How can theists/atheists justify racism?

[Guitar's Cry]

That poster reeks of the kind of backwards identity politics we see today. Fishing for an argument about why racists are bad but ends up looking like the biggest racist in the thread as a result.

All politics are about identity.

The problem is that modern racism tends to be cloaked in reasonable argument. Peeling away at the intricacies is the only way we can decide if a certain idea (like racial differences being intrinsic or otherwise) is going to impact communities in a positive or negative light.

Remember that racism in the past was cloaked in Christianity and then bad science (phrenology and certain anthropological ideas). It is important to look at reasonable justifications with a skeptical eye. Hence why we debate.

I hear that you are condemning racism. At the same time, your original post in this thread is remarkably similar to the argument by certain white supremacists that our modern technological achievements are due to European advancements during the Industrial Revolution which can be interpreted as a PC way of saying all the other cultures were too primitive (a justification for European imperialism over indigenous people).

 

[Nakosis]

Theists believe all humans are descendants of the first couple, created by God. Atheists believe all life evolved from a common ancestor that appeared millions of years ago and evolved into different life forms, including ours.
Despite our many differences, theists and atheists both believe we have common ancestors. So, if we both believe we come from the same DNA pool, how can anyone justify racism? How ca we see other human beings as inferior, less deserving or less worthy?

I don't know. Apparently it takes the certainty of some truth that is beyond me.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

If a person wants to call names, "racist" is a fav.
as it tends to put the other on the defensive,
where some other name calling will get you a
fist to the nose.

So ultimately it's the perfect "coward's insult."

 

[LiveBetterLife]

You didn't answer my question about black people and basketball.

As I mentioned before, professional used to be mostly Jews and other white people, so something happened to make it mostly popular among blacks. Whatever happened appeared to have happened around the '60s or '70s, which seems to be when basketball became more popular among black people in America. So I don't think the rate of black people who play basketball is because of race.

LOL

People don't just decide to play at an elite level and obtain multi million dollar salaries because they think it's fun or because their grandfather played a specific sport. What planet do you live on?

The genetics enjoyed by athletes who can trace their most recent ancestors to West Africa usually carry a characteristic called "fast muscle twitch fibers" which have been rapidly bred out of every other race.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know what was happening with racial politics in the 60s and 70s in America? Apparently so:

"Whatever happened appeared to have happened around the '60s or '70s..."

Yeah, nothing noteworthy happened regarding the circumstances of blacks in America during the 60s and 70s...

 

[LiveBetterLife]

All politics are about identity.

The problem is that modern racism tends to be cloaked in reasonable argument. Peeling away at the intricacies is the only way we can decide if a certain idea (like racial differences being intrinsic or otherwise) is going to impact communities in a positive or negative light.

Remember that racism in the past was cloaked in Christianity and then bad science (phrenology and certain anthropological ideas). It is important to look at reasonable justifications with a skeptical eye. Hence why we debate.

I hear that you are condemning racism. At the same time, your original post in this thread is remarkably similar to the argument by certain white supremacists that our modern technological achievements are due to European advancements during the Industrial Revolution which can be interpreted as a PC way of saying all the other cultures were too primitive (a justification for European imperialism over indigenous people).

Not a bad take; however I would point out that the issue is nowhere near as simple as "either you condemn racism or you are a racist".

My original point was that the geopolitical, genetic and social factors were what prompted European colonialism. Personally, I don't think race has any role in imperialistic endeavors today because it only takes a few generations for genetics to take on a new character and political/social factors are always rapidly changing.

My post you quoted had much to do with the fact that there are many damaged individuals out there who will be quick to shout "racist" at people due to their own insecurities and twisted understanding of their own individual identities. Much like the hot headed gentleman who thinks professional sports is as accessible to people as the local lawn bowls club.

 

[Audie]

So ultimately it's the perfect "coward's insult."

Never thought of that, but yes.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not a bad take; however I would point out that the issue is nowhere near as simple as "either you condemn racism or you are a racist".

True! Rarely is anything that simple.

My original point was that the geopolitical, genetic and social factors were what prompted European colonialism. Personally, I don't think race has any role in imperialistic endeavors today because it only takes a few generations for genetics to take on a new character and political/social factors are always rapidly changing.

