NationStates Jolt Archive


Social Dawinism

The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:34
Well, what do you think about it. Lets say it has nothing to do with race or religion, just culture.

Do you think the stronger, more advanced cultures were meant to implement their ideas to indigent cultures, or, for that matter, do you beleive that there ARE even stronger more advanced cultures and indigent cultures, or just DIFFERENT cultures?

Keep in mind this is not racist...it could be American culture...with a bunch of different races in it.

This is just on a cultural scale.

Sorry forget the R in Darwinism.....
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:36
I will have to agree with Nietzsche on this. Although, all cultures ultimately influence each other, even if one extinguishes another.

Social Darwinism by the way. ;)
UberPenguinLandReturns
23-02-2006, 04:37
"Strongest" just means best adapted to their enviroment. If whatever technology a culture has is the best to help them survive, they will.

EDIT: Psst, Europa, you forgot the W.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:38
I will have to agree with Nietzsche on this. Although, all cultures ultimately influence each other, even if one extinguishes another.

Social Darinism by the way. ;)

Fuck....a typo in the tittle.

Sorry about that.

Right, but do you agree with concepts like manifest destiny?
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:39
"Strongest" just means best adapted to their enviroment. If whatever technology a culture has is the best to help them survive, they will.

EDIT: Psst, Europa, you forgot the W.

Ok...and do you think the best adapted culture were meant to thrive over the lesser adapted cultures?
Kzord
23-02-2006, 04:40
Neither of the options appeals to me. I don't think cultures were "meant" for anything, I don't think they were the result of a deliberate design.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 04:40
There were some quite advanced cultures, which by our standards were very much desirable, which got wiped out by the Mongols for example.

Social Darwinism in practice always means that you have some sort of criterion to measure which culture is better than another. And as someone probably best described as a relativist, I don't think there is such a criterion.

Ergo, I don't think there are any better cultures.

Scientifically on the other hand, yes, cultures around now have had some sort of advantage over others. But that advantage changes on a case-by-case basis, and so doesn't allow anyone to make value judgements.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:41
EDIT: Psst, Europa, you forgot the W.
I noticed :p Luckily I can edit it though.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:41
Neither of the options appeals to me. I don't think cultures were "meant" for anything, I don't think they were the result of a deliberate design.

Then dont vote.

But regardless of what you think, cultures have been here and are here and have monumentally influenced history.
Anti-Social Darwinism
23-02-2006, 04:42
Given the name of the thread, I just had to respond. Race has nothing to do with culture, religion, however, does. Cultures and religions rise and fall with the needs of the times. Some cultures survive longer than others (the Chinese culture, for instance, has lasted millenia by absorbing the conquerors and making them Chinese). In this context then, the Chinese culture is superior in its adaptibility and flexibility. That, perhaps, marks the truly superior culture - adaptibility and flexibility.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:42
There were some quite advanced cultures, which by our standards were very much desirable, which got wiped out by the Mongols for example.

Social Darwinism in practice always means that you have some sort of criterion to measure which culture is better than another. And as someone probably best described as a relativist, I don't think there is such a criterion.

Ergo, I don't think there are any better cultures.

Scientifically on the other hand, yes, cultures around now have had some sort of advantage over others. But that advantage changes on a case-by-case basis, and so doesn't allow anyone to make value judgements.

So heres a question.

Lets say we had the Swiss culture, and we compared it to the Afghan culture.....would you say that the Swiss culture is no better and no worse than the Afghan culture?
UberPenguinLandReturns
23-02-2006, 04:42
We could pretend the title is said with a lisp.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:43
There were some quite advanced cultures, which by our standards were very much desirable, which got wiped out by the Mongols for example.

Social Darwinism in practice always means that you have some sort of criterion to measure which culture is better than another. And as someone probably best described as a relativist, I don't think there is such a criterion.

Ergo, I don't think there are any better cultures.

Scientifically on the other hand, yes, cultures around now have had some sort of advantage over others. But that advantage changes on a case-by-case basis, and so doesn't allow anyone to make value judgements.
There are ones which are better apt at surviving and conquering though, if to put it that way. As you said, it's a case-by-case basis thing in the end.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:44
Given the name of the thread, I just had to respond. Race has nothing to do with culture, religion, however, does. Cultures and religions rise and fall with the needs of the times. Some cultures survive longer than others (the Chinese culture, for instance, has lasted millenia by absorbing the conquerors and making them Chinese). In this context then, the Chinese culture is superior in its adaptibility and flexibility. That, perhaps, marks the truly superior culture - adaptibility and flexibility.
Agreed.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:44
Given the name of the thread, I just had to respond. Race has nothing to do with culture, religion, however, does. Cultures and religions rise and fall with the needs of the times. Some cultures survive longer than others (the Chinese culture, for instance, has lasted millenia by absorbing the conquerors and making them Chinese). In this context then, the Chinese culture is superior in its adaptibility and flexibility. That, perhaps, marks the truly superior culture - adaptibility and flexibility.

Ok. So then you beleive that some...though only a select few, cultures are superior to other cultures?
UberPenguinLandReturns
23-02-2006, 04:45
So heres a question.

Lets say we had the Swiss culture, and we compared it to the Afghan culture.....would you say that the Swiss culture is no better and no worse than the Afghan culture?

Inherently, no. But depending on location, one will most likely survive better.
Neo Kervoskia
23-02-2006, 04:46
So heres a question.

Lets say we had the Swiss culture, and we compared it to the Afghan culture.....would you say that the Swiss culture is no better and no worse than the Afghan culture?
It depends on what standards you use.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:47
It depends on what standards you use.
Perhaps making optimal use of one's environment and prospering within it?
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:47
Inherently, no. But depending on location, one will most likely survive better.

What the hell does that mean?
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:47
It depends on what standards you use.

Any standard.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:48
What the hell does that mean?
He/she means that some environments lend better to a superior culture developing.

Say like being blessed with huge amounts of oil. Again, herein comes the criterion of optimal use.
UberPenguinLandReturns
23-02-2006, 04:50
What the hell does that mean?

For instance, the Swiss are very neutral. If you place them in between a bunch of violent nations with no mountains, they're screwed. However, a less neutral culture would be more likely to survive.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:50
He/she means that some environments lend better to a superior culture developing.

Oh, thanks for that quick translation.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 04:50
Lets say we had the Swiss culture, and we compared it to the Afghan culture.....would you say that the Swiss culture is no better and no worse than the Afghan culture?
Any standard.
Two things:

1) "Swiss culture" is actually not really any different from any other European culture.

