Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[Debater Slayer]

The most racist are those who follow the teachings of Darwin.

I don't think Darwin really had any "teachings"; he was merely a scientist who put forth the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution that evolutionary biologists expanded on until it reached the stage it is at today.

I would say that most racists are Christian.
Though Muslims are catching up rather fast and may actually out number Christians here soon.

I wouldn't say that racism is more prevalent among any specific religion's followers, since it is more of a cultural phenomena than a religious one, in my opinion.

 

[A Troubled Man]

The most racist are those who follow the teachings of Darwin.

That is definitely a perfect example of a statement that deserves mock and ridicule.

Thank you for providing it. :bow:

 

[Revoltingest]

I have talked to you before, and know your too smart to not be able to see the obvious implications of non-theistic evolution.

Don't overestimate me smarts, bub.

The professional debaters includeing, Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Barker etc.... Aknowledge the implications of evolution. They have spent hours in debates dealing with this issue alone. Their usual position is that there are no objective standards in evolution which reneders it insuffecient for human need at best and completely impotent at worst.

Well, spluh! It's science, not ethics. Nothing in science prescribes ethics.
The TOE is no more responsible for Hitler than is metallurgy.
In fact, the Nazis were pretty good at the latter.

Non-theistic evolution has been cited by it's supporters as the source of subjective morality....

People may cite anything, but that don't make it cromulent.
No one has yet presented any evidence that Hitler thought....
"Hmmmm....evolution....it tells me to bake the Jews, boil the Gypsies, & crush the Poles!"

 

[McBell]

I will admit that there is racism in every group including Christianity. But there is no justification for this claim you made.

Bull ****.
there are more Christians than any other group.
Muslims are the second largest group on the planet.
So the mere fact that more Christians means that there are more Christians who are racist than there are Muslims who are racist then there are atheists who are racist.

There is no reason consistent with the biblical narrative to be racial. However in evolution there is. Evolution justifies the heard mentality which justifies racism. In fact racism or (groupism) is a definate advantage in natural selection.

you are either to ignorant on the subject to have an honest conversation about it, or you are a liar.

 

[McBell]

.

I honestly don't see how the context is changed in any meaningful way by what you sited. Richard Dawkins is one of many evolutionists that point out the fact that good and evil loose their meaning and context within evolution. Let me illustrate this. If Hitler and Churchill met in 1944, and Churchill said that he had used his reason, logic, and empathy gained through evolution to conclude that what Hitler was doing was wrong and he should stop it. Hitler replies that he used those same methods but he thinks they justify his actions. There is no way consistent with the evolutionary frame work to settle this. Either only force or an external standard like (God) would allow action. There is no escape from the implications of non-theistic evolution. That doesn't mean it isn't true just undesirable if true.
​

Actually, he was pointing out the fact that your merely claiming that god has some sort of absolute morality is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[McBell]

I don't think Darwin really had any "teachings"; he was merely a scientist who put forth the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution that evolutionary biologists expanded on until it reached the stage it is at today.

I agree.

I wouldn't say that racism is more prevalent among any specific religion's followers, since it is more of a cultural phenomena than a religious one, in my opinion.

the fact is that since there are more Christians than any other group, there will be more racists who are Christian than any other group.

It is just like the fact that most accidents involve a red vehicle.
Does this make driving a red vehicle mean you are more likely to get into an accident?No.

The reason most accidents involve a red vehicle is because there are more red vehicles than any other color.

 

[1robin]

Bull ****.
there are more Christians than any other group.
Muslims are the second largest group on the planet.
So the mere fact that more Christians means that there are more Christians who are racist than there are Muslims who are racist then there are atheists who are racist.

Wrong, their are more non-christians than Christians, by your logic I win. If you have any common sence you would know that the total numbers are irrelevant to establish what you are unsuccefuly trying so hard to. The relevant data would be what percentage of a group is racist

you are either to ignorant on the subject to have an honest conversation about it, or you are a liar.