I don't think race had a role in any of the Imperialistic prowess of any culture. That appears more to do with the historical factors, military might, and ambitions of that particular people, none of which are really inherent in DNA.

My post you quoted had much to do with the fact that there are many damaged individuals out there who will be quick to shout "racist" at people due to their own insecurities and twisted understanding of their own individual identities. Much like the hot headed gentleman who thinks professional sports is as accessible to people as the local lawn bowls club.

I get that there are people who cry wolf. But I also get why it is upsetting for people to see potential racism and call it out. Racism is vile, eating at the moral fibers of diverse communities. It has led to many horrible acts. It should not be understated: Racism has no place in modern society.

Take the issue of professional sports. There are likely factors that make certain populations better at things like sprinting or long distance running. But also likely--especially in America--the influence of race on professional sports could be explained through socio-economic factors. Poverty in African-American communities (a result of our history of mistreatment) could lead individuals into sports to acquire college scholarships. Also, sports provide an outlet for the pressures and hardships of poverty, and basketballs and hoops are readily available for use in urban areas. Seeing your community represented in a particular area also provides impetus to participate. It could also be seen as a way of integrating a minority into a culture in a similar manner that music helped integrate African American communities into the larger American culture with Blues and Jazz.

But, let's assume that there are some genetic factors to explain this. Understanding genetic factors can be useful, such as in medicine. It can also be devastating, since creating a stereotyped label tends to determine the course of a person's future and keep that community in a minority status. As a special education teacher, this is something I am very familiar with. Programming for individuals needs to be done as a balancing act. Assuming things about say, a person with autism, can dramatically change the outcome of their future. If an African American sees a community that is primarily represented in sports, but not say, politics or business, think of what that can mean for the community. Similarly, think of the stereotype of the black gang member and drug dealer and what that can do to the community.

So let's consider: what are the stakes versus "playing the race card" and allowing racist ideas to go unchecked? My sense is that those who worry about those who frivolously call out racism are either guilty of racism or unable to accept that racism still plays a role in modern society (which it undeniably does).

And again, there are white supremacists making a visible impact in current American culture by cloaking their racism in seemingly reasonable arguments. It should be consistently reiterated: Anything that promotes the success of one community due to arbitrary genetic makeup over another should be highly criticized and subjected to scrutiny and called out for racism.

 

[Milton Platt]

Theists believe all humans are descendants of the first couple, created by God. Atheists believe all life evolved from a common ancestor that appeared millions of years ago and evolved into different life forms, including ours.
Despite our many differences, theists and atheists both believe we have common ancestors. So, if we both believe we come from the same DNA pool, how can anyone justify racism? How ca we see other human beings as inferior, less deserving or less worthy?

I am an atheist and I never try to justify racism. I think there are a number of causes and those should be explained, but seeking an explanation does not equate to justification.

 

[Bird123]

Theists believe all humans are descendants of the first couple, created by God. Atheists believe all life evolved from a common ancestor that appeared millions of years ago and evolved into different life forms, including ours.
Despite our many differences, theists and atheists both believe we have common ancestors. So, if we both believe we come from the same DNA pool, how can anyone justify racism? How ca we see other human beings as inferior, less deserving or less worthy?

Perhaps, it comes down to a we and they. In some people's struggle to be somebody, be important, have value, have worth in their minds, they must compete with everyone around them. With this in mind, seeing the other guy as rotten helps support the illusion of being better. Further, if others are different or better in some way, it can generate hate in an attempt to justify that better than they idea. Yes, it is a hard lesson and many can get hurt along that path.

I know everyone out there has someone in their life that always has to have the better story, the bigger win, the fancier car or house. I pity such competing people and do point them in the right direction when I can. Sadly, many must go down this bumpy road, hurting and unhappy because they will actually never be better than anyone.

Racism, as I see it, is not about theists or atheists. It's about troubled people choosing hard lessons in order to discover that we are all children of God and that our diversity has always been a strength and a gift. God gave us all diversity so we can have a larger view than any one person could have. We could never see the entire picture without a Wide View.

Be careful with judgment calls. Your next piece of priceless information could come from someone you least expect such as a person of another race.

Religion creates a we and they. We follow our holy book. They do not. We are good. They are evil.

