The unsuccessful would perish, inevitably.

http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396

I was browsing Deviant Art looking at various artwork there when I stumbled onto this member (http://torture-device.deviantart.com) and a quick glance at his profile page, I realized that he was a Nazi-sympathizer. I wasn't angry, but I was curious to see his views.

I browsed through his entries and stumble onto one labeled "Atheism is Racist 101." Reading through, he basically said that atheists tend to stick with Darwin and his theory of evolution. Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest).

By the way, the guy's an atheist as well.

Opinions? Thoughts?

Nay_Sayer · 16th July 2012, 06:43 PM

Sure, and Knitting sweaters is also racist because wool is (mostly) white.

derchin · 16th July 2012, 06:44 PM

You didn't realize that yet?

Nay_Sayer · 16th July 2012, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

You didn't realize that yet?

Oh I did, I just accepted my hate mongering ways in favor of being warm

derchin · 16th July 2012, 06:49 PM

Figured.

mollem · 16th July 2012, 06:51 PM

Is that guy serious ?

derchin · 16th July 2012, 06:57 PM

I seriously believe so, yes.

arthwollipot · 16th July 2012, 07:04 PM

Atheism provides no basis for racism the way religion does. There is no "us vs them" built into the foundation of atheism, so we have no reason to treat any one person differently from any other. The same could be said of sexism or homophobia. People are equal because there's no reason to presume they're not.

Dessi · 16th July 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by From the article above

If we apply this example unto human history, we might notice the similairity, almost astonishing. Wherever white europeans where introducted to an endemic nation - be it north american indians, stagnating mezo-american and south american indians, black african tribes, stagnating asian nations, the scenario was the same: they completely dominated them due to technological and cultural advancement. The former were no competitors, and they were forced out of their environmental niche. That's a cold hard fact, and the basis for all the ruminations about "evil whitey oppressing everyone"

But whitey oppressed everyone not because of inherite evilness, but because of superiority, the kind of superiority a cat has before a marsupial rat

[off topic]On the one hand, almost all atheists will reject this argument for racism as obviously ridiculous, on the other the same atheists use an identical argument to justify speciesism.[/off topic]

mollem · 16th July 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

I seriously believe so, yes.

Then I feel sorry for him, this is just sad. I'm astonished. A bottle of water is able to make better conclusions, whats wrong with that guys thinking process?

Tricky · 16th July 2012, 07:07 PM

Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races.

mollem · 16th July 2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races.

Similar to Socialdarwinists.

bpesta22 · 16th July 2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396

Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest).

By the way, the guy's an atheist as well.

Opinions? Thoughts?

I don't think the races were competing with each other, but with their different environments. I'm open to the possibility that natural selection (mutations too) created advantages and disadvantages across race on some dimensions (few people seem open to this idea here, btw, and here is pretty atheist...).

But, words like "on top" and "better" and way too vague. What would "better" even mean beyond: more successful getting their genes into the next generation? If that is true, is it racist?

Specify a dimension (e.g., height), show that it differs reliably across race, and then try to figure out why. Good luck, though, finding either the experimental design that separates environment from genetic effects, or the eureka gene that explains 100% of the race difference you found.

If it's indeed true that races differ genetically on some dimension, then science will find the difference (or nothing else will). If the difference becomes established as empirical fact, then just stating the difference exists would be neutral / cannot be racist (is saying that whites have lighter skin than blacks racist?!).

How one uses a fact, once established, then might allow others to claim racism: Let's forcibly prevent the "worst" group from breeding! Racist. Let's intervene and level the playing field to promote human well-being. Humanitarian?

Lowpro · 16th July 2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by mollem

Similar to Socialdarwinists.

The title makes no sense.

bpesta22 · 16th July 2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Atheism provides no basis for racism the way religion does. There is no "us vs them" built into the foundation of atheism, so we have no reason to treat any one person differently from any other. The same could be said of sexism or homophobia. People are equal because there's no reason to presume they're not.

Equal in terms of basic human rights, but it's an empirical question whether behavioral or biological differences make protected classes unequal (on average) on any dimension. e.g., men on average are taller than women (mean height by sex is not equal). That statement can't be sexist, can it?

derchin · 16th July 2012, 07:26 PM

Glancing through the comments, I favored this reply.