What a completely arrogant and inaccurate description. You have the burden of proof for this pathetic statement. Let's hear it. If this is the case then the hundreds of hours of debates from evolutionists much more knowledable on the subject than you who spend most of the time debateing this very issue don't actually exist. They aknowledge the moral implications of evolution.

 

[1robin]

Actually, he was pointing out the fact that your merely claiming that god has some sort of absolute morality is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Since we were discussing Dawkins how did you manage to warp the discussion into a claim about God. You draw some of the most incorrect conclusions I have ever seen. However even what you state above is refuted by respected scholars such as Zacharias, Craig, Desouza and many more.

 

[1robin]

Don't overestimate me smarts, bub.

Since you obviously can read and that is about the level of knowledge required to see that evolution has implications I will take that chance.

Well, spluh! It's science, not ethics. Nothing is science prescribes ethics.
The TOE is no more responsible for Hitler than is metallurgy.
In fact, the Nazis were pretty good at the latter.

Well if non-theistic evolution is true, then human sanctity is unjustified, and objective concepts like evil and good have no meaning. This is obvious and inescapable. Metallurgy has no implications concerning these issues.

People man cite anything, but that don't make it cromulent.
No one has yet presented any evidence that Hitler though.....
"Hmmmm....evolution....it tells me to bake the Jews, boil the Gypsies, & crush the Poles!"

What in the world is cromulent? Is it a religous event celebrated by Conan. I never said that evolution was the motive. I said it was the justification. Hitler said that the struggle between races is proven by evolution and so he asserted one over the other. He also could use the lack of reason to justify human worth found in evolution and so what is wrong with wiping out the Jews. I mean humans are no different than insects killed by the millions according to evolution.

 

[Gharib]

I would say that most racists are Christian.
Though Muslims are catching up rather fast and may actually out number Christians here soon.

So I'm racist because I responded to the question? Who would have thought.

 

[McBell]

Wrong, their are more non-christians than Christians, by your logic I win. If you have any common sence you would know that the total numbers are irrelevant to establish what you are unsuccefuly trying so hard to. The relevant data would be what percentage of a group is racist

Please let me if know if you are going to actually respond to what I actually ssaid.
I am not the bit interested in your strawmen.

What a completely arrogant and inaccurate description. You have the burden of proof for this pathetic statement. Let's hear it. If this is the case then the hundreds of hours of debates from evolutionists much more knowledable on the subject than you who spend most of the time debateing this very issue don't actually exist. They aknowledge the moral implications of evolution.

Since youa re not even able to keep up with with this simple discussion...

Oh well.
Perhaps you will actually get to back the the topic at hand instead of the strawmem dishonesty.

 

[McBell]

So I'm racist because I responded to the question? Who would have thought.

It would be helpful if you were to stop trying to be offended and actually pay attention to what is actually being said...

Are you interested in actually engaging in actual dialog are are you content making an **** of your self playing the martyr?

 

[Revoltingest]

Since you obviously can read and that is about the level of knowledge required to see that evolution has implications I will take that chance.

Evolution has no ethical implications.
It's just what happens in the material world.
People also try to read moral meaning from the predator-vs-prey relationship, yet it too exists without giving us ethical guidance.

Well if non-theistic evolution is true, then human sanctity is unjustified, and objective concepts like evil and good have no meaning. This is obvious and inescapable.

Good & evil have the meaning which we give them.
It ain't absolute inerrant truth, but it's there anyway.

Metallurgy has no implications concerning these issues.

Exactly!

What in the world is cromulent? Is it a religous event celebrated by Conan.

No, that's Krom.

I never said that evolution was the motive. I said it was the justification. Hitler said that the struggle between races is proven by evolution and so he asserted one over the other. He also could use the lack of reason to justify human worth found in evolution and so what is wrong with wiping out the Jews. I mean humans are no different than insects killed by the millions according to evolution.

Please find me the quote where Hitler used evolution as the basis for his antics.
But even if you can, what does it prove? Hitler also had "Gott mit uns" as a military motto.
Did his belief in God share responsibility with the TOE for Nazi nastiness?
I think not.

 

[1robin]

Evolution has no ethical implications.
It's just what happens in the material world.
People also try to read moral meaning from the predator-vs-prey relationship, yet it too exists without giving us ethical guidance.

