Are Atheists racist?

[Falvlun]

Darwin's racist beliefs were rooted in evolution. It would be like saying
Newton believed in Gravity - and Newton believed in F = ma
and then saying "I don't have to believe in gravity if I believe F=ma" The two are related to one another.

Do you see the problem?

No. Darwin's racist beliefs were rooted in the time period he lived in. He simply incoorporated the current beliefs about race into his theory of the evolution of man.

Furthermore, Darwin's racist speculations aren't foundational to the concept of evolution. The theory of evolution works just fine when you take out the faulty racist components.

 

[freethinker44]

Scientists are not supposed to worry about what is "PC" they are supposed to publish based on data. Or am I mistaken in thinking this?

I guess "science" is not all data and proofs...

I guess you have never read a science journal then.

A science paper published in a peer reviewed journal and a book written by a scientist are two very different writings.

When a scientist publishes a research paper it is pure science.

But scientists are people too, and when they write a book about their discoveries after they have been peer reviewed, (or even they have never been reviewed or even been rejected by the science community as all of Michael Behe's work has been) they can write whatever they want, and while most do a good job at keeping it professional, sometimes life creeps in, so it is not surprising that a book written, not for the scientific community, but for the general public, would contain social and philosophical views comon at the time of writing.

 

[Ozzie]

Darwin was totally concerned with the extinction of the Noble Savage in the face of the European juggernaut in his time. Others such as eugenicists and Nazis have turned Darwin an apologist for their agendas. Darwin was no more racist than it could be argued he preferred one species over another.

 

[Amill]

This is dumb. It's no different than me asking if all protestants think the same way Martin Luther did, that "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." I'm sure not all protestants feel this way.

Do all protestants feel it is ok to lie if it is for the greater good of the church too?

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

Darwin isn't the theory. Evolution is the theory, and Darwin provided an insight to how it might occur, and brought more popularity to the theory. Atheists aren't followers of Darwin's beliefs. We simply accept the theory that he supported. My beliefs have nothing to do with Darwin's thoughts, and science has shown us that all of the races of humans are equally homo sapiens sapiens, so it doesn't matter if Darwin thought that some were further down the evolutionary chain, or that Caucasians had evolved a more effective brain, ect, because science has shown us that this is not the case.

This really isn't any different than me asking if all theists are jerks, because the members of the west baptist church are jerks. It's just retarded.

 

[idea]

Which they are not. Racism is about morality and prejudice against other humans, the ToE is a scientific theory of how species evolve, there is a world of difference.

it seems scientists have made racism into a science...

Scientists are the experts at analyzing and pinpointing the exact differences between all of us. Why would they treat categorizing humans any differently then they treat categorizing animals? And we all know how expert they are at categorizing animals.

If they treat humans differently than animals, then they are not true scientists.
If they do catagorize humans (publish their findings or not) then they are racist.

So which is it? Are they not scientists? or are they racist?

 

[idea]

Darwin was totally concerned with the extinction of the Noble Savage

The "Noble Savage"... does placing the word "noble" in front make what he said OK?

are you calling anyone savages?

 

[idea]

science has shown us that all of the races of humans are equally homo sapiens sapiens, so it doesn't matter if Darwin thought that some were further down the evolutionary chain, or that Caucasians had evolved a more effective brain, ect, because science has shown us that this is not the case.

Has science shown us that this is not the case? Or did they just stop publishing based on popular beliefs? Let's see the papers and publications on it - please post scientific links.

Here is a 2009 article:
We are subgroups of one ‘race’ | qbit.cc

In other words, the African DNA shows 20 changes, the East Asian shows eight, the Caucasian five, and the Amerindian three; this means that Africans are the oldest population, the East Asian is older than the Caucasian, and all three are older than the Amerindian.

You know what the "oldest" is?
Monkeys - monkeys are the oldest.

 

[Falvlun]

it seems scientists have made racism into a science...

Scientists are the experts at analyzing and pinpointing the exact differences between all of us. Why would they treat categorizing humans any differently then they treat categorizing animals? And we all know how expert they are at categorizing animals.

If they treat humans differently than animals, then they are not true scientists.
If they do catagorize humans (publish their findings or not) then they are racist.

So which is it? Are they not scientists? or are they racist?

"Race" has been shown to be basically a non-scientific term in regards to humans. We are all a part of one species-- homo sapiens sapiens. We all look different, sure, but we can all breed together. Thus, there really is no categorization scheme involving sub-species, or what have you, that would apply to humans.

 

[Falvlun]

Has science shown us that this is not the case? Or did they just stop publishing based on popular beliefs? Let's see the papers and publications on it - please post scientific links.

Here is a 2009 article:
We are subgroups of one ‘race’ | qbit.cc.

