Are Atheists racist?

[Kilgore Trout]

A dictionary and the ability to understand and apply basic logic would have made this whole thread unnecessary.

 

[Alceste]

 

[imaginaryme]

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

I got an idea, how about one begins with an education before one open's one's mouth. For instance, there is not enough genetic drift for there to be race other than human. To answer your question, ol' Chuck ain't racist; I am. In the sense that I would rather feed you head first into the wood-chipper rather than debate some idiotic nonsense with an uneducated retard. Are we on the same page here, or do we need another book?

 

[imaginaryme]

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

Honestly, I could not even bear to read past this first line. *fixed. I got another idea. What is witchcraft? The use of a "power word" such as "racism." If we're talking religion, I'm feeling all Catholic and Inquisitive. If we're talking education, you believe in causality, I believe in quantum decoherence; putting my education a hundred years ahead of yours. Read up, there will be a test later. Have a nice day.

 

[McBell]

... she just wants an excuse to attack atheists.

It most definitely looks that way

It's useless to try to explain her errors to her, because she doesn't care about the truth. She runs eagerly into any error, however stupid it is, however inexcusable, if she thinks it lends validity to her cramped little worldview.

Well, she has thoroughly demonstrated this all through this thread.

 

[Gunfingers]

I dunno, i think Idea is right. I'm an atheist who accepts evolutionary theory and i'm super racist.

 

[Falvlun]

Just a question in general:
There's been a couple of posters claiming that Darwin was not racist. Now, everything in the OP does not indicate racism, but some of it surely does. In the context of his time, it would make sense that Darwin was racist. You can be right about some things, and miss the mark on others.

So, for those of you who do not think that Darwin was racist, how do you interpretate some of the more blatantly racist remarks?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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

The Origin of species is a book by charles darwin.
Atheism is a nonbelief in a god.

The two are as related as a wheel is related to a mousepad.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

The most racism I have ever seen in my life comes out of Catholic churches in white neighborhoods.

 

[monta]

The most racism I have ever seen in my life comes out of Catholic churches in white neighborhoods.

Me too! funny how that works , when you live in a monoculture :biglaugh:

Although it could be true a black guy called me a racist the other day, because I wouldn't let him check into the hotel without a credit card (house policy for all guests not just the ones I have racism against), ''look at her, she has never seen a black man check into a hotel before'' then to his girlfriend '' do you see what I mean, everyone in this country is a racist'' because I'm a smartarse I said to him ''tell me about it, you should try being a protestant''

 

[Gunfingers]

So, for those of you who do not think that Darwin was racist, how do you interpretate some of the more blatantly racist remarks?

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't think he was a racist.

 

[gnomon]

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't think he was a racist.

I don't think Darwin was a racist.

Why?
1) He was one of the first to show that human beings cannot be divided into different species
2) Showed that civilized nations descended from savages
3) That greater variety exists within races than without.

It seems people have a problem with his use of certain terms. Considering Darwin used the term race to refer to cabbages, as it was not unusual to use the term to reference living objects other than human beings or even animals, and that the term savage was a common term of the day thus he used the term all his contemporaries were........

Where's the racism?

I'm surprised so many shrug their soldiers and say Darwin was probably racist with no supporting evidence at all.

 

[Nepenthe]

Just a question in general:
There's been a couple of posters claiming that Darwin was not racist. Now, everything in the OP does not indicate racism, but some of it surely does. In the context of his time, it would make sense that Darwin was racist. You can be right about some things, and miss the mark on others.

So, for those of you who do not think that Darwin was racist, how do you interpretate some of the more blatantly racist remarks?

Darwin was obviously a product of his era; the vast majority of European males saw themselves as culturally superior. But even in that context Darwin was ahead of his time: he opposed slavery and was extremely compassionate towards those non-Europeans he met on his travels. But sure, he held Englishmen as superior, though this has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection. Crick and Watson were misogynists yet their treatment of Franklin has no bearing on the validity of double helix.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't think he was a racist.

I dont care. Its not relevant for the topic.

 

[MissAlice]

Truth be told most philosophers of his time were racists as well as bigots.

There was also a mythological perception that a woman's mind was much more fickled and unintellengent than a man's yet they still get lot's of credit where it's undue.

I'm honestly surprised people are surprised here...:sarcastic

 

[imaginaryme]

Truth be told most philosophers of his time were racists as well as bigots.

There was also a mythological perception that a woman's mind was much more fickled and unintellengent than a man's yet they still get lot's of credit where it's undue.

I'm honestly surprised people are surprised here...:sarcastic

Nice. A product of his time.

I for one believe in free speech. For speech to truly be free, we must end the witchcraft. There should be no need to defend oneself from the intellectual dishonesty of another.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think Darwin was a racist.

Why?
1) He was one of the first to show that human beings cannot be divided into different species

But he seemed to support a hiearchy of sub-species, with whites (civilized peoples) at the top, and brown peoples (the savages) ranking somewhere lower.