Quote:

Atheism is a null hypothesis; it carries with it no logical implication other than an ostensibly agnostic ignorance of the existence of "God". Therefore, it seems to be a mistake to equate Atheism with the "New Atheist" school of thought, which is little more than a vitriolically anti-theistic worship of materialistic reason.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. There certainly is a scientific way to approach "racism" and genetic differences between ethnicities. However, the problem lies in interpreting the data. (For instance, most are blinded by a "white pride" confirmation bias, which leads them to fall back on cultural stereotypes rather than objective data) You can say some races are "better" than others-- but by what standard? Anthropocentric ideals are useless, as the only objective way "natural selection" can be judged is by survival and the passing on of genetic information. That is, who survives longest to reproduce the most and make the largest contribution to the greater gene pool.

The results? The three top countries booming in generational population growth are Asia, Africa, and South America, respectively. That is, as far as the raw scientific standard goes, asians, blacks, and latinos are outperforming the white eurasian races. The highest fertility rates are found in central Africa alone.

This is "survival of the fittest". Technology and political domination mean nothing if your "undeveloped" neighbors are pumping out more babies than you. So-called "racists" conveniently ignore this, because they like to hang on to 19th-century "White Man's Burden" theories that make them feel superior and entitled.

"But the point is, that all of the third world can be whiped out in an instant, should the need arise, so quantity doesn't really equal quality."

The need would never arise. The white races obliterated the Native Americans because they were in the way of a giant, fertile, temperate-zone continent, but we pretty much stopped at that. Nobody in their right mind would want to start the wholesale colonization of the third world. The most we can manage is a half-assed military occupation that might look good on a map, but vanishes at the slightest political tremor, leaving the indigenous makeup largely unchanged (Africa and the Middle East are excellent examples of this).

So in all probability, the African, Asian, and South-American races will keep on growing and continue seeping into the "developed" world.

arthwollipot · 16th July 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Equal in terms of basic human rights, but it's an empirical question whether behavioral or biological differences make protected classes unequal (on average) on any dimension. e.g., men on average are taller than women (mean height by sex is not equal). That statement can't be sexist, can it?

No, unless you add "so therefore we will only allow people above a certain height into our club".

truethat · 16th July 2012, 07:29 PM

Europeans wiping out Native Americans was largely due to infectious diseases.

fishbob · 16th July 2012, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396

. . . Reading through, he basically said that atheists tend to stick with Darwin and his theory of evolution. Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest).

By the way, the guy's an atheist as well.

Opinions? Thoughts?

So, on top of a specious argument, Bubba has his facts wrong in considering all the different races of humans as different competing species.

We are all a single species, and our species is flourishing to beat hell these days.

mollem · 16th July 2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

The title makes no sense.

What do you mean specifically? What title? ^^

Lowpro · 16th July 2012, 08:07 PM

Social darwinism. Darwinism relies on a biological metric for fitness. Putting that metric to social whatever is nonsense. So it makes no sense.

mollem · 16th July 2012, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Social darwinism. Darwinism relies on a biological metric for fitness. Putting that metric to social whatever is nonsense. So it makes no sense.

Yep, I agree.

MG1962 · 16th July 2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, unless you add "so therefore we will only allow people above a certain height into our club".

The Goodies beat you to that by 40 odd years

KingMerv00 · 16th July 2012, 10:10 PM

Evolutionary theory leads to Social Darwinism in the same way that gravitational theory leads to pushing people off of tall buildings. Just because something is scientifically true does not mean it is morally right or wrong.

KingMerv00 · 16th July 2012, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Europeans wiping out Native Americans was largely due to infectious diseases.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Europeans hadn't accidentally killed 95% of the Native Americans. Given the history of European colonialism, I doubt peaceful integration would have been a realistic outcome. In all likelihood, the Native Americans would have been enslaved and/or massacred over the next few centuries.

Navigator · 16th July 2012, 10:39 PM

Observation. It is not the skin you are wrapped in but the attitude you express.

I don't think evolution shows that one race is any better than another. It gives us opportunity to evolve our own understanding about many things, including attitude.

It also gives us opportunity to help out those who are not in an advantageous position - to give from our excess for example.

That is one sign of 'fitness'.

Navigator · 16th July 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races.

Science may even say that there are differences in human intelligence - but only people who are predisposed to thinking intelligence is somehow the defining 'icing on the cake' cream of the crop use evolution to support their desire to demean the less intelligent.