2) If "any standard", then the answer is that neither is better than the other. Switzerland may have more freedom for women to decide on their own lives, but then, Afghanistan is a lot less morally corrupt, and youth alienation is probably a lot less prevalent.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:51
For instance, the Swiss are very neutral. If you place them in between a bunch of violent nations with no mountains, they're screwed. However, a less neutral culture would be more likely to survive.

How do you figure?

The Swiss are very militaristic...just not aggressive. Yes, that is possible.

They like their guns, their defense, their military.....and their natural defenses.

Dont fuck with the Swiss....is a good lesson to be learned.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:51
Two things:

1) "Swiss culture" is actually not really any different from any other European culture.

2) If "any standard", then the answer is that neither is better than the other. Switzerland may have more freedom for women to decide on their own lives, but then, Afghanistan is a lot less morally corrupt, and youth alienation is probably a lot less prevalent.
Wasn't Switzerland the last European country to give female suffrage?
Neo Kervoskia
23-02-2006, 04:52
Any standard.
Adaptibility is the farthest extent I'd take social darwinism.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:52
For instance, the Swiss are very neutral. If you place them in between a bunch of violent nations with no mountains, they're screwed. However, a less neutral culture would be more likely to survive.
If they could adapt, that would be a mark of a superior culture. So again, it's a matter of adaptivity, flexibility and optimisation of what you're given.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:53
Two things:

1) "Swiss culture" is actually not really any different from any other European culture.

2) If "any standard", then the answer is that neither is better than the other. Switzerland may have more freedom for women to decide on their own lives, but then, Afghanistan is a lot less morally corrupt, and youth alienation is probably a lot less prevalent.

The Swiss culture is different from other European cultures.

What about Russian culture, Dutch culture, Spanish culture? They have cultures totally unlike the Swiss.

How is Afghanistan less morally corrupt?

I also wouldnt be so sure about that youth alienation suggestion...
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 04:54
Wasn't Switzerland the last European country to give female suffrage?
I think that sounds about right, but I would attribute that to political circumstances moreson than any cultural differences between Switzerland and Austria for example.

Nonetheless, I still think women's rights are better in Switzerland than in Afghanistan.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:54
The Swiss culture is different from other European cultures.

What about Russian culture, Dutch culture, Spanish culture? They have cultures totally unlike the Swiss.
It's an amalgamation ultimately of German, Italian and French culture. It isn't as unique as you would think.
Pantygraigwen
23-02-2006, 04:54
Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond and stop discussing unquantifiable, illogical concepts like "swiss culture". Every mans culture is his own construct, most especially in the modern era.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:54
Wasn't Switzerland the last European country to give female suffrage?

Yes, but I assume hes talking about the present, where in Afghanistan, under the Taliban, women had no rights at all.
Anti-Social Darwinism
23-02-2006, 04:55
Ok. So then you beleive that some...though only a select few, cultures are superior to other cultures?


I would have to say... yes. A culture that practices, for instance, female circumcision or the confinement of women is not a superior culture. A culture that pulls men off the streets to force them into a religious observance with which they disagree is not a superior culture. A culture that takes everything from it's people and hands it back a little at a time is not superior.
And while there is no perfect culture (American and European cultures, while freer than most, aren't perfect and have their own problems, hypocrisy being big among them) there are cultures that are better than others if only because they try hard to be unoppressive, flexible and adaptable.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:55
I think that sounds about right, but I would attribute that to political circumstances moreson than any cultural differences between Switzerland and Austria for example.
I'm not really that clued up on Switzerland beyond certain basic facts. It surprised me though.

Nonetheless, I still think women's rights are better in Switzerland than in Afghanistan.
I'll agree with you on that.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:56
I would have to say... yes. A culture that practices, for instance, female circumcision or the confinement of women is not a superior culture. A culture that pulls men off the streets to force them into a religious observance with which they disagree is not a superior culture. A culture that takes everything from it's people and hands it back a little at a time is not superior.
And while there is no perfect culture (American and European cultures, while freer than most, aren't perfect and have their own problems, hypocrisy being big among them) there are cultures that are better than others if only because they try hard to be unoppressive, flexible and adaptable.
Agreed. It's relative rather than absolute.
Argesia
23-02-2006, 04:57
For instance, the Swiss are very neutral. If you place them in between a bunch of violent nations with no mountains, they're screwed. However, a less neutral culture would be more likely to survive.
The question is: would they still be neutral were they not to live where they live? And, even more so: doesn't their neutrality rely on relatively recent, and political, developments?
The Swiss were the most sought mercenaries in the Renaissance period. The cantons itself engaged in all sorts of wars: last one in 1848 (Sweden is not neutral and, to my knowledge, still did not have a war that recently).
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 04:57
It's an amalgamation ultimately of German, Italian and French culture. It isn't as unique as you would think.

Yes, but that in itself is unique. All/most European countries have their own unique culture.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 04:57
The Swiss culture is different from other European cultures.
Okay, make it Central European cultures.

How is Afghanistan less morally corrupt?
That depends again on what your moral principles are. If you asked Ayman al Zawahiri or Mullah Omar, they would explain it.

I also wouldnt be so sure about that youth alienation suggestion...
I'd say that youths in Afghanistan don't get much time to wallow in their own teenage problems. Whether or not they're happier is another question.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 04:59
Yes, but that in itself is unique. All/most European countries have their own unique culture.
Indeed. The fact that they are a mix is one of its unique features. Yet it isn't disparate to the point of being 100% authentic.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:01
Okay, make it Central European cultures.


That depends again on what your moral principles are. If you asked Ayman al Zawahiri or Mullah Omar, they would explain it.


I'd say that youths in Afghanistan don't get much time to wallow in their own teenage problems. Whether or not they're happier is another question.

Yes...but would you really say that the Swiss culture and the Hungarian culutre is similar...or even the Austrian culture...although they might be MORE similar than others.

Well, again, I beleive in right and wrong in this world and not just different point of views, so places like Afghanistan and basically the rest of Central Asia I view as wrong, regardless of what muslim leaders say.

So....they dont get any time to be a teenager....how is this good?
Xenophobialand
23-02-2006, 05:02
Agreed. It's relative rather than absolute.

I think he's talking more about a sliding scale than relativism. By his account, freer societies are, in absolute terms, better than less free societies. Generally speaking, I tend to agree: our society, when it promotes things like human rights and condemns things like female genital mutilation, is better than those societies that don't support human rights and endorse female genital mutiliation. This is true irrespective of cultural differences and, to be frank, the fact that they might have a cultural justification for those practices does not make them right.

Now, as for the main point, I'm not entirely sure exactly what you mean by Social Darwinism on a national scale. I suppose you mean to ask whether a society that, whether through cultural dominance or military superiority, becomes a powerhouse is thereby better purely because of that cultural dominance or military superiority. To that I would say no; a society becomes better through its respect for human rights, not cultural force or military might.
Saladador
23-02-2006, 05:03
I picked A) stronger cultures will triumph over weaker.