Your quote from this article doesn't support your contention that science still believes some races to be "more highly evolved" than others. It simply says that some populations of humans are older than other populations of humans. The title of the article even supports what we are saying: That all humans are part of one "race".

 

[Sunstone]

Darwin was to some large extent a man of his times. That's to say, he held some of the common prejudices of his times. The fact he held some of the common prejudices of his times does not mean that everyone who accepts evolution today holds the same prejudices as Charles Darwin.

 

[idea]

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/
clear - some are "higher" on the evolutionary tree than others.

According to some evolutionists, this is the most advanced "subgroup" of humans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerindian
Congratulations Amerindians! I wish I was as advanced as you are!

 

[idea]

"Race" has been shown to be basically a non-scientific term in regards to humans.

Race is a very scientific term.

Your quote from this article doesn't support your contention that science still believes some races to be "more highly evolved" than others. It simply says that some populations of humans are older than other populations of humans. The title of the article even supports what we are saying: That all humans are part of one "race".

so... what is the difference between calling us different "races" vs. caling us "subgroups"

subgroup = PC name for "race".

 

[Amill]

Has science shown us that this is not the case? Or did they just stop publishing based on popular beliefs? Let's see the papers and publications on it - please post scientific links.

Here is a 2009 article:
We are subgroups of one ‘race’ | qbit.cc



You know what the "oldest" is?
Monkeys - monkeys are the oldest.

Monkeys are the oldest what?

Even if it was determined that the different races of humans were sub species or something, it wouldn't change the fact that we are all equally homo sapiens. You don't lose your ancestry, we have all evolved an equal amount of time, we've just diversified. And what would that have to do with racism anyways?

 

[idea]

Monkeys are the oldest what?

Even if it was determined that the different races of humans were sub species or something, it wouldn't change the fact that we are all equally homo sapiens. You don't lose your ancestry, we have all evolved an equal amount of time, we've just diversified. And what would that have to do with racism anyways?

There are monkeys alive today. There are single celled organisms alive today. They have all had an "equal amount of time to evolve" so we must be on the same level as single celled organisms - we are just diversified - is that your argument?


Clearly those who follow evolution see some on a higher wrung on the evolutionary ladder than others.

Some are "older"... some are "newer and more evolved".
according to those who follow evolution.

 

[Amill]

And you still haven't responded to the posts that point out the retarded notion that people must be racists because they believe in something that A racist also believed in.

 

[Smoke]

"The Descent of Man" talks of savages, and a belief that black people are more primitive than white people.

Oh, give me a break. Why do you even try things like this? Seriously, just what the hell is wrong with you?

If you want to play like this, let's talk about Brigham Young's view on race.

 

[Falvlun]

Race is a very scientific term.

Oh, really?

Though many definitions exist, there appears to be no established agreement on any scientific definition of race. What we do find though, is the general belief among the scientific community that race has no biological or natural basis and that the "race" related physical variations found in humans have no real significance except for the social/cultural importance put on them by people.

Link

Race and ethnicity both represent social or cultural constructs for categorizing people based on perceived differences in biology (physical appearance) and behavior.....Unfortunately, remnants of that ranking system and negative stereotypes of different "races" persist today, despite the fact that "race" has no scientific justification in human biology.

Link

Until the word “race” came into existence, people defined themselves by ethnicity. A French writer named Buffon introduced the word into the science community in 1749 when he used it to denote physical differences among groups (Bradley 32). However, there is no scientific meaning to the word “race.” All people belong to the same species of humans – Homo sapiens sapiens

Link

Do you have anything to support your contention that race is a scientific term?

so... what is the difference between calling us different "races" vs. caling us "subgroups"

subgroup = PC name for "race".

The one has a scientific underpinning, and the other doesn't. "Subgroups" is based upon ancestral DNA; race is based upon skin color.

 

[idea]

Oh, give me a break. Why do you even try things like this? Seriously, just what the hell is wrong with you?

Clearly there are some who believe they are "superior" to others. This has led to wars, mass executions, I want to know where all of these papers on human subspecies are leading to.

If you want to play like this, let's talk about Brigham Young's view on race.

Been there done that, start another thread if you want to go there.

 

[linwood]

Ideas been paying far too much attention to Ben Stein.
:areyoucra

 

[idea]

Oh, really?

Link

Link

Link

Do you have anything to support your contention that race is a scientific term?


The one has a scientific underpinning, and the other doesn't. "Subgroups" is based upon ancestral DNA; race is based upon skin color.

Call it race, or ethnicity, or subgroups of people, or whatever term you would like to use. The point is, those who believe in evolution are categorizing people according to the makeup of their genes - the color of their skin, the color of their eyes, their height, etc. etc.

I for one think this is the wrong way to categorize people.