I can't count how many times I have been called evil or the devil simply because I could not blindly follow the beliefs of others.

So let us all take a few steps back. See it as I see it and how it actually is. WE are all wonderful works of art. There is no one in the universe exactly like each one of us nor will there ever be. That makes each of us very special.

Let's give up the WE and THEY. If we choose to embrace US,along with unconditional love, we can only progress to that Higher Level quicker. As we should all realize after looking at history, the smarter we get; the easier it gets. Isn't US the only real viable option? Isn't it really the only intelligent way to be?

Well, that is my view of it all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Excellent summation.

We also have to deal with vile racists like Saint Frankenstein pointing the fingers at others in an attempt to veil their own repugnant racist jabs like "Them white people are good at conquering but black people are only good at dribbling balls!" then claiming the moral high ground. I believe it's an understated issue.

Now you're lying about me and misrepresenting what I said. Yeah, you're a troll with a bad attitude. Report and ignore for you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

LOL

People don't just decide to play at an elite level and obtain multi million dollar salaries because they think it's fun or because their grandfather played a specific sport. What planet do you live on?

The genetics enjoyed by athletes who can trace their most recent ancestors to West Africa usually carry a characteristic called "fast muscle twitch fibers" which have been rapidly bred out of every other race.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know what was happening with racial politics in the 60s and 70s in America? Apparently so:

"Whatever happened appeared to have happened around the '60s or '70s..."

Yeah, nothing noteworthy happened regarding the circumstances of blacks in America during the 60s and 70s...

You still haven't explained why all of a sudden basketball became more popular with black people in America whereas it was a mostly white sport beforehand. So I think the rate of black players is more of a cultural thing than a biological thing. It's like why most rappers are black and most people playing heavy metal are white - cultural reasons.

That stuff about the muscles mostly pertains to track and field athletes, so it's irrelevant to what you said about basketball. There is no settled evidence that black people have genetic superiority in terms of sports. You have to keep in mind that African-Americans have a fair bit of European ancestry, as well.

But I don't really care about anything you have to say any longer so on ignore you go.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

Now you're lying about me and misrepresenting what I said. Yeah, you're a troll with a bad attitude. Report and ignore for you.

If you reread the thread, you'll find that the only person doing any twisting of words was you.

I simply endeavoured to figure out why and suggested that you're either a closet racist or someone with deep seeded identity problems.

No qualms.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

You still haven't explained why all of a sudden basketball became more popular with black people in America whereas it was a mostly white sport beforehand. So I think the rate of black players is more of a cultural thing than a biological thing. It's like why most rappers are black and most people playing heavy metal are white - cultural reasons.

That stuff about the muscles mostly pertains to track and field athletes, so it's irrelevant to what you said about basketball. There is no settled evidence that black people have genetic superiority in terms of sports. You have to keep in mind that African-Americans have a fair bit of European ancestry, as well.

But I don't really care about anything you have to say any longer so on ignore you go.

You a really are beyond ignorant about the stuff relating to athleticism (among other things).

Besides that: kinda goofy that you feel compelled to announce that you're ignoring me and reporting me.

Bizarre that a grown adult can appear to be throwing temper tantrums like a bullied child with a medium like an internet message board.

Good luck with your future emotional regulation

 

[Hockeycowboy]

throughtout (sic) history.....War between Christians was discouraged, but war by Christians against non-Christians was fine.

Can you give at least two examples of this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you give at least two examples of this?

Of which? War between Christians being discouraged or war against non-Christians being okay?

One example that covers both is the treaty between Alfred the Great and Guthrum, king of the Danelaw: it included the provision that Guthrum had to be baptized. Other treaties between Christians and Vikings in this period had similar requirements.

The reason for this provision was that it was considered inappropriate - and to some, maybe even forbidden - to make peace with a non-Christian.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of which? War between Christians being discouraged or war against non-Christians being okay?

What I highlighted...war between Christians.

Rarely, did it make a difference!

I guess this is an example, albeit I think a weak one...
Alfred was vainly pious. And Dane Guthrum really didn’t have a choice, losing the Battle at Edington; then his coerced baptism being incorporated into the treaty. (I guess Alfred thought he ‘won a soul over to Christ’!)

That’s why I asked for two.