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.