Skepticism does not seem to matter in all cases.

[Mr_E]

I find it extremely irritating how most atheist proclaim themselves master of logic, and sure do use their skeptic and logical reasoning when it comes to debating religion. But how come so many do not feel the same need to apply that skepticism and logic to all topics? such as the anti racism atheists. Who disregard statistics and facts when debating race related topics, and joining the white guilt band wagon. You see it with many of the atheist youtubers and their followers. The Amazing Atheist said i believe "black and white people commit the same amount of crime". An obvious lie, denying all facts. Veganism as well... Atheist who are completely reasonable people regarding religion, can be completely ignorant as to the fault in their pro meat reasoning. They don't apply the same skeptical thinking to other topics than religion.

[brimstoneSalad]

I've seen the same.
There's definitely a big difference between atheism and skepticism. All true skeptics must be at least implicit atheists (due to lack of evidence of gods), but not all atheists are very skeptical at all about anything else.

And even in the "skeptic" movement, there's a lot of bias, cognitive dissonance, and cherry picking about meat and social justice issues (particularly Islam now).

I personally don't want to touch racial stereotyping with a ten foot pole since it's molten lava, but I won't deny anything you're saying either. That's one of those issues where it makes people so angry, it's often impossible to address.
Your best approach is usually to make it clear that statistics don't say anything about genetics; e.g. it could easily (or at least possibly) be entirely an issue of society and nurture (this is stuff that influences development and thinking patterns from a very young age). That will often make people a little more sensible on the topic, as long as they understand you aren't making genetic claims.

What the Amazing Atheist should have said is that he believes black and white people commit the same amount of crime... when ADJUSTED for income level. Poor people, regardless of race, are less likely to be well educated or fit for employment, and more likely to turn to crime as an 'easy' source of income. That still may or may not be true (I don't know the statistics off hand), but it's an example of how to at least approach the issue from an angle that won't make people explode into a rage.

[inator]

In my experience, people who simply deny facts for the sake of PC are a minority. More people will use these statistics to support their racism. Most people will try to explain them in socio-economic terms, insisting on 'correlation instead of causation'. It's just as unreasonable to assert the existence of "racial" genetic determinants, as it is to completely exclude that possiblity, even if (hypothetically) proven differently.

Perhaps (probably) all of the important differences will ultimately prove to be environmental rather than genetic. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous to rest the case against racism (or sexism) on the belief that all potential differences are environmental in origin. The opponent of racism who takes this line will be unable to avoid concluding that, if differences in ability/inclination did after all prove to have some genetic connotation with race, racism would in some way be defensible.

Fortunately there's no need to to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of scientific inquiry. The appropriate response would not be to stick to the belief that differences between "races" or sexes must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up. Instead we should make clear that the claim to equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There's no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. There are differences in ability within the same "race"as well.

The principle of equality of human beings isn't a description of an alleged actual equality among humans - it's a prescription of how we should treat people.

The Amazing Atheist said i believe "black and white people commit the same amount of crime". An obvious lie, denying all facts.

What the Amazing Atheist should have said is that he believes black and white people commit the same amount of crime... when ADJUSTED for income level.

Who knows, maybe he meant that those statistics should be adjusted for income... Or maybe that whites (in higher economic positions) may commit different types of crimes than people in lower economic positions, but not necessarily fewer? Like less violent crimes, but possibly more sophisticated ones (financial crimes, influence peddling etc.).

[brimstoneSalad]

Well said, Inator. Although I don't agree that it's a direct moral issue, so much as an issue of equality before the law, due to social contract, because the consequences of said equality are favorable (which is where morality comes in -- more 'indirect', following from several necessary premises).
Those with different abilities (such as varying levels of sentience, or even different capacities to contribute) do require different moral consideration outside that social context (or perhaps even inside it, provided that consideration is not being given by the government, and law is not violated in giving it as a private citizen).

The Amazing Atheist said i believe "black and white people commit the same amount of crime". An obvious lie, denying all facts.

What the Amazing Atheist should have said is that he believes black and white people commit the same amount of crime... when ADJUSTED for income level.

