Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
June 30, 2011


4,260 (1 today)
3 (who?)

Atheism is Racist 101

Journal Entry: Thu Jun 30, 2011, 4:33 AM

Art Status



- 5 - by Future-Blitzkrieg :thumb175694662: :thumb101102976: Stamp - Second Amendment by MauserGirl
:thumb47507256: Love Gasmasks Stamp by junkpile Warning....barbed wire by Big-Argonian
Combichrist by Hitmontop :thumb123004417: EBM addicted by RideFire
:thumb85682633: Violence? Yesplz by Weeniemann Sarcasm is my native language by Frostpebble
Comment Before You Favourite by BoffinbraiN :thumb63442304:

Or "Why "universal human values" don't belong in a scientific worldview".

Though I've veered into the topic for a few times, I decided to extrapolate on the innate hypocrisy of most self-proclaimed atheistic thinkers.

Problem with atheism, is that in most cases it tends to come with a flourishing bouquet of naive liberal ideas, that are more emotionally fuelled 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 debateble anthropological issues - just apply the so favoured 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 specie would flourish. The unsuccessful would perish, inevitably.

Australia, as a continent, is a good example how that works. When Europeans brought common animals on the soil of the continent, what happened was that the species that had been in a rather anxious struggle back at their homeland, found a fertile soil where that competition was absent. Cane toads, cats, dogs and so forth, had no natural competitors on a continent inhabited by primitive marsupials and birds. So what happened, is that they had begun rapidly reproducing and wiping out the native, endemic animals, taking advantage of their physiological makeup and circumstance.

However, would we call cats and cane toads evil racist invaders? Can we demand them to justify their actions of preying upon the disadvantaged animals? Nope. Even though environmentalists try to undo the "harm" the introduction of the species had done to the Australian system, it's more or less a done fact. The marsupials and birds can either adapt - or die out. Such things happened many times in earth history. Man or no man influence, it had happened.

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. It's a scientific fact. If races were equal, then what would happen would be a prologned and painful struggle, not complete domination and whipeout. However, as we observed, it's not the case. What is the case, is that the more adapted specie utilizes the disadvantage of the less developed one. The strongest survive. Hello, Darwin.

You can say: "But hey, it's due to environment! It's because whites had better natural resources/startup points, you can't extrapolate this to a biological level!". But we can, really. The same factors that create subtle differences in the species and sub-species had shaped different races. European timber wolves are bigger and stronger than say, steppe wolves due to natural selective factors, but they both belong to the Canis Lupus genus. Water, amount of sunlight, available food and climate, all which had formed the biological diversity of the animal kingdom, worked over man too. It takes a very uneducated person to deny that. Findings from even decades ago uncovered just how many attempts nature went through before creating homo sapiens sapiens, just how huge the variety of hominids was before they all died out.

Why did they?

Competition. Our ancestors wiped out Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They were fit better. They were racist. They secured their position in their niche, while expanding and conquering the much needed resources. That hadn't changed. It will not ever.

So, the main point is, that if we take science, natural science unabashedly, unabridgedly and for it's face value, we'll see that it doesn't favor loosers. Paleonthologists uncover bones of the who hadn't won the evolutionary race. In science, there is no place for emotions or abstract concepts and moralisation. Observe, report, research and conclude.

If we reverse-guess a theory, we'll get the next picture: the fact that whites - meaning, indo-europeans, caucasians, from the ancient times, had met no competition among fellow races, and instead, subjugated them whenever they encountered each other, it speaks that they are more advanced. The fact that the modern world is shaped according to caucasian design - not even Hun/Han design - speakes about the race dominating their niche.

And that is racist.

For some weird reason, pointing the UNARGUABLE fact that without white people the world we know would never be as advanced and globalized, is considered racist. But declaring stuff like "race is a social construct", for the same reason, is considered scientific. I wonder how atheists would look if someone declared a neutron to be a "mathematical construct", rather than a physical particle.

However, for an atheist to abandon the liberalistic, humanistic mindset is akin to moral castration. But, as we see, it's impossible to preach the supremacy of science, logic and reason without accepting the core facts about humanity. Whenever an atheist is confronted with the aforementioned facts, they drop all the pretense of reason, and begin foaming from their mouths and bringing fallacious, un-scientific arguments that would make a religious zealot proud.

Race is a matter of much emotion, and it is so because it's a very IMPORTANT matter, a matter of survival. You can declare a "post racial" era and unification of all humans as much as you want, but the real world tends to disagree, with the wars, riots, emerging atharkias and new tribalism. It's all about race, because race is the foundation to the evolutionary RACE. Every one of us, except for a few defective human beings brainwashed by the whole "multiculturalism" mythology, subconciously know that, and works in favor of spurring it. We know what race we are, we identify with it, and we want to contribute to it's success. Even if we don't conciously realize it.