Don't get me wrong, different cultures are great, and I love different opinions and cultural norms. I don't believe in or advocate violence (in fact i see violence as a cultural weakness). But the fact remains, some cultures are just better than others. Take africa. It has only one civilization to it's credit (Egypt) and even today is factionalized and divided. Yet, it has the best natural resources in the world, and ranks seccond in number of people. You have to conclude that the culture is crappy. I don't know why this is. It may be that those who migrated from africa acquired adaptability skills that were incorporated into their culture, and that's what gave rise to the development of civilization (why native Americans didn't develop quicker then, I don't know). Whatever the case, it's clear that the problems of Africa are, for the most part, cultural.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:04
I think he's talking more about a sliding scale than relativism. By his account, freer societies are, in absolute terms, better than less free societies. Generally speaking, I tend to agree: our society, when it promotes things like human rights and condemns things like female genital mutilation, is better than those societies that don't support human rights and endorse female genital mutiliation. This is true irrespective of cultural differences and, to be frank, the fact that they might have a cultural justification for those practices does not make them right.
Agreed on all points.

Now, as for the main point, I'm not entirely sure exactly what you mean by Social Darwinism on a national scale. I suppose you mean to ask whether a society that, whether through cultural dominance or military superiority, becomes a powerhouse is thereby better purely because of that cultural dominance or military superiority. To that I would say no; a society becomes better through its respect for human rights, not cultural force or military might.
Yet it does spread its influence through being adaptive and flexible, and thus may come to assimilate other cultures in time.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:05
YesWell, again, I beleive in right and wrong in this world and not just different point of views...
So then, define what it is, without requiring me to follow your assumptions and beliefs.

If right and wrong does not depend on points of view, you should be able to use logic to define it, so do.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:06
Take africa. It has only one civilization to it's credit (Egypt) and even today is factionalized and divided.
That is more due to your lack of interest in African history than their inferiority.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:10
That is more due to your lack of interest in African history than their inferiority.
Indeed. That is not to say African culture does not have its problems. It needs to move forward at this point in time.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:11
So then, define what it is, without requiring me to follow your assumptions and beliefs.

If right and wrong does not depend on points of view, you should be able to use logic to define it, so do.

Define right and wrong?

Good and evil.

Slavery and emancipation.

Freedom and oppression.

Corrupt dictators and constitutional monarchies, republics, or democracies.

There way more than that, and it can all be found in the bible and what God tells us is good and what God tells us is evil.

I am not that religious, but I do beleive in the bibles teachings of good and evil and I do believe they exist in todays world, and that our natural laws of good and evil, right and wrong can come from the 10 commandments.

This is my biggest thing about religion.

I am actually not religious....I go to temple about 3 times a year, but this is what I find probably the most important in my religion.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:12
Indeed. That is not to say African culture does not have its problems. It needs to move forward at this point in time.

Yes, while there has been more than just Egypt in Africa, Mali and South Africa are two, African culture, as a whole, seems to have its problems, and those problems where there long before imperialism...although I'm not sure why.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:13
Corrupt dictators and constitutional monarchies, republics, or democracies.
Do realise that an intellectual could argue for any one of these and actually point out ways in which they are superior, one to the other. Elective monarchy can actually be compared more favourably to constitutional monarchy, if you are so inclined.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:14
Yes, while there has been more than just Egypt in Africa, Mali and South Africa are two, African culture, as a whole, seems to have its problems, and those problems where there long before imperialization...although I'm not sure why.
Imperialism. Yeah. The main problem is their penchant for civil war, amongst other things. Hopefully Africa will be able to form a powerful union one day.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:16
Do realise that an intellectual could argue for any one of these and actually point out ways in which they are superior, one to the other. Elective monarchy can actually be compared more favourably to constitutional monarchy, if you are so inclined.

Right...well any kind of enlightend monarchy is what I was getting at, as opposed to a might makes right kind of rule...you know what I'm getting at?
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:16
Fittest is easily and accurately described as "the best attributes for any given niche". A hunter-gatherer society will be more fit in the Mongolian steppes than an Agri-harvesting society. This is the traditional Darwinian interpretation of "fit" so if we are going by that then there is really no "fittest" society, except in its own particular niche. Evolution stresses that life is not evolving toward perfection, just the highest concentration of useful attributes for a given niche. Thus, if Earth became a single environment planet (e.g. "ice-planet", or "jungle-planet") in the vein of say, Star Wars, then one culture would likely rule utterly on that planet until the environment changed or some other evolutionary variable interfered. Once again it must be stressed that this "elite society" would only prevail on that particular planet and if they ventured from there their "eliteness", so to speak, would be severely limited and may even become detrimental to their continued existance in other environments...This is owed to good old fashioned UW Antrhopology and a bit of prior knowledge as well.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:17
There way more than that, and it can all be found in the bible and what God tells us is good and what God tells us is evil.
No, forget religion. Religion doesn't mean anything to me. If good and evil are universal, you can define them without religion, just with reason and logic.

And besides, I don't think the Bible talks about freedom and individualism versus oppression and dictatorship.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:18
Right...well any kind of enlightend monarchy is what I was getting at, as opposed to a might makes right kind of rule...you know what I'm getting at?
Yes, I do. :)
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:18
Right...well any kind of enlightend monarchy is what I was getting at, as opposed to a might makes right kind of rule...you know what I'm getting at?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

Read that. It's silly and simplistic, but some people seem to believe it. Personally, I think it's because they want to be rebels.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:19
No, forget religion. Religion doesn't mean anything to me. If good and evil are universal, you can define them without religion, just with reason and logic.

And besides, I don't think the Bible talks about freedom and individualism versus oppression and dictatorship.
Particularly not the Old Testament, to which he ascribes.
DeliveranceRape
23-02-2006, 05:22
No Darwinsim does not work here, theres just to many variables...Saying that would be saying one race is better than another and thats jsut racist. The only reason European culture's advanced faster than anyone else's was because they fought so many wars against themselves and war advances technology rapidly.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:23
No Darwinsim does not work here, theres just to many variables...Saying that would be saying one race is better than another and thats jsut racist. The only reason European culture's advanced faster than anyone else's was because they fought so many wars against themselves and war advances technology rapidly.
So? Africans fight all the time amongst themselves. So did other cultures. War is a catalyst, but it is definitely not the sole factor.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:24
No, forget religion. Religion doesn't mean anything to me. If good and evil are universal, you can define them without religion, just with reason and logic.

And besides, I don't think the Bible talks about freedom and individualism versus oppression and dictatorship.