Who knows, maybe he meant that those statistics should be adjusted for income... Or maybe that whites (in higher economic positions) may commit different types of crimes than people in lower economic positions, but not necessarily fewer? Like less violent crimes, but possibly more sophisticated ones (financial crimes, influence peddling etc.).

I didn't mean to suggest what TJ meant (I don't know), but what he should have said instead (or even believed) in order to be more reasonable. He may have really meant he believes the crimes to be equal, and that the police just let 'white' people get away with it, thus creating a difference in arrests. He's not very bright from what I've seen (although I don't know how much of that is just the character he plays).

[inator]

Well said, Inator. Although I don't agree that it's a direct moral issue, so much as an issue of equality before the law, due to social contract, because the consequences of said equality are favorable (which is where morality comes in -- more 'indirect', following from several necessary premises).

What I'm trying to say is that the extension of equality from one group to another doesn't imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, nor necessarily give them the exact same legal rights. Whether or not we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of both groups:

Some biological differences between men and women are undeniable, and these differences may result in different rights - campaigning for equality between men and women doesn't mean supporting that men have abortion rights too, that would be meaningless. Since cows can't vote, it's meaningless to talk of their right to vote. And so on.

Equality doesn't require identical treatment, it requires equal consideration. That's the moral aspect I'm referring to. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different legal rights.
But the basic principle - taking into account the interests of the individual, whatever those interests may be - should be extended to all beings, no matter their skin color, sex or species.

Those with different abilities (such as varying levels of sentience, or even different capacities to contribute) do require different moral consideration outside that social context (or perhaps even inside it, provided that consideration is not being given by the government, and law is not violated in giving it as a private citizen).

I agree. To avoid discrimination, individuals who are similar in all relevant abilities should have similar levels of rights - and mere membership in an arbitrary group defined by sex, skin color or species can't be morally relevant criteria for that level..

I didn't mean to suggest what TJ meant (I don't know), but what he should have said instead (or even believed) in order to be more reasonable. He may have really meant he believes the crimes to be equal, and that the police just let 'white' people get away with it, thus creating a difference in arrests. He's not very bright from what I've seen (although I don't know how much of that is just the character he plays).

I don't know him at all. I was just trying to find a reasonable explanation for his claim, since I found it too naive for that to be all there is to it. One can only hope....

[brimstoneSalad]

Some biological differences between men and women are undeniable, and these differences may result in different rights - campaigning for equality between men and women doesn't mean supporting that men have abortion rights too, that would be meaningless. Since cows can't vote, it's meaningless to talk of their right to vote. And so on.

That's so of course, but not what I meant. I meant that different levels of sentience actually require different levels of consideration.

E.g. the brain dead, profoundly retarded, non-human animals, human beings; and there will inevitably even be variation within the species outside the extremes of retardation.

Despite small differences in sentience between Bob and Joe, for example, they should still have equal rights and opportunities before the law, due to the consequences of systematic inequality. But on a personal level, Bob may deserve more consideration than Joe if he is more sentient.

[Mr_E]

Well those were just examples. I apply reason and logic to anything. I had to rethink my entire life view when i stopped being a Jehovas witness. And ever since i have been rethinking anything on a neutral level. Ignoring trendy opinions, media circle jerking and so on. I base all my opinions and thoughts on logic now. But ofc i have to keep many of these completely reasonable opinions to my self, simply because they might be unpopular. Criticism of Islam got me death threats withing minutes of refuting bad arguments with logical ones. I

It is just completely hypocritical when you watch a youtuber, or regular atheist take a reasonable approach and criticize religious people for their lack of reasonable and logical arguments. Only to see them upload videos with their own ignorant views on things like politics. Veganism is the best example. The pro meat arguments are really poor, and most of the time they are purely ad hominem attacks in order to discredit a vegan in a debate. Which is the kind of things that atheist criticize others for doing.

[inator]

That's so of course, but not what I meant. I meant that different levels of sentience actually require different levels of consideration.

E.g. the brain dead, profoundly retarded, non-human animals, human beings; and there will inevitably even be variation within the species outside the extremes of retardation.

Despite small differences in sentience between Bob and Joe, for example, they should still have equal rights and opportunities before the law, due to the consequences of systematic inequality. But on a personal level, Bob may deserve more consideration than Joe if he is more sentient.