Therefore, if one declares themselves an atheist, a supporter of science and reason, they have to accept that they are racist. Science is racist, atheism is racist. When there is no God to dictate morality and ethos, give universal values and assess human existence, only biological reality exists.

And biological reality doesn't really favor, historically, all those who now demand reparations for slavery and genocide. In the end, it's only natural. Afterall, would dinousaurs be offended for being called "pea-brains"?

And, just how scientifical and reasonable is the idea that humanity would one day unite in a cosmic and extactic orgy of coffee-colored mestizos freed from hate, gender, class, and any identifier, and then get wiffed away in the nirvana of an impossible utopia?
Sounds like religion to me, bros.

  • Listening to: Daft Punk - "End of Line"
Add a Comment:
Jesus fucking Christ this was stupid.
"Atheism, social darwinism and racial supremacist ideology are all the same thing, derp."
mr-wistan Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2012
So many problems with this.
For one, atheism is nothing to do with evolution. I have no doubt that most atheists accept evolution - but then most religious people do as well, for that matter. But either way, there is no causal link between the two. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and think evolution is nonsense, just as it is perfectly possible to be a theist and think evolution is obviously true.
For another, you are pretty freely conflating "fitter for survival" with "better" or "superior". One is a scientific judgment, the other is a value judgment, and it's poor thinking to simply equate one with the other - what you have done here is absolutely no different to saying "in capitalism profit is good, therefore Avatar is the best movie ever made". You can make the case that "white people" are fitter for survival than "black people", but this really says nothing about one group being better or superior to the other.
For another, the advantages caucasians have enjoyed in terms of civilisation are largely external to themselves. We rose to prominence largely because we lived in a climate suited for agriculture and stocked with excellent food plants and a wide variety of easily domesticated and highly useful animals. You claim that this simply translates into us being better because those advantages translate to biological ones, but this is mere assertion. It's true that the advantages I mentioned earlier did translate into western/caucasian culture creating ever larger and more efficiently organised cultures in an expanding spiral, yes. But it's unproven at best to claim that caucasian people must therefore have evolved some sort of biological drive to be better. But look around you - those organising systems have been adopted by all sorts of non caucasian groups with considerable success. China and Japan and India all run cultures that work as well as ours in most ways and better in some.

Nice try, but all in all... no. Racial superiority really isn't supported by evolution, and certainly has absolutely no connection to atheism.
PlagueJester Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2011
You know, I /really/ love your blogs.
IreneLangholm Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Atheism has nothing to do with racism: they reject eastern and western religions equally. Including white Christianity. So your statement makes no sense.
earlgrayfascist Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2011
"Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.” — Charles Darwin
jflaxman Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011
There's every chance you've heard about this, but if you haven't, you might find it intriguing. It ties in with some of the claims you've made.


If the above link doesn't work, look up James Watson's career - he was one of the greatest geneticists of all times, but had some controversial views.

For an intelligent disclaimer, get hold of Malik's "Strange Fruit." It's upset people on both sides of the debate.

I've come to believe rational discourse is a lost art in the Western world - in its place we have an ongoing contest in which every participant tries to cast themselves as the most tolerant.

Maintain the rage,

Redfoxbennaton Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
We are not racist. Just because race exist does not mean we hate and think we are superior. We just know there are different races.
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
I wonder if you have ever read about memetics because it takes evolution to the social aspects of humanity (culture, beliefs, religion). And it is these aspects that influence the relative "success" of different social groups, which include races. The race in itself is purely biological aspect - it only determines biological parameters and intellect isn't included in them (or, well, it is, but we don't yet know exactly how). An example: What if you take a black, that was born in European family (for simplicity's sake we'll take that the black parent was already assimilated - and not of African origin)? Will he demonstrate the same flaws that commonly seen blacks do, if he was rised exactly like whites? What I want to say is that it is not blacks themselves that may be inferior but their culture and memes and you shouldn't judge a human just by his skin color but by his actual merit, even if they are correlated.
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
Unfortunately, the existence of Backfire effect ([link]) and generally untrustworthy nature of data in the Internet and mass-media makes it impossible to actually change opinion of people whose point of views are constantly challenged, especially by dumb people, because of a tendency of human brain to ignore facts that contradict present beliefs, so Internet discussions are pretty pointless. One must experience multiple situations when his beliefs are proven false in order to see that they are.
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
To clarify, I'm not an American and not a liberalist, I'm more a sympathizer of meritocracy, and so I am not an "atheist" you may regularly troll in your internets.
Add a Comment: