Debating Christianity and Religion

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

Not a SIN. First off their re only man made moral values. So, being racist depends on the morals of the local community. Another point is that what are the races? According to many biologists there is only one race.

I have heard that if one is anti Muslim you are a racist yet what race are ALL Muslims?

So, like everything it is subjective. The slave owners said the bible approved of salve ownership.

Donray wrote: Not a SIN. First off their re only man made moral values. So, being racist depends on the morals of the local community. Another point is that what are the races? According to many biologists there is only one race.

I have heard that if one is anti Muslim you are a racist yet what race are ALL Muslims?

So, like everything it is subjective. The slave owners said the bible approved of salve ownership.

How can it be subjective if babies are racist?

[Replying to post 3 by Wootah]

Could you prove babies are racist? Sounds like you think people are born with some kind of morals.

[Replying to post 4 by Donray]

I posted the link. Do a quick google search on the topic.

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

It seems to me that this article has produced a click-bait headline and used the word "racist" for that purpose. This statement is at the end (underline mine):

"But the researchers say their findings show that babies may develop racial biases not because of negative experiences, but rather because of a lack of experience with people of other races. When babies interact only, or mostly, with members of their own race, they are shown to favor members of their own race."

Why call this "racist" behavior. If a baby has not yet interacted with people of other races I'd think it perfectly reasonable to expect they would pay more attention to pictures or actions of a person they are more familiar with seeing. It isn't as if they have some sort of "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." (ie. racism, .. Wikipedia). It is just showing favoritism towards a more familiar experience specifically because they have limited life experience. Pure click bait title.

As for the sin nature issue, that would seem to be entirely unrelated to the article about babies and their reactions. If the definition above is an accepted definition of racism, the part about "based on the belief that that one's own race is superior" could not apply to a baby who has yet to develop the capacity to think in that way about races.

[Replying to post 6 by DrNoGods]

If a baby only sees mum and dad's skin colour of course they will be shocked by other skin colours. But its a natural preference. I'd even speculate further it's vital to survival. A baby needs to recognise whether it should cry or not.

https://www.parents.com/baby/all-about- ... en-babies/

Previously, it’s been assumed racial bias came from bad experiences with people of different races. But this research shows it could actually be the exact opposite.

"Racial bias later in life may arise from our lack of exposure to other-race individuals in infancy," Dr. Lee explained. "Infants will learn from people they are most exposed to.�

If babies aren't exposed to different races, they group racial groups together in their mind instead of viewing people as individuals who might be different colors.

"Infants by nature have negative reactions to unfamiliar things and people," Dr. Lee said via email. "Lumping the other race individuals as a group makes it very easy for them to spread their negative reactions to all of them."

[Replying to post 7 by Wootah]

Previously, it’s been assumed racial bias came from bad experiences with people of different races. But this research shows it could actually be the exact opposite.

I think my quibble with the article is the use of the word "racism" to describe what is a natural response of a baby with no life experience to favor familiar things.

If they grow older and develop a dislike or hatred for human beings with different skin color despite having interacted with them in society in various ways to see they are no different, yet still see them as inferior because they think their own skin color group is superior, then they fit the definition of racism.

I suppose the question is whether these types of people retain their racist views because of a favoritism as a baby to more familiar "like me" skin colors, or whether this viewpoint is arrived at completely independent of that experience as a baby.

I don't think the NYPOST article offered anything to answer that question ... all it did was describe a study showing that babies may pay more attention to people of their own skin color (or that of their parents) and used the word racism as click bait for the title. They did not show any correlation between this favoritism behavior in babies to (genuine) racist views as an adult.

I would bet that the favoritism behavior is common to all babies simply due to their lack of life experience, but clearly not all of them become racist adults. So there's no way to conclude, from this study, whether the favoritism seen in the babies has anything whatsoever to do with being racist as a adult.

Wootah wrote: Is racism scientific?

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

hi,
I try reply as quoting from the maximum degree of scientific Source means The Religion..
Otherwise I will be nothing but a fool.


Well,

√ We have a phrase in our Shi'a-Islam names 'Mustadh'af' means poor/ignorant/unknow..

√ Also a verse of Qur'an says: 'God Doesn't Expect one but depending on his ability/position'

√ and a Hadith says: the best race among Arab is 'Hashim' and among Ajam[nom-arab] is 'Persian'

Well,
I meet/live/work among so many non-persian people that they tyrannies me everyday and i amaze about them and sometimes someone remind me the theory of evolution/darwin... and anytime I try put myself on their position and think about their minds, i can't Never!!

But!
If I as one who is from two the best races, means Hashimite[paternal] and Persian[maternal], if i arrive on a level of humanity, and one[depends on quality of race] arrives on the same level I am,
Therefore it's him whom God Will Give him the better Reward! Not me!

Also I've experienced a thing, that race is such as vehicles depending on qualities of races the same qualities/abilities od the vehicles..
Means i think one who carries best races/DNAs in his blood, he is like to for example an 18Wheel heavy lifting.
How!?
Means he is able to carry above 30Tons bars,
This bar can be Gold, can be Shit too!
And i think those the better races as are able to be the best people,
They able to be the worst people too!

And one who his race is like to a bicycle only, his ability to be badness is a few too.
It's only my own opinion as one of the most humble servant of God.
I don't know it's correctness.

Well,
I see many people daily that their morality/behaviours convince me to rising Gog & Magog from God to avenge the same behaviors they have had versus right people..
ref:Re: Gog & Magog - Jabalqa & Jabarsa

Wootah wrote: Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

The answer is 'no.'

Wootah, you used a story from the NY Post for a "scientific" conclusion. The NY Post is not a scientific journal, it is one of the more disreputable tabloid papers. I wouldn't expect the average Australian to be familiar with NY papers, even those owned by Rupert Murdock.

"The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism

Please consider the source the next time you are tempted to make a BIG 'scientific' pronouncement based on tabloid journalism.

"A new, much larger study offers more hope for humanity. It reports American five- and six-year-olds largely reject the belief that an individual's personality and abilities are determined by one's skin color.

The results suggest such beliefs—which are potential precursors to prejudice— "are the product of protracted developmental processes, and require ample cultural input," writes a research team led by Tara Mandalaywala of New York University. In other words, bigotry is an acquired attitude."

TOLERANT TYKES: SMALL CHILDREN AREN'T INHERENTLY RACIST
New research suggests we aren't born bigots. Racial prejudice is something we learn.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/small- ... tly-racist
The study was published in the journal Child Development.