Yes, and those differences in sentience don't follow precisely the boundry of species etc.
I briefly addressed this here:

I agree. To avoid discrimination, individuals who are similar in all relevant abilities should have similar levels of rights - and mere membership in an arbitrary group defined by sex, skin color or species can't be morally relevant criteria for that level..

Let's take pain as an example. If Bob and Joe feel pain, the consideration for their interests to not feel pain should be equal. There's no justification for regarding the pain that Bob feels as less important than the same amount of pain felt by Joe.
But maybe Bob is more sensitive and a light slap will induce the same amount of pain in him that a considerably more forceful slap induces in Joe.
According to their different abilities to feel pain, equal consideration for Bob and Joe's interest to not feel pain would lead to different treatments (rights). Whereas a similar level in ability would result in a similar level of rights.
We can apply this to any other interests that individuals may have.

Of course the law can't take every single minute difference in ability between individuals into consideration. It has to group people toghether based on their general ability to have interests - and also based on the nature of those interests, according to their different characteristics.

[brimstoneSalad]

Let's take pain as an example. If Bob and Joe feel pain, the consideration for their interests to not feel pain should be equal.

I don't agree.

There's no justification for regarding the pain that Bob feels as less important than the same amount of pain felt by Joe.

What does the "same amount" of pain mean?
Qualia are very difficult to quantify in the best of cases, and the only way you will succeed at doing so is not by looking at the pain stimulation itself (varying due to thickness of skin, concentration of nerves, numbing, etc.) or the nerves firing to carry that signal or even how the person rates the pain on an arbitrary scale, but by looking at how the person feels about the pain relative to other interests.

But maybe Bob is more sensitive and a light slap will induce the same amount of pain in him that a considerably more forceful slap induces in Joe.

This is distracting from the primary issue, which is how Bob actually feels about that pain, and how Joe feels about it.
I may feel the same amount of pain as another, but be more indifferent to pain in general. I may even feel more pain, but be more indifferent to it than a wuss who cries at the slightest twinge of discomfort.

What matters morally is the net force of will, which is intrinsically hitched to sentience, which is -- for better or worse -- enabled by something like intelligence.

equal consideration for Bob and Joe's interest to not feel pain

But Bob and Joe don't necessarily have the same interest not to feel pain, even if they have the same level of sentience, and they probably don't even have the same level of sentience (which could make a moderate interest of the more sentient Bob more important than the passionate interest of the less sentient Joe).

would lead to different treatments (rights).

I wouldn't talk about treatment and rights in the same breath; rights are a social construct which are necessary by consequence.

Of course the law can't take every single minute difference in ability between individuals into consideration. It has to group people toghether based on their general ability to have interests - and also based on the nature of those interests, according to their different characteristics.

I don't think that's what law does. Law is not a moral agent, necessarily, but one of social stability. People have the same rights not because we cannot practically consider small differences, but because it is necessary to keep them from throwing a fit.

[inator]

But Bob and Joe don't necessarily have the same interest not to feel pain

Ok, I was assuming they have the same interest in avoiding pain. If Bob is a masochist, that changes things. The interest to avoid pain is central here.

and they probably don't even have the same level of sentience (which could make a moderate interest of the more sentient Bob more important than the passionate interest of the less sentient Joe).

Sentience is a measure for the ability to have interests.
If you isolate one interest in two beings and they have the same capacity to have that interest, it doesn't matter what other capacieties a being may have compared to the other. Concerning that particular interest, they should get equal consideration.

However, if there is interaction between that interest and other interests in the same individual, then that will result in graver consequences for the more sentient being, indeed.

Or are you saying that one individual's pain is more important than another's simply by virtue of them being more sentient, and not because it can result in more negative consequences for one of them?

I don't think that's what law does. Law is not a moral agent, necessarily, but one of social stability. People have the same rights not because we cannot practically consider small differences, but because it is necessary to keep them from throwing a fit.

That may be the function of law, but we can still make moral judgements about it.
Opressive and hierachical systems can be just as successful as liberal societies in keeping people in their place.

But the law generally mirrors the level of ethical development in a society.