Not racism, but under the same 'elitist' flag.

HansMustermann · 17th July 2012, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Evolutionary theory leads to Social Darwinism in the same way that gravitational theory leads to pushing people off of tall buildings. Just because something is scientifically true does not mean it is morally right or wrong.

Actually not even that, because it doesn't actually scientifically follow that one race is better than the other. So it's more like seeing someone claim that the theory of gravity means white people can fly. No, it doesn't.

Evolutionary theory only explains scientifically why some mutations thrived in some environments and not in others. White mutants out-competed the original black stock way up north, where there's little sunlight and they wear more clothes, so the original black humans were getting rickets and broken bones. Meanwhile down south in Africa, the original blacks out-competed the occasional white mutants, because that wasn't a factor for the blacks and the occasional white mutants had other problems.

Or you see that a mutation that lets us continue to digest milk has thrived in places where they traditionally had cattle, while most other people get lactose intolerant after being weaned. Same as most animals, actually. In one case it was an advantage to be able to still consume dairy products, while in the other enforcing a weaning time still had the original advantage.

That's just about the only part that is scientific and follows from evolution.

Social Darwinism is a stupidity that has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever.

A) If one wants to apply Darwinism to society, really then it should be applied to societies. It actually says that different societies and cultures thrived in different environments.

E.g., we know from the ancient Greeks, and especially Aristotle, that north of them, agricultural societies never took off. Even though those barbarians came in contact with the Greeks, they were unable to apply that model to their own zone, with its climate and soil type. (Hint: lack of a plough that worked on that soil took care of that.)

That went for more than just agriculture vs hunting. The small societies and the relatively unsupervised life of hunting and gathering also made slavery rather impossible to enforce, so they didn't hold slaves. Although some had no qualms with taking slaves in tribal warfare to sell to the Greeks, their own society wasn't based on slavery.

So what we see is certain social models out-competed others... in certain environments. Down south around the Mediterranean, with its different soil and plants, an agricultural slavery-based society quickly replaced hunting-gathering, while up north hunting-gathering out-competed any attempts to copy the Greeks' model.

(Of course, Aristotle insisted that actually it's just because those barbarians are brutish and stupid, and only fit to be slaves. I mean, certainly they proved to be unfit to be the slave owners, since they didn't at home

)

So we still don't have a case of one society winning every time.

B) Even applying it to races, although that's unscientific, still just says that different races thrived in different environments.

C) Actually applying it to races... well, the Nazis themselves ran into a problem with that very quickly. Because the idea that one race wins EVERY TIME, was actually what they managed to disprove.

See, Himmler was VERY obsessed with Aryans and the superiority of the northern Germanic race and culture, even by NSDAP standards. Which is kinda an achievement

He went overboard with his project "Ahnenerbe", digging all over the place to find proof that the ancient Germanics were superior all along. What he actually found was evidence that they were some very primitive tribes, at a time when the rest of the world was having golden ages and building empires and giant monuments.

Of course, that didn't deter Himmler, whose cognitive dissonance still resolved to seeing it as the proof of superiority he wanted to see in them.

Probably the biggest bitch-slap and summation of what it actually managed to prove, comes from Adolf Hitler himself:

"Why do we call the whole world's attention to the fact that we have no past? It isn't enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when our forefathers were still living in mud huts; now Himmler is starting to dig up these villages of mud huts and enthusing over every pot-shard and stone axe he finds. All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture."

So, yeah, the Semitic populations down south were building pyramids, while the Aryans were a bunch of primitive stone-age tribes that had just discovered pottery. So much for the idea of one race winning every time.

But generally, when a racist idea is called retarded by Hitler himself, that's about as epic a bitch-slap as it can get

Squeegee Beckenheim · 17th July 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Meanwhile down south in Africa, the original blacks out-competed the occasional white mutants, because that wasn't a factor for the blacks and the occasional white mutants had other problems.

I'd have thought that increased rates of skin cancer would have been one of the factors which led to the white mutants being less successful than their black counterparts. And, of course, sunburn can be fatal.

Agatha · 17th July 2012, 05:13 AM

The idea that atheism and racism have any correlation is absolute bollocks.

brodski · 17th July 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

[off topic]On the one hand, almost all atheists will reject this argument for racism as obviously ridiculous, on the other the same atheists use an identical argument to justify speciesism.[/off topic]

We all must make a choice as to which lifeforms we will kill, or have killed, in order to survive. We are all guilty of "speciesism" and will be until we learn photosynthesis.

catsmate1 · 17th July 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've often wondered what would have happened if Europeans hadn't accidentally killed 95% of the Native Americans. Given the history of European colonialism, I doubt peaceful integration would have been a realistic outcome. In all likelihood, the Native Americans would have been enslaved and/or massacred over the next few centuries.

Or if the Americas had a similar range of diseases to infect Europeans.

Tricky · 17th July 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Science may even say that there are differences in human intelligence - but only people who are predisposed to thinking intelligence is somehow the defining 'icing on the cake' cream of the crop use evolution to support their desire to demean the less intelligent.

Not racism, but under the same 'elitist' flag.

If it's elitist to prefer smart people over stupid people, then I have to plead guilty to elitism. YMMV.

(NB: "Smart" is not the same thing as "educated".)

HansMustermann · 17th July 2012, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'd have thought that increased rates of skin cancer would have been one of the factors which led to the white mutants being less successful than their black counterparts. And, of course, sunburn can be fatal.

Ayup.

Mark6 · 17th July 2012, 05:59 AM

Sounds like he rationalized his own racism.

I met some white supremacist pagans who used similar arguments from evolution. Among other things, they said that sending food to starving African countries is evolutionarily counterproductive -- we should let them starve. The weak will die, the strong will survive, and human species will benefit as a result.

Croydon Bob · 17th July 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

[off topic]On the one hand, almost all atheists will reject this argument for racism as obviously ridiculous, on the other the same atheists use an identical argument to justify speciesism.[/off topic]

I'm not sure that you were off-topic. My random musings:

One reason for rejecting the racist position is that we know that there is very little difference between different ethnic groups of humans. That there are NOT different races of humans, we are the Human Race. Sir Julian Huxley (the Dawkins of his day) covered all of this stuff 70+ years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

There have been human races in the past, however Homo Sapiens is one single race. But suppose that there were still neanderthals, or some other different sub-species of human. Suppose an entire continent of Earth contained people who were genetically substantially different to the rest of us.

Atheism would clearly still be irrelevant, but would some atheists apply speciesism? I think that some people here would then think that the "other humans" were fair game just like any animal is to them.

The reason that evolutionary theory doesn't, logically, lead to racism is because the evidence doesn't point that way. Not because it couldn't point that way.

MG1962 · 17th July 2012, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've often wondered what would have happened if Europeans hadn't accidentally killed 95% of the Native Americans. Given the history of European colonialism, I doubt peaceful integration would have been a realistic outcome. In all likelihood, the Native Americans would have been enslaved and/or massacred over the next few centuries.

When the Spanish Conquistadors landed in Florida, they expected to reproduce the success found in South America. They basically encountered Indians unaffected by smallpox yet and had their arse handed to them.

Charles Mann in 1491 argues strongly the Incas empire would not have fallen if not ravaged by disease before the Spanish got there

Bikewer · 17th July 2012, 06:46 AM

The essential flaw with such folks is that they still think in terms of "race". I think most reasonably-educated folks are on the same page now in that there is but a single species of human being and that all those "races" are just minor genetic adaptations to things like climatic conditions.
The Amerinds, both North and South, suffered because they were confronted by superior technology and European diseases that some say wiped out 90% of them.
The Guns, Germs and Steel bit.

I fool around on Yahoo Answers a lot, and the "anthropology" section features unending questions about race.....

MG1962 · 17th July 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

The essential flaw with such folks is that they still think in terms of "race". I think most reasonably-educated folks are on the same page now in that there is but a single species of human being and that all those "races" are just minor genetic adaptations to things like climatic conditions.
The Amerinds, both North and South, suffered because they were confronted by superior technology and European diseases that some say wiped out 90% of them.
The Guns, Germs and Steel bit.

I fool around on Yahoo Answers a lot, and the "anthropology" section features unending questions about race.....

The problem is the disease got them long before the technology was brought into the equation. Imagine the USA being a viable entity against any form of invasion if it lost 280 million to disease within a generation

Beerina · 17th July 2012, 07:01 AM

Ahahahahaha!!!

Claims of racism from a guy who worships a racist god. Ooh, Jews are my chosen people. Ahh, cursed are the descendants of this or that person, who maybe turned into black people. I'm sure kill-the-gypsies is in there somewhere, too.

16th July 2012, 06:37 PM	#1
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	Atheism and racism Quote: Problem with atheism, is that in most cases it tends to come with a flourishing bouquet of naive liberal ideas, that are more emotionally fueled and based upon vague philosophical concepts of morality, humanity and so forth, than cold and hard scientific fact. The uncomfortable truth that the militant atheistic icons such as Dawkins and the rest of the gang, tend to glaze over, is that a pure, science-oriented, disillusioned mindset is far harsher than any religious or "bigoted" ideology when it's applied to the state of humanity, and races, today. Let's not even delve into such slogans and thesis like "everyone is equal" and "human rights are universal", since they are anything, but related to science. Let's just look at the evolutionary theory to uncover how atheism is really racist. And we won't even delve into the intricate and debatable anthropological issues - just apply the so favored by atheists, logic. To be short, it boils down to the evolutionary theory, which postulates that organisms adapt to their environment in order to benefit from it as much as they can and ensure reproduction of the specie. Any specie would seek to fill the environmental niche through battle with their competitors, or reach a balance that again, is benefactory. The successful species would flourish. The unsuccessful would perish, inevitably. http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396 I was browsing Deviant Art looking at various artwork there when I stumbled onto this member (http://torture-device.deviantart.com) and a quick glance at his profile page, I realized that he was a Nazi-sympathizer. I wasn't angry, but I was curious to see his views. I browsed through his entries and stumble onto one labeled "Atheism is Racist 101." Reading through, he basically said that atheists tend to stick with Darwin and his theory of evolution. Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest). By the way, the guy's an atheist as well. Opinions? Thoughts?
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th July 2012, 06:44 PM	#3
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	You didn't realize that yet?
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th July 2012, 06:49 PM	#5
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	Figured.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th July 2012, 06:57 PM	#7
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	I seriously believe so, yes.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th July 2012, 07:04 PM	#8
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,988	Atheism provides no basis for racism the way religion does. There is no "us vs them" built into the foundation of atheism, so we have no reason to treat any one person differently from any other. The same could be said of sexism or homophobia. People are equal because there's no reason to presume they're not.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

16th July 2012, 06:43 PM	#2
Nay_Sayer Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 741	Sure, and Knitting sweaters is also racist because wool is (mostly) white.

16th July 2012, 06:46 PM	#4
Nay_Sayer Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 741	Originally Posted by derchin You didn't realize that yet? Oh I did, I just accepted my hate mongering ways in favor of being warm

16th July 2012, 06:51 PM	#6
mollem New Blood Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Is that guy serious ?

16th July 2012, 07:05 PM	#9
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by From the article above If we apply this example unto human history, we might notice the similairity, almost astonishing. Wherever white europeans where introducted to an endemic nation - be it north american indians, stagnating mezo-american and south american indians, black african tribes, stagnating asian nations, the scenario was the same: they completely dominated them due to technological and cultural advancement. The former were no competitors, and they were forced out of their environmental niche. That's a cold hard fact, and the basis for all the ruminations about "evil whitey oppressing everyone" But whitey oppressed everyone not because of inherite evilness, but because of superiority, the kind of superiority a cat has before a marsupial rat [off topic]On the one hand, almost all atheists will reject this argument for racism as obviously ridiculous, on the other the same atheists use an identical argument to justify speciesism.[/off topic]
	__________________ >^.^< Last edited by Dessi; 16th July 2012 at 07:08 PM.

16th July 2012, 07:05 PM	#10
mollem New Blood Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Originally Posted by derchin I seriously believe so, yes. Then I feel sorry for him, this is just sad. I'm astonished. A bottle of water is able to make better conclusions, whats wrong with that guys thinking process?
	Last edited by mollem; 16th July 2012 at 07:08 PM.

16th July 2012, 07:07 PM	#11
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races.

16th July 2012, 07:14 PM	#12
mollem New Blood Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Originally Posted by Tricky Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races. Similar to Socialdarwinists.