Well thats obviously your point of view, but I cant just "forget religion".

From religion I have learned right and wrong, good and evil so that I dont have to define it, I just know that some things are good and some are evil...if you dont see the world in good and evil, then I guess I cant really explain it to you.

No the Bible doesnt, which is why I listed those seperatly before I started talking about religion, look at my post.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:26
No the Bible doesnt, which is why I listed those seperatly before I started talking about religion, look at my post.
The New Testament itself (with particular regard to Jesus) goes a long way in establishing personal freedoms and is anti-opression. The Old Testament is more traditional in its outlook. So when you say Bible, distinguish which section you mean.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:26
So? Africans fight all the time amongst themselves. So did other cultures. War is a catalyst, but it is definitely not the sole factor.

I agree....the (American) indians fought tons of wars as well, but some how werent up to par with the Euros, save the calendar.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:27
I agree....the (American) indians fought tons of wars as well, but some how werent up to par with the Euros, save the calendar.
Yes. To think that war in and of itself is the sole catalyst for building advanced civilisations is childish.

PS: Sent you a TG btw.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:29
The New Testament itself (with particular regard to Jesus) goes a long way in establishing personal freedoms and is anti-opression. The Old Testament is more traditional in its outlook. So when you say Bible, distinguish which section you mean.

lol...obviously the Old Testament as I dont follow the New one. ;)

Yes, the Old Testament is obvioulsly, well, old and traditional, but it states the basic values that one should have a defines right and wrong, good and evil, which I find the most important aspect of religion. These values and beleifs are shared between Christians and Jews because they are traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Pantygraigwen
23-02-2006, 05:30
So? Africans fight all the time amongst themselves. So did other cultures. War is a catalyst, but it is definitely not the sole factor.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, i already mentioned it and none of you took any notice. Answers all your questions about speed of development, cultures rising to dominance etc.

You know what western culture's dominance over the world is essentially based on? Shape of the Eurasian landmass allowing technological exchange over a vast area at roughly the same climactic conditions (sheep herding could travel as a concept from - say - Southern China to France at the same time that wheat farming was heading the other way. Such exchange couldn't take place in other continents because despite of the technology emerging in them, each was on a north south axis, and had vast zones in the middle of land were the technology didn't work, and thus didn't migrate through - sheep herding could have been huge in both prehistoric South Africa and North Africa, but there was this big chunk of jungle in the way, so it got confined to the top) and also the prehistoric distribution of major domesticated mammals (also useful for the development of resistance to disease, sleep with your pigs in the same mud hut, you or your descendants very quickly develop an immunity to whatever diseases they carry) - which Eurasia got the lions share of - and the prehistoric distribution of domesticable crops - which Eurasia got the lions share of.

The phrase "cosmic lottery" springs to mind.
Vittos Ordination2
23-02-2006, 05:30
Well, what do you think about it. Lets say it has nothing to do with race or religion, just culture.

Do you think the stronger, more advanced cultures were meant to implement their ideas to indigent cultures, or, for that matter, do you beleive that there ARE even stronger more advanced cultures and indigent cultures, or just DIFFERENT cultures?

Keep in mind this is not racist...it could be American culture...with a bunch of different races in it.

This is just on a cultural scale.

Sorry forget the R in Darwinism.....

Like natural darwinism, it is not meant to be. It is simply the effect of interaction and scarcity. There is no credence to the "white man's burden."

But I do believe there are more advanced and civilized cultures than others.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:31
lol...obviously the Old Testament as I dont follow the New one. ;)

Yes, the Old Testament is obvioulsly, well, old and traditional, but it states the basic values that one should have a defines right and wrong, good and evil, which I find the most important aspect of religion. These values and beleifs are shared between Christians and Jews because they are traditional Judeo-Christian values.
That depends on if you consider the NT and the OT as one composite entity, or if you ascribe only to the NT or OT. They do share many values and beliefs though.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:32
*snip*
I was advancing an argument against war being the sole catalyst of civilisational advancement, not African culture. It was used as an illustration to prove the opposite.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:32
It basically comes down to the fact that if you need to improve your society for any reason you will. Europeans came from Romans came from Greeks, all of these felt the need to achieve more through some type of technology. Southeast Asian, or various African, or Native American cultures were not so technology oriented. If they beleived they needed to improve themselves they did so along various other lines of cultural "advancement". Technology should not measure a cultures degree of worth or superiority. How many Americans are happier than Southeast Asians? I dont know either but I bet that those with simpler lives are also happier, my opinion of course.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:33
Well thats obviously your point of view, but I cant just "forget religion".
No, you don't get it.

If morality is universal, and there is a good and an evil, regardless of point of view, then it can't matter that I don't have the same religion as you.

You should still be able to tell me what is good and what is evil, because it is a truth that can be derived by other means (ie reason or basic emotion). Emotion is out of the picture, because it is obvious that not everyone feels the same way about things like murder and theft, and thus it's not really neutral.

So reason is the only way you can prove to me that morality exists independent of the point of view. Do it, or admit that all you have is your own personal convictions, which mean nothing outside your own mind.
Mirkana
23-02-2006, 05:34
While some cultures are stronger in some ways than others, cultures should not impose their ideas on others.
Pantygraigwen
23-02-2006, 05:34
I was advancing an argument against war being the sole catalyst of civilisational advancement, not African culture. It was used as an illustration to prove the opposite.

I am aware of this, but i'm making the essential point that none of you seem to have grasped:-

Social Darwinism is an intellectual dead end. The reason a culture grows dominant is not because it is inherently more suited to it's environment. It's that it's environment is inherently more suited to produce a dominant culture.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:34
That depends on if you consider the NT and the OT as one composite entity, or if you ascribe only to the NT or OT. They do share many values and beliefs though.

True, and of course it does...thats what makes Christians and Jews so close.

Christians are just like the more updated and modern version of Jews, while Jews are the most prehistoric (lol) and traditional version of Christians....but we all still have the same religion, more or less.

I sent you a TG back.
Xenophobialand
23-02-2006, 05:36
lol...obviously the Old Testament as I dont follow the New one. ;)

Yes, the Old Testament is obvioulsly, well, old and traditional, but it states the basic values that one should have a defines right and wrong, good and evil, which I find the most important aspect of religion. These values and beleifs are shared between Christians and Jews because they are traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Coming from a Christian, I would say that both the Old and New Testament have a lot of wisdom in them, but those nuggets of wisdom are surrounded by acts of both God and man that boggle the mind with their sheer immorality, and never even approach the level of an argument for what morality is and why. The best we get with the Bible is more or less blanket and inconsistent statements for the immorality or morality of actions, not first causes. To be honest, the best thing IMO that ever happened to "Judeo-Christian values" was the intersection of Biblical scripture with Aristotelian logic, because that at least allows us to understand why things are immoral, not simply getting statements from God that something is immoral.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:36
I am aware of this, but i'm making the essential point that none of you seem to have grasped:-

Social Darwinism is an intellectual dead end. The reason a culture grows dominant is not because it is inherently more suited to it's environment. It's that it's environment is inherently more suited to produce a dominant culture.
I am well aware of this. Even in flourishing environments though, certain cultures may still not advance due to their inability to optimise what they are given. I am not saying this is the case with Africa, but it can be a characteristic of a culture.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:37
No, you don't get it.