It is the source cited as responsible for our ethics by the professional atheists. I think unanimously. They usually only argue over whether objective value exist. Without God evolution is the driving force of all life.

Good & evil have the meaning which we give them.
It ain't absolute inerrant truth, but it's there anyway.

That is a completely insuffecient basis to derive justice from.
A famous atheist once said. If God is not then all things are permissable.

Exactly!

If will just answer all my posts like this it would go much faster.

No, that's Krom.

Please find me the quote where Hitler used evolution as the basis for his antics.
But even if you can, what does it prove? Hitler also had "Gott mit uns" as a military motto.
Did his belief in God share responsibility with the TOE for Nazi nastiness?
I think not.

Hitler did have some religous ideas. However his actions were not justified by religion, they were in direct opposition to it. His actions were consistent with evolution.



Those on the other hand who do not believe that Darwinism is true have no difficulty seeing a very real connection-and they too have plausible arguments. For one thing, there is Hitler’s Darwinian rhetoric-rhetoric that was elaborated on at length in Mein Kampf and later supported by Hitler’s actions (not, like a very few random comments about Christianity, contradicted by his actions).
Hitler frequently appealed to Darwinian logic. Here are a few examples from one chapter of Mein Kampf:
. . . the most patent principles of Nature’s rule. . .
. . . it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level . . .
. . . the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . .
Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
. . . since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health.
. . . exact scientific truth . . . cold logic . . .
. . . the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world. [vol. I chapt. 11, "Nation and Race"]
Hitler is not angling for votes or trying to deflect opposition here. He is stating that the Darwinian struggle for survival-of-the-fittest is the fundamental law of life, and only weaklings don’t accept it.
This is not a question of a few cut-and-paste quotes. Hitler made many references, in speeches and in writing, to nature’s elimination of the unfit as essential to progress. Moreover, in a chapter from a work in progress (Hitler’s Ethic[T&SL1] ), historian and scholar Richard Weikart makes the useful observation that Hitler frequently used the word Entwicklung, and explains that the word can be translated as “development,” but was also used by German biologists to mean “evolution.”[ii] This same source also notes that Hitler never used the word “Darwinism.” I offer my own observation that this can be used to argue either that Darwin was not important to Hitler, or that Hitler saw the progress of animal species (including the human animal species) through struggle and the elimination of the unfit as a basic law of life, not as a theory presented by an English scientist.
EXCERPT: Darwin, Evolution, Haeckel, Hitler and Mein Kampf | Hitler and Christianity

I could supply many quotes from modern evolutionary scholars to support my claims as well.

 

[1robin]

Please let me if know if you are going to actually respond to what I actually ssaid.
I am not the bit interested in your strawmen.



Since youa re not even able to keep up with with this simple discussion...

Oh well.
Perhaps you will actually get to back the the topic at hand instead of the strawmem dishonesty.

Your comments are virtually incoherent. I am not saying that to be sarcastic. I am a fairly intelligent person and like interesting discussion even if I don't agree with the claims of it, but your previous ones to me are illogical. I would be happy to address these points if I could decipher them. Why don't you clearly state a claim and I will address it. Lets consider our previos discussion or attempt at it non-existant and start fresh and try to reduce the disrespectful sarcasm and I will as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the source cited as responsible for our ethics by the professional atheists. I think unanimously. They usually only argue over whether objective value exist. Without God evolution is the driving force of all life.

You're not providing any sourced quotes.
Do I smell a straw man?

That is a completely insuffecient basis to derive justice from.
A famous atheist once said. If God is not then all things are permissable.

I don't know who your "famous atheist" is, but I advise to not believe everything you hear.
Science is all about describing & understanding how the natural world works.
It is not a fault that it provides no moral guidance....that's not it's job.
Clearly, you want us to all have inerrant truth about right & wrong....& religion provides that for you.
But I see that religions cannot agree even on that, so they also fail to provide your desired absolute inerrant truth.

Hitler did have some religous ideas. However his actions were not justified by religion, they were in direct opposition to it. His actions were consistent with evolution.