16th July 2012, 07:14 PM	#13
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by derchin http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396 Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest). By the way, the guy's an atheist as well. Opinions? Thoughts? I don't think the races were competing with each other, but with their different environments. I'm open to the possibility that natural selection (mutations too) created advantages and disadvantages across race on some dimensions (few people seem open to this idea here, btw, and here is pretty atheist...). But, words like "on top" and "better" and way too vague. What would "better" even mean beyond: more successful getting their genes into the next generation? If that is true, is it racist? Specify a dimension (e.g., height), show that it differs reliably across race, and then try to figure out why. Good luck, though, finding either the experimental design that separates environment from genetic effects, or the eureka gene that explains 100% of the race difference you found. If it's indeed true that races differ genetically on some dimension, then science will find the difference (or nothing else will). If the difference becomes established as empirical fact, then just stating the difference exists would be neutral / cannot be racist (is saying that whites have lighter skin than blacks racist?!). How one uses a fact, once established, then might allow others to claim racism: Let's forcibly prevent the "worst" group from breeding! Racist. Let's intervene and level the playing field to promote human well-being. Humanitarian?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp. Last edited by bpesta22; 16th July 2012 at 07:16 PM.

16th July 2012, 07:23 PM	#14
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by mollem Similar to Socialdarwinists. The title makes no sense.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

16th July 2012, 07:23 PM	#15
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Atheism provides no basis for racism the way religion does. There is no "us vs them" built into the foundation of atheism, so we have no reason to treat any one person differently from any other. The same could be said of sexism or homophobia. People are equal because there's no reason to presume they're not. Equal in terms of basic human rights, but it's an empirical question whether behavioral or biological differences make protected classes unequal (on average) on any dimension. e.g., men on average are taller than women (mean height by sex is not equal). That statement can't be sexist, can it?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp. Last edited by bpesta22; 16th July 2012 at 07:26 PM.

16th July 2012, 07:26 PM	#16
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	Glancing through the comments, I favored this reply. Quote: Atheism is a null hypothesis; it carries with it no logical implication other than an ostensibly agnostic ignorance of the existence of "God". Therefore, it seems to be a mistake to equate Atheism with the "New Atheist" school of thought, which is little more than a vitriolically anti-theistic worship of materialistic reason. That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. There certainly is a scientific way to approach "racism" and genetic differences between ethnicities. However, the problem lies in interpreting the data. (For instance, most are blinded by a "white pride" confirmation bias, which leads them to fall back on cultural stereotypes rather than objective data) You can say some races are "better" than others-- but by what standard? Anthropocentric ideals are useless, as the only objective way "natural selection" can be judged is by survival and the passing on of genetic information. That is, who survives longest to reproduce the most and make the largest contribution to the greater gene pool. The results? The three top countries booming in generational population growth are Asia, Africa, and South America, respectively. That is, as far as the raw scientific standard goes, asians, blacks, and latinos are outperforming the white eurasian races. The highest fertility rates are found in central Africa alone. This is "survival of the fittest". Technology and political domination mean nothing if your "undeveloped" neighbors are pumping out more babies than you. So-called "racists" conveniently ignore this, because they like to hang on to 19th-century "White Man's Burden" theories that make them feel superior and entitled. "But the point is, that all of the third world can be whiped out in an instant, should the need arise, so quantity doesn't really equal quality." The need would never arise. The white races obliterated the Native Americans because they were in the way of a giant, fertile, temperate-zone continent, but we pretty much stopped at that. Nobody in their right mind would want to start the wholesale colonization of the third world. The most we can manage is a half-assed military occupation that might look good on a map, but vanishes at the slightest political tremor, leaving the indigenous makeup largely unchanged (Africa and the Middle East are excellent examples of this). So in all probability, the African, Asian, and South-American races will keep on growing and continue seeping into the "developed" world.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th July 2012, 07:29 PM	#17
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,988	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Equal in terms of basic human rights, but it's an empirical question whether behavioral or biological differences make protected classes unequal (on average) on any dimension. e.g., men on average are taller than women (mean height by sex is not equal). That statement can't be sexist, can it? No, unless you add "so therefore we will only allow people above a certain height into our club".
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

16th July 2012, 07:29 PM	#18
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Europeans wiping out Native Americans was largely due to infectious diseases.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

16th July 2012, 07:40 PM	#19
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	Originally Posted by derchin http://torture-device.deviantart.com...-101-215882396 . . . Reading through, he basically said that atheists tend to stick with Darwin and his theory of evolution. Evolution is based on natural selection or "survival of the fittest". If you apply that to human history, you see that multiple races were competing for survival, with some coming out on top. If the same race comes out on top numerous times, this leads to the conclusion that some races are "better" than others, thus racism is born. If you rewind all that, his conclusion is that atheism is racist, considering that it backs up racist ideologies (N.S/Survival of the fittest). By the way, the guy's an atheist as well. Opinions? Thoughts? So, on top of a specious argument, Bubba has his facts wrong in considering all the different races of humans as different competing species. We are all a single species, and our species is flourishing to beat hell these days.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots. Last edited by fishbob; 16th July 2012 at 07:43 PM.