If morality is universal, and there is a good and an evil, regardless of point of view, then it can't matter that I don't have the same religion as you.

You should still be able to tell me what is good and what is evil, because it is a truth that can be derived by other means (ie reason or basic emotion). Emotion is out of the picture, because it is obvious that not everyone feels the same way about things like murder and theft, and thus it's not really neutral.

So reason is the only way you can prove to me that morality exists independent of the point of view. Do it, or admit that all you have is your own personal convictions, which mean nothing outside your own mind.

Dude...I'm not going to convert you to Judeo-Christian concepts. If you dont beleive in universal right and wrong, whatever its you. I'm just saying that God tells us thats how it is...and I truley believe thats the way we shoudl live by. The 10 commandments are the fundemental laws that every soceity should have.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:38
True, and of course it does...thats what makes Christians and Jews so close.

Christians are just like the more updated and modern version of Jews, while Jews are the most prehistoric (lol) and traditional version of Christians....but we all still have the same religion, more or less.

I sent you a TG back.
I adhere to the ideas set forth by Jesus really. Beyond those, I think too much is subjective interpretation. The historical links are there in any case.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:39
I am well aware of this. Even in flourishing environments though, certain cultures may still not advance due to their inability to optimise what they are given. I am not saying this is the case with Africa, but it can be a characteristic of a culture.

But...Africa has plenty of different great envirornments to flourish in, yet no civilizations have done it, why?

In my opinion, there something else, its not just that simple..you know?
Pantygraigwen
23-02-2006, 05:39
I am well aware of this. Even in flourishing environments though, certain cultures may still not advance due to their inability to optimise what they are given. I am not saying this is the case with Africa, but it can be a characteristic of a culture.

There is a great deal of good fortune involved, yes. And there would need to be a period where contact with a less intellectually dominant but maybe more immediately warlike and vigorous culture should be avoided. And one should stop oneself from making the mistake of the Carthaginians and not chop down the trees in the Libyan forests to build fleets to fight Rome, leading to massive deforestation, the destruction of your agricultural base and the eventual development of the Sahara desert. But, as i said, the main discussion starts with a false premise and continues with one.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:40
True, and of course it does...thats what makes Christians and Jews so close.

Christians are just like the more updated and modern version of Jews, while Jews are the most prehistoric (lol) and traditional version of Christians....but we all still have the same religion, more or less.

I sent you a TG back.

Then Muslims would be the most "modern" incarnation, as you have been stating? Islam follows both the old and new testaments and adds the Koran as the final clarification of God's word. They are all of the Abrahamic tradition and thus if you talk about Islam you must include both Christianity and Judaism, and so on. Judaism is the "mother-religion" so to speak and the others are all more and more related as we follow our history.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:40
There is a great deal of good fortune involved, yes. And there would need to be a period where contact with a less intellectually dominant but maybe more immediately warlike and vigorous culture should be avoided. And one should stop oneself from making the mistake of the Carthaginians and not chop down the trees in the Libyan forests to build fleets to fight Rome, leading to massive deforestation, the destruction of your agricultural base and the eventual development of the Sahara desert. But, as i said, the main discussion starts with a false premise and continues with one.
It depends on whose arguments you referred to. I still base mine on the factors of environment, cultural adaptibility and the ability to optimise what you are given.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:40
Dude...I'm not going to convert you to Judeo-Christian concepts. If you dont beleive in universal right and wrong, whatever its you. I'm just saying that God tells us thats how it is...and I truley believe thats the way we shoudl live by. The 10 commandments are the fundemental laws that every soceity should have.
You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot expect anyone to accept your claims to universal morality if you can't argue them.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:42
Then Muslims would be the most "modern" incarnation, as you have been stating? Islam follows both the old and new testaments and adds the Koran as the final clarification of God's word. They are all of the Abrahamic tradition and thus if you talk about Islam you must include both Christianity and Judaism, and so on. Judaism is the "mother-religion" so to speak and the others are all more and more related as we follow our history.

Yes, but in my biased/xenophobic,anti-muslim/whateveryouwanttocallit opinion, Islam went wrong. Or maybe it didnt go wrong, it just stopped progressing. Or maybe it started declining, for whatever reason. I dunno, I just feel that Islam went wrong somewhere along the line, but who knows, it may change some day.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:43
Then Muslims would be the most "modern" incarnation, as you have been stating? Islam follows both the old and new testaments and adds the Koran as the final clarification of God's word. They are all of the Abrahamic tradition and thus if you talk about Islam you must include both Christianity and Judaism, and so on. Judaism is the "mother-religion" so to speak and the others are all more and more related as we follow our history.
Indeed, though wouldn't Islam also be the most distant one from Judaism then? Or perhaps NT Christianity would be, from an ideological standpoint.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:43
Yes, but in my biased/xenophobic,anti-muslim/whateveryouwanttocallit opinion, Islam went wrong. Or maybe it didnt go wrong, it just stopped progressing. Or maybe it started declining, for whatever reason. I dunno, I just feel that Islam went wrong somewhere along the line, but who knows, it may change some day.

This is in no way meant to start a controversy but I am curious how much you know about Islam?
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:44
You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot expect anyone to accept your claims to universal morality if you can't argue them.

There are some things you just dont argue.

Thats what faith is all about.

The purpose of the Bible is to give us guidelines on how to rightfully live our life.

Its not something I am going to argue.

If you dont beleive in it, whatever. If you dont beleive in God, whatever.

Probably nothing I can do to change your mind except hope that one day you change your views.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:45
This is in no way meant to start a controversy but I am curious how much you know about Islam?

Enough to make a decision for myself, but probably not enough to try to convice other people of my decision, which is why I'm not going to try to convince other peopel of my decision, ;) .
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:46
Probably nothing I can do to change your mind except hope that one day you change your views.
I'm a man of reason, so I'll tell you what you can do:

Make a rational argument to defend or support your views. I respect that.