2) Showed that civilized nations descended from savages
3) That greater variety exists within races than without.

No argument there.

It seems people have a problem with his use of certain terms. Considering Darwin used the term race to refer to cabbages, as it was not unusual to use the term to reference living objects other than human beings or even animals, and that the term savage was a common term of the day thus he used the term all his contemporaries were........

Where's the racism?

I'm surprised so many shrug their soldiers and say Darwin was probably racist with no supporting evidence at all.

Well, by using racist terms, that makes him, by todays standards at least, racist.

Going through idea's OP, the only quote that actually seems racist to me is this one:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized 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, 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 civilized 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."
Chapter 7"
How do you interpret that in a non-racist way?

Darwin was obviously a product of his era; the vast majority of European males saw themselves as culturally superior. But even in that context Darwin was ahead of his time: he opposed slavery and was extremely compassionate towards those non-Europeans he met on his travels. But sure, he held Englishmen as superior, though this has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection. Crick and Watson were misogynists yet their treatment of Franklin has no bearing on the validity of double helix.

I understand that Darwin's racism was a product of his time, and I'm glad that he was probably less racist than the average bear, but that still doesn't negate the fact that he was racist, no?

And of course, whether Darwin was racist or not, this has no bearing on the ToE, or those who accept the ToE as the method for speciation.

I just think that it might do more harm denying that Darwin was racist, if in fact he was. Just makes it seem like we're hiding something.

 

[s3v3n]

sorry... perhaps I should not have asked "are Atheists racists" as all atheists do not follow Darwinism.
Atheists Against Darwinism - Evangelical Philosophical Society

( I think most do though - seeings how Darwin's B-day is their Christmas )
Friendly Atheist by @hemantmehta » Celebrate Charles Darwin’s Birthday in Rhode Island)

Aren't you doing exactly what those you attack and appear to disdain do? Take the ideals of a very specific group which share some ideas with a larger group and condemning them all on this basis? Let me give an analogy idea to Christianity.

1) The Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan - established in 1866 as a Christian society, and still in existence today. Ku Klux Klan - would it be fair to say these people represent the views and positions of the modern American Christian church?

2) How about the Christian Identity movement - better known as the Aryan Nations church, though they tend to use that term less these days The Church of the Sons of YHVH / Legion of Saints - do these people represent the views of the majority of Christians in America today?

3) Too modern, lets step away from direct racism and go to the move on to more neutral ground. Sigmund Freud is today considered on of the forefathers of modern therapy, however it is a well known fact that he was one of the earliest proponents of cocaine for its marvelous and miraculous medical uses, for almost 10 years he was an outright addict, prescribing it as the wonder drug of his time (Sigmund Freud - Cocaine Episode - google, there are plenty of other references). Does this obvious lapse in judgment discount everything else the man ever accomplished, by your logic it would indeed.

These are examples of ignorance, often ignorance of the masses at the time. Darwin was not perfect, if you wanted to take the time there are several books and the outright errors in many of his theories. Does this mean that his entire body of work is wrong? If it is, than do the examples above prove that your own religion is evil and racist because there are those who say they are Christians and are openly racist? The logic falls far short. I've arrived in Phoenix at midnight and it is dark, therefor it is always dark in Phoenix.

Not proof, not even a strong aurgment. And one final note, saying " I think most do though - seeings how Darwin's B-day is their Christmas" is anecdotal evidence at best, outright slander at worst. Because someone doesn't believe as you do does NOT mean they believe all you find evil. are not be extension evil because they are different than you are.

S3V3N

 

[Nepenthe]

I understand that Darwin's racism was a product of his time, and I'm glad that he was probably less racist than the average bear, but that still doesn't negate the fact that he was racist, no?

I agree; that was my muddled point. Definitions of racism are obviously culturally influenced so what seemed egalitarian in Darwin's era and social standing would be blatantly racist to us, just as 20 years from now many of the things our culture considers racist may not be considered offensive or vice versa.

And of course, whether Darwin was racist or not, this has no bearing on the ToE, or those who accept the ToE as the method for speciation.

Definitely. That's all that matters.

I just think that it might do more harm denying that Darwin was racist, if in fact he was. Just makes it seem like we're hiding something.

I see where you're coming from but I also don't think it's special pleading to put Darwin's attitudes on race in the appropriate context.

 

[idea]

Wow, this thread is still alive? Was anyone able to argue that atheists see humans as more than just DNA/neighborhood – mere products of nature/nurture?

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.
Who we are is not determined by our DNA – our skin color, eye color, height etc. etc.
Who we are is not determined by they neighborhood we grew up in.

We are not robots whose every motion is dictated by nature/nurture.

We are spiritual beings with free agency whose potential is not confined by our DNA/environment. Seeing others as anything less is unjustly judging who they are.