16th July 2012, 08:03 PM	#20
mollem New Blood Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Originally Posted by Lowpro The title makes no sense. What do you mean specifically? What title? ^^

16th July 2012, 08:07 PM	#21
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Social darwinism. Darwinism relies on a biological metric for fitness. Putting that metric to social whatever is nonsense. So it makes no sense.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

16th July 2012, 08:11 PM	#22
mollem New Blood Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Originally Posted by Lowpro Social darwinism. Darwinism relies on a biological metric for fitness. Putting that metric to social whatever is nonsense. So it makes no sense. Yep, I agree.
	Last edited by mollem; 16th July 2012 at 08:17 PM.

16th July 2012, 08:24 PM	#23
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by arthwollipot No, unless you add "so therefore we will only allow people above a certain height into our club". The Goodies beat you to that by 40 odd years

16th July 2012, 10:10 PM	#24
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Evolutionary theory leads to Social Darwinism in the same way that gravitational theory leads to pushing people off of tall buildings. Just because something is scientifically true does not mean it is morally right or wrong.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

16th July 2012, 10:14 PM	#25
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by truethat Europeans wiping out Native Americans was largely due to infectious diseases. I've often wondered what would have happened if Europeans hadn't accidentally killed 95% of the Native Americans. Given the history of European colonialism, I doubt peaceful integration would have been a realistic outcome. In all likelihood, the Native Americans would have been enslaved and/or massacred over the next few centuries.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

16th July 2012, 10:39 PM	#26
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Observation. It is not the skin you are wrapped in but the attitude you express. I don't think evolution shows that one race is any better than another. It gives us opportunity to evolve our own understanding about many things, including attitude. It also gives us opportunity to help out those who are not in an advantageous position - to give from our excess for example. That is one sign of 'fitness'.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

16th July 2012, 10:50 PM	#27
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Tricky Atheists tend to be scientific. Science says there are differences in the races. But only people who are predisposed to racism use evolution to support their desire to demean other races. Science may even say that there are differences in human intelligence - but only people who are predisposed to thinking intelligence is somehow the defining 'icing on the cake' cream of the crop use evolution to support their desire to demean the less intelligent. Not racism, but under the same 'elitist' flag.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