I don't respect "That's just how it is, either you believe it or you don't."
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:46
Indeed, though wouldn't Islam also be the most distant one from Judaism then? Or perhaps NT Christianity would be, from an ideological standpoint.

I agree that Islam is probably the most distant from Judaism (in comparrison to Christianity). But is it really distant or has is added more and more to the traditions of Judaism and Christianity that may have grown stagnant? Hasn't it really just continued the traditions?
Argesia
23-02-2006, 05:47
There are some things you just dont argue.

Thats what faith is all about.

The purpose of the Bible is to give us guidelines on how to rightfully live our life.

Its not something I am going to argue.

If you dont beleive in it, whatever. If you dont beleive in God, whatever.

Probably nothing I can do to change your mind except hope that one day you change your views.
Oh, man. You really are that obtuse?
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:48
I agree that Islam is probably the most distant from Judaism (in comparrison to Christianity). But is it really distant or has is added more and more to the traditions of Judaism and Christianity that may have grown stagnant? Hasn't it really just continued the traditions?
It has, on a certain level. Although I think all three differ quite substantially. The New Testament at its very core perhaps the most from all of them. Also, stagnation doesn't seem to be the case. Christianity's constant fragmentation would imply the opposite.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:48
Enough to make a decision for myself, but probably not enough to try to convice other people of my decision, which is why I'm not going to try to convince other peopel of my decision, ;) .

Good reply! Very cleveraly done. However, If your anti-Islam views stem from anything to do with terrorism or views of oppressive Muslims, a deeper look into that religion and culture may indeed be warranted.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:49
I'm a man of reason, so I'll tell you what you can do:

Make a rational argument to defend or support your views. I respect that.

I don't respect "That's just how it is, either you believe it or you don't."

But thats what YOUR not understanding.

Religion is not something you can force people to accept. Thats what the Crusaders didndt understand, and that is what modern muslims dont understand.

The whole point of religion, is it is something beyond humanity, that is sent down by a higher being to show us how to act correctly.

You cant force people to beleive that, theres no debate about it.

Thats just how it is...thats the whole concept of faith, a concept you are having trouble understanding.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:50
Good reply! Very cleveraly done. However, If your anti-Islam views stem from anything to do with terrorism or views of oppressive Muslims, a deeper look into that religion and culture may indeed be warranted.

Those two are just the icing on top.

Anyway I am not going to hide my anti-muslim views...but I would never act violently on them and am not going to try to make anyone adopt them.

Its just the way I, along with my family feel.
Argesia
23-02-2006, 05:51
a concept you are having trouble understanding.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:52
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Instead of just adding a few of your cents here and there, why not...HERES A CRAZY IDEA...add to the conversation??!!
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:53
It has, on a certain level. Although I think all three differ quite substantially. The New Testament at its very core perhaps the most from all of them. Also, stagnation doesn't seem to be the case. Christianity's constant fragmentation would imply the opposite.

Agreed, although American and indeed Western media may have led us astray to the truth about Islam. Islam is also a very fragmented religion, which contains variables on top of one another, despite a major goal of Islam to not stray from God's Truth (yes with a capital "t"). There is the obvious Shi'a/Sunni schism but there are many more different sects that people just arent away of that are also "furthering" that religion.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:53
I'm a man of reason, so I'll tell you what you can do:

Make a rational argument to defend or support your views. I respect that.

I don't respect "That's just how it is, either you believe it or you don't."
I don't think he is trying to convince you of his views though. He is merely stating his viewpoint.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 05:53
Thats just how it is...thats the whole concept of faith, a concept you are having trouble understanding.
Who cares about faith?

The point is that you said there was a universal morality, a real right and wrong, independent of view point.

Religion is a collection of points of view, correct?

Therefore, good and evil are independent of religion, and you have to explain them to me without resorting to the Bible.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:54
Agreed, although American and indeed Western media may have led us astray to the truth about Islam. Islam is also a very fragmented religion, which contains variables on top of one another, despite a major goal of Islam to not stray from God's Truth (yes with a capital "t"). There is the obvious Shi'a/Sunni schism but there are many more different sects that people just arent away of that are also "furthering" that religion.
Indeed. Which would further the notion that neither belief has stagnated. I am not so sure on Judaism though. It eludes me.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:55
I don't think he is trying to convince you of his views though. He is merely stating his viewpoint.

Thank you buddy....The whole point of my posts was all the stuff I was talking about has to be beleived through faith and not simply just convinced of in an arguement.

I was never trying to convice Neu Leonstein....I was trying to say its something that we CANT do.
Argesia
23-02-2006, 05:55
Instead of just adding a few of your cents here and there, why not...HERES A CRAZY IDEA...add to the conversation??!!
Man, I would. But check this out: two people have already tried to explain an otherwise simple concept to you. You don't even realize that your answers are completely non-related to the point.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 05:56
Those two are just the icing on top.

Anyway I am not going to hide my anti-muslim views...but I would never act violently on them and am not going to try to make anyone adopt them.

Its just the way I, along with my family feel.

I think that everyone has the complete right to view whatever they want in any light they want, I just am not an advocate of ignorance. I'm not saying you are ignorant, but I do think that a grouping of such a vast religion is at least irresponsible and at most absolutely wrong. But as Voltair (supposedly) said "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:57
Who cares about faith?

The point is that you said there was a universal morality, a real right and wrong, independent of view point.

Religion is a collection of points of view, correct?

Therefore, good and evil are independent of religion, and you have to explain them to me without resorting to the Bible.

Dude...starting off a post with who cares about faith is just stupid.

Religion is the acceptance of a higher being who knows all and through religion we can follow his ways to build a better soceity..whats wrong with that?

I cant explain them to you without resorting from the Bible, because good and evil, thus values COME from the Bible.

Which part of this arent you understanding?
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:57
Thank you buddy....The whole point of my posts was all the stuff I was talking about has to be beleived through faith and not simply just convinced of in an arguement.

I was never trying to convice Neu Leonstein....I was trying to say its something that we CANT do.
Based on your belief system anyway. If you were attempting to convince him, then I would see the need for the use of logic-based reasoning.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:57
Man, I would. But check this out: two people have already tried to explain an otherwise simple concept to you. You don't even realize that your answers are completely non-related to the point.

Your missing the point too.

Nevermind, run along.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 05:58
I think that everyone has the complete right to view whatever they want in any light they want, I just am not an advocate of ignorance. I'm not saying you are ignorant, but I do think that a grouping of such a vast religion is at least irresponsible and at most absolutely wrong. But as Voltair (supposedly) said "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Voltaire. Yes.
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 05:59
Based on your belief system anyway. If you were attempting to convince him, then I would see the need for the use of logic-based reasoning.

Exactly...but the whole point of my posts have been to show that I am NOT trying to convince him or anyone...thats just what I beleive.