He had his own version of Xianity. And that is the problem with religion, ie, it's dogma may be bent to justify whatever the individual wants.
So Hitler altered it to suit. You say he got it wrong, & he would've said you get it wrong. Some say terrorism is wrong, while others see it as
God's will. Where's the absolute truth in this?

Those on the other hand who do not believe that Darwinism is true have no difficulty seeing a very real connection-and they too have plausible arguments. For one thing, there is Hitler’s Darwinian rhetoric-rhetoric that was elaborated on at length in Mein Kampf and later supported by Hitler’s actions (not, like a very few random comments about Christianity, contradicted by his actions).
Hitler frequently appealed to Darwinian logic. Here are a few examples from one chapter of Mein Kampf:
. . . the most patent principles of Nature’s rule. . .
. . . it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level . . .
. . . the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . .
Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
. . . since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health.
. . . exact scientific truth . . . cold logic . . .
. . . the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world. [vol. I chapt. 11, "Nation and Race"]
Hitler is not angling for votes or trying to deflect opposition here. He is stating that the Darwinian struggle for survival-of-the-fittest is the fundamental law of life, and only weaklings don’t accept it.
This is not a question of a few cut-and-paste quotes. Hitler made many references, in speeches and in writing, to nature’s elimination of the unfit as essential to progress. Moreover, in a chapter from a work in progress (Hitler’s Ethic[T&SL1] ), historian and scholar Richard Weikart makes the useful observation that Hitler frequently used the word Entwicklung, and explains that the word can be translated as “development,” but was also used by German biologists to mean “evolution.”[ii] This same source also notes that Hitler never used the word “Darwinism.” I offer my own observation that this can be used to argue either that Darwin was not important to Hitler, or that Hitler saw the progress of animal species (including the human animal species) through struggle and the elimination of the unfit as a basic law of life, not as a theory presented by an English scientist.
EXCERPT: Darwin, Evolution, Haeckel, Hitler and Mein Kampf | Hitler and Christianity
I could supply many quotes from modern evolutionary scholars to support my claims as well.

That's a pretty tortured argument that Hitler was inspired by Darwin & evolution.
Hitler was much more specific about God (Gott) being on his side.
Yet I don't blame his religion for his evil.....I blame Hitler for his evil.

 

[gnostic]

I have lived in Melbournian suburb, for most of my life. I was brought up in Melbourne. In primary school and high school, I've encountered racism from some school kids, but I didn't know what each kid follow what religion. In college, it was different, and I experienced far less racial abuses.

If I was to judge by their nationality or ethnic background, I could match this with religion. So perhaps, a couple of Greek-Macedonian, then perhaps Greek or Eastern Orthodox; Italians could be Catholics; white Anglo-Australian could be Anglicans or Protestants or atheists, or agnostics. I was abused by one Turkish boy in high school, he could be Muslim or he could be not; I can't tell. There were a few Lebaneses, but I know they were Christians, and I had no problem with them.

When I was in primary school, there was some sort of Christian or religious subject, which I was excluded from attending; it was not I didn't want to attend, but because they assume that I was Chinese, that I might be atheist, Buddhist or Taoist.

 

[waitasec]

It's the truth. Racism is taboo for Jehovah's Witnesses.

I really don't think religion makes people racist.

i think it can make people religionists

 

[beerisit]

Well if non-theistic evolution is true, then human sanctity is unjustified, and objective concepts like evil and good have no meaning. This is obvious and inescapable.

Regarding objective evil and good.
I view the bombing of Hiroshima, Dresden and London as EVIL, what say the objective viewpoint?

 

[FearGod]

Regarding objective evil and good.
I view the bombing of Hiroshima, Dresden and London as EVIL, what say the objective viewpoint?

Thats good,rejecting evil is your first step towards faith.

So even if the one who threw the bomb over the head of innocents in Hiroshima was a religious one,but that won't let him escape by the severe punishment of god.

i do appreciate your example of how awful the evil work of people killing the others and
thats is the reason that god prepare a severe punishment for such ugly souls.