17th July 2012, 03:44 AM	#28
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,833	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Evolutionary theory leads to Social Darwinism in the same way that gravitational theory leads to pushing people off of tall buildings. Just because something is scientifically true does not mean it is morally right or wrong. Actually not even that, because it doesn't actually scientifically follow that one race is better than the other. So it's more like seeing someone claim that the theory of gravity means white people can fly. No, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory only explains scientifically why some mutations thrived in some environments and not in others. White mutants out-competed the original black stock way up north, where there's little sunlight and they wear more clothes, so the original black humans were getting rickets and broken bones. Meanwhile down south in Africa, the original blacks out-competed the occasional white mutants, because that wasn't a factor for the blacks and the occasional white mutants had other problems. Or you see that a mutation that lets us continue to digest milk has thrived in places where they traditionally had cattle, while most other people get lactose intolerant after being weaned. Same as most animals, actually. In one case it was an advantage to be able to still consume dairy products, while in the other enforcing a weaning time still had the original advantage. That's just about the only part that is scientific and follows from evolution. Social Darwinism is a stupidity that has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. A) If one wants to apply Darwinism to society, really then it should be applied to societies. It actually says that different societies and cultures thrived in different environments. E.g., we know from the ancient Greeks, and especially Aristotle, that north of them, agricultural societies never took off. Even though those barbarians came in contact with the Greeks, they were unable to apply that model to their own zone, with its climate and soil type. (Hint: lack of a plough that worked on that soil took care of that.) That went for more than just agriculture vs hunting. The small societies and the relatively unsupervised life of hunting and gathering also made slavery rather impossible to enforce, so they didn't hold slaves. Although some had no qualms with taking slaves in tribal warfare to sell to the Greeks, their own society wasn't based on slavery. So what we see is certain social models out-competed others... in certain environments. Down south around the Mediterranean, with its different soil and plants, an agricultural slavery-based society quickly replaced hunting-gathering, while up north hunting-gathering out-competed any attempts to copy the Greeks' model. (Of course, Aristotle insisted that actually it's just because those barbarians are brutish and stupid, and only fit to be slaves. I mean, certainly they proved to be unfit to be the slave owners, since they didn't at home) So we still don't have a case of one society winning every time. B) Even applying it to races, although that's unscientific, still just says that different races thrived in different environments. C) Actually applying it to races... well, the Nazis themselves ran into a problem with that very quickly. Because the idea that one race wins EVERY TIME, was actually what they managed to disprove. See, Himmler was VERY obsessed with Aryans and the superiority of the northern Germanic race and culture, even by NSDAP standards. Which is kinda an achievement He went overboard with his project "Ahnenerbe", digging all over the place to find proof that the ancient Germanics were superior all along. What he actually found was evidence that they were some very primitive tribes, at a time when the rest of the world was having golden ages and building empires and giant monuments. Of course, that didn't deter Himmler, whose cognitive dissonance still resolved to seeing it as the proof of superiority he wanted to see in them. Probably the biggest bitch-slap and summation of what it actually managed to prove, comes from Adolf Hitler himself: "Why do we call the whole world's attention to the fact that we have no past? It isn't enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when our forefathers were still living in mud huts; now Himmler is starting to dig up these villages of mud huts and enthusing over every pot-shard and stone axe he finds. All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture." So, yeah, the Semitic populations down south were building pyramids, while the Aryans were a bunch of primitive stone-age tribes that had just discovered pottery. So much for the idea of one race winning every time. But generally, when a racist idea is called retarded by Hitler himself, that's about as epic a bitch-slap as it can get
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 17th July 2012 at 03:54 AM.

17th July 2012, 04:51 AM	#29
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,257	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Meanwhile down south in Africa, the original blacks out-competed the occasional white mutants, because that wasn't a factor for the blacks and the occasional white mutants had other problems. I'd have thought that increased rates of skin cancer would have been one of the factors which led to the white mutants being less successful than their black counterparts. And, of course, sunburn can be fatal.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

17th July 2012, 05:13 AM	#30
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,215	The idea that atheism and racism have any correlation is absolute bollocks.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

17th July 2012, 05:19 AM	#31
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074	Originally Posted by Dessi [off topic]On the one hand, almost all atheists will reject this argument for racism as obviously ridiculous, on the other the same atheists use an identical argument to justify speciesism.[/off topic] We all must make a choice as to which lifeforms we will kill, or have killed, in order to survive. We are all guilty of "speciesism" and will be until we learn photosynthesis.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074

17th July 2012, 05:20 AM	#32
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I've often wondered what would have happened if Europeans hadn't accidentally killed 95% of the Native Americans. Given the history of European colonialism, I doubt peaceful integration would have been a realistic outcome. In all likelihood, the Native Americans would have been enslaved and/or massacred over the next few centuries. Or if the Americas had a similar range of diseases to infect Europeans.

17th July 2012, 05:20 AM	#33
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Navigator Science may even say that there are differences in human intelligence - but only people who are predisposed to thinking intelligence is somehow the defining 'icing on the cake' cream of the crop use evolution to support their desire to demean the less intelligent. Not racism, but under the same 'elitist' flag. If it's elitist to prefer smart people over stupid people, then I have to plead guilty to elitism. YMMV. (NB: "Smart" is not the same thing as "educated".)

17th July 2012, 05:41 AM	#34
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,833	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I'd have thought that increased rates of skin cancer would have been one of the factors which led to the white mutants being less successful than their black counterparts. And, of course, sunburn can be fatal. Ayup.

17th July 2012, 05:59 AM	#35
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Sounds like he rationalized his own racism. I met some white supremacist pagans who used similar arguments from evolution. Among other things, they said that sending food to starving African countries is evolutionarily counterproductive -- we should let them starve. The weak will die, the strong will survive, and human species will benefit as a result.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"