*Wipes sweat of forehead*
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 06:00
I think that everyone has the complete right to view whatever they want in any light they want, I just am not an advocate of ignorance. I'm not saying you are ignorant, but I do think that a grouping of such a vast religion is at least irresponsible and at most absolutely wrong. But as Voltair (supposedly) said "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Gotchya, thanks, and yes we just did agree to disagree...:p
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:00
Indeed. Which would further the notion that neither belief has stagnated. I am not so sure on Judaism though. It eludes me.

Me as well, of the three Judaism is the one that I am least informed on. I think stagnation was a poor choice on my part and I apologize, but I do think that at the time when Islam came about (approx. 600AD) that Christianity was indeed in the process of stagnation (and at such a young age:( ) and that Islam built upon Christianity and built a very valid, widely held beleif structure, that, at the time, was probably more "progressive" than either Christianity or Judaism, simply because it included both of those faiths and added its own "touch".
Argesia
23-02-2006, 06:02
Your missing the point too.

Nevermind, run along.
What is the point, pray repeat your mantra? That you believe in the Bible? Bravo. And now, please explain how you can communicate good and evil to someone who doesn't believe? You pray for him? That it? Because, let me tell you, that is forever one-sided. Man, you sure can selected yourself a position that maintains privilege in front of common logic.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:03
Me as well, of the three Judaism is the one that I am least informed on. I think stagnation was a poor choice on my part and I apologize, but I do think that at the time when Islam came about (approx. 600AD) that Christianity was indeed in the process of stagnation (and at such a young age:( ) and that Islam built upon Christianity and built a very valid, widely held beleif structure, that, at the time, was probably more "progressive" than either Christianity or Judaism, simply because it included both of those faiths and added its own "touch".
Pure Christianity is extremely progressive, even by modern standards. Its dilutions are not though, and neither were they at the time.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 06:05
Which part of this arent you understanding?
Well, again, I beleive in right and wrong in this world and not just different point of views, so places like Afghanistan and basically the rest of Central Asia I view as wrong, regardless of what muslim leaders say.

That is what you said. My point was that you need criteria to tell whether a culture is better than another. Apparently, an important criterion for you is morality, whether or not a culture has the "right" ideals.

So the discussion about what are the "right" ideals is central to finding out whether a culture can be better than another, independent of environment.

Because it is obvious that not all cultures follow your religion, therefore there must be some moral principle independent of religion. And I ask you to define it.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:05
Gotchya, thanks, and yes we just did agree to disagree...:p

Do you see this wonderful model everyone? A nice cultured argument between two individuals who disagree that did not break down into yelling and name-calling. Agree to Disagree (Ron Burgendy), nice touch. This is how debates should go, respect your opponents view and state your own, fighting just causes trouble. Follow this example and we will all be happy.

"You stay classy....WORLD!"
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 06:07
What is the point, pray repeat your mantra? That you believe in the Bible? Bravo. And now, please explain how you can communicate good and evil to someone who doesn't believe? You pray for him? That it? Because, let me tell you, that is forever one-sided. Man, you sure can selected yourself a position that maintains privilege in front of common logic.

I wasnt trying to communicate anything to him, I told him it was impossible to do so.

God, actually read the posts before you act a fool.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:07
Pure Christianity is extremely progressive, even by modern standards. Its dilutions are not though, and neither were they at the time.

The trouble would be finding that purity in any religion though, don't you agree?
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:08
Do you see this wonderful model everyone? A nice cultured argument between two individuals who disagree that did not break down into yelling and name-calling. Agree to Disagree (Ron Burgendy), nice touch. This is how debates should go, respect your opponents view and state your own, fighting just causes trouble. Follow this example and we will all be happy.

"You stay classy....WORLD!"
As you will soon come to find here, most people will always disagree to disagree. It's worth a try though :p
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 06:08
Do you see this wonderful model everyone? A nice cultured argument between two individuals who disagree that did not break down into yelling and name-calling. Agree to Disagree (Ron Burgendy), nice touch. This is how debates should go, respect your opponents view and state your own, fighting just causes trouble. Follow this example and we will all be happy.

"You stay classy....WORLD!"

Eh.."Go fuck yourself.....San Diego!"
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 06:09
That is what you said. My point was that you need criteria to tell whether a culture is better than another. Apparently, an important criterion for you is morality, whether or not a culture has the "right" ideals.

So the discussion about what are the "right" ideals is central to finding out whether a culture can be better than another, independent of environment.

Because it is obvious that not all cultures follow your religion, therefore there must be some moral principle independent of religion. And I ask you to define it.

Sure...the basic universal laws to start with.

The big 10.

You dont have to follow my religion to abide by them. But they would greatly improve any state that had them.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:09
The trouble would be finding that purity in any religion though, don't you agree?
Yes. They all become subjectively interpreted tools for furthering policy considerations. Their open-endedness lends to this. Even though I can identify myself as an (agnostic) Christian, I would only stick to the notions outlined by Jesus. I have a respect for Catholicism, but much about it sometimes dismays me. All religions are prone to being manipulated in time and being used for ulterior motives.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:10
Eh.."Go fuck yourself.....San Diego!"

A valid point, LT can't carry the Chargers on his back forever. ;)
Argesia
23-02-2006, 06:11
I wasnt trying to communicate anything to him, I told him it was impossible to do so.

God, actually read the posts before you act a fool.
While I am flattered that you called me your God, let me point out that you had started your posts by saying you could define good and evil on the basis of a common thing. You seemed intrigued that somebody would challenge you, and pulled out the Bible (which is the least likely object to create common ground).
That is what I read in your posts, son.
Neu Leonstein
23-02-2006, 06:13
The big 10.
Then prove why they are universal. Not everyone is Jewish or Christian, so why should they follow the commandments?

It's obvious that they could, but you were implying that they have to to be considered "good". So you have to argue without resorting to points of view why that is true for every person on the planet, regardless of their religion and opinions.
Argesia
23-02-2006, 06:13
Sure...the basic universal laws to start with.

The big 10.

You dont have to follow my religion to abide by them. But they would greatly improve any state that had them.
Yeah, go and tell the Hindus that it'll do them a lot of good not to worship idols. And tell them that this is a neutral, humanitarian, point of view, one equal to not commiting murder.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:14
Then prove why they are universal. Not everyone is Jewish or Christian, so why should they follow the commandments?

It's obvious that they could, but you were implying that they have to to be considered "good". So you have to argue without resorting to points of view why that is true for every person on the planet, regardless of their religion and opinions.
And trust me, not even all Christians follow them, especially ones who draw a dichotomy between the Old and the New Testament.
Vittos Ordination2
23-02-2006, 06:15
Sure...the basic universal laws to start with.

The big 10.

You dont have to follow my religion to abide by them. But they would greatly improve any state that had them.

*cough*horseshit*cough*
Moderatine
23-02-2006, 06:16
This is poorly worded. "mean`t to" is the antithesis of the Darwinist position - nothing is meant, everything just happens by AMORAL cause and effect. That`s where the Social Darwinist gets confused. Realpolitik has nothing to do with morality. So the question gets restated -

Do better adapted nations/cultures win out over less adapted ones.

Duh, yes, under conditions of untrammelled competition, of course they do.

Should they? Another question entirely. Being better fitted for circumstances does not necessarily entail a MORAL or CULTURAL superiority. All depends on how you look at it.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:16
Yes. They all become subjectively interpreted tools for furthering policy considerations. Their open-endedness lends to this. Even though I can identify myself as an (agnostic) Christian, I would only stick to the notions outlined by Jesus. I have a respect for Catholicism, but much about it sometimes dismays me. All religions are prone to being manipulated in time and being used for ulterior motives.

And the part that is the total kicker is that Islam was "designed" to be anti-fragmentary. It was written in Arabic and is not to be translated for the loss of meaning. Islam was supposed to follow the Koran, which Muhammed received from the angel Gabriel, as God's direct words and the final "clarification" of who a human being should be. This has been altered again and again, including just the addition of the hadith. I guess the bottom line is that religions can never be totally "unexpansive" so to speak. I guess Islam could have been considered a totally unprogressive relgion at its inception, but almost immediately, even such a strict religion, was fragmented over such an unimportant (to many) thing as succession of the Prophet Muhammed. It's just tough to have a concret faith in a world when concret never really dries.
Moderatine
23-02-2006, 06:18
oh, about the ten commandments - can you quote them all?
in order? i rarely meet a Christian who can.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:20
And the part that is the total kicker is that Islam was "designed" to be anti-fragmentary. It was written in Arabic and is not to be translated for the loss of meaning. Islam was supposed to follow the Koran, which Muhammed received from the angel Gabriel, as God's direct words and the final "clarification" of who a human being should be. This has been altered again and again, including just the addition of the hadith. I guess the bottom line is that religions can never be totally "unexpansive" so to speak. I guess Islam could have been considered a totally unprogressive relgion at its inception, but almost immediately, even such a strict religion, was fragmented over such an unimportant (to many) thing as succession of the Prophet Muhammed. It's just tough to have a concret faith in a world when concret never really dries.
Exactly. Humans favour constant change. Religious authorities, generally, try and inhibit this as much as possible to ensure they do not lose control over their faithful. Religions still fragment nonetheless.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:20
oh, about the ten commandments - can you quote them all?
in order? i rarely meet a Christian who can.
He is Jewish, not Christian.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:22
oh, about the ten commandments - can you quote them all?
in order? i rarely meet a Christian who can.

As a simple public service to all and in order to not flood this thread with people proving their "faith" I will just Wiki the 10 commandments and settle it right off the bat:

Commandment 1: Thou shall not take any god except one God.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "There is no other god beside God."(47:19)

Commandment 2: Thou shall make no image of God.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "My Lord, make this a peaceful land, and protect me and my children from worshiping idols." (14:35)

Commandment 3: Thou shall not use God's name in vain.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "Do not subject God's name to your casual swearing, that you may appear righteous, pious, or to attain credibility among the people." (2:224)

Commandment 4: Thou shall honor thy mother and father.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "....and your parents shall be honored. As long as one or both of them live, you shall never say to them, "Uff" (the slightest gesture of annoyance), nor shall you shout at them; you shall treat them amicably." (17:23)

Commandment 5: Thou shall not steal
Qur'anic Equivalent: "The thief, male or female, you shall mark their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as an example from God. God is Almighty, Most Wise." (5:38 - 39)

Commandment 6: Thou shall not lie or give false testimony.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "Do not withhold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart." (2:283)

Commandment 7: Thou shall not kill.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "....anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people." (5:32)

Commandment 8: Thou shall not commit adultery.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "You shall not commit adultery; it is a gross sin, and an evil behavior." (17:32)

Commandment 9: Thou shall not covet thy neighborswife or possessions.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "And do not covet what we bestowed upon any other people. Such are temporary ornaments of this life, whereby we put them to the test. What your Lord provides for you is far better, and everlasting." (20:131)

Commandment 10: Thou shall keep the Sabbath* holy.
Qur'anic Equivalent: "O you who believe, when the Congregational Prayer (Salat Al-Jumu`ah) is announced on Friday, you shall hasten to the commemoration of GOD, and drop all business." (62:9)
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:26
Exactly. Humans favour constant change. Religious authorities, generally, try and inhibit this as much as possible to ensure they do not lose control over their faithful. Religions still fragment nonetheless.

Damn isnt that the truth. And I think that no religion is right nor wrong and that all are valid in their own context. That is something that is key when studying other cultures and religions and even time frames: contextualization. If you try to figure the whole world out through Western eyes you will fail horribly, the same applys to Muslim eyes, Christian eyes, Buddhist eyes, etc. The more that people are willing to understand and to remove ignorance the better off we will all be, no matter our religion, or lack thereof.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:29
Damn isnt that the truth. And I think that no religion is right nor wrong and that all are valid in their own context. That is something that is key when studying other cultures and religions and even time frames: contextualization. If you try to figure the whole world out through Western eyes you will fail horribly, the same applys to Muslim eyes, Christian eyes, Buddhist eyes, etc. The more that people are willing to understand and to remove ignorance the better off we will all be, no matter our religion, or lack thereof.
Indeed. What I will not tolerate, however, is the suppression of individual freedoms, such as those of women. I really do not care what the belief system is, but I do not agree with inherent discrimination. Much of what the Bible says against women and homosexuals I entirely disregard. I am not opposed to the notion of "survival of the fittest," so long as "ceteris paribus." Discriminating against a woman just because she is a woman is idiotic and overrides her individuality.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:31
Indeed. What I will not tolerate, however, is the suppression of individual freedoms, such as those of women. I really do not care what the belief system is, but I do not agree with inherent discrimination. Much of what the Bible says against women and homosexuals I entirely disregard. I am not opposed to the notion of "survival of the fittest," so long as "ceteris paribus." Discriminating against a woman just because she is a woman is idiotic and overrides her individuality.

I agree with you completely, I'm just not sure where that comment came from. Could you please clarify?
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:33
I agree with you completely, I'm just not sure where that comment came from. Could you please clarify?
You mentioned that studying religions should come from their context and thus understanding and respect will flow from this. While I agree with this, that does not mean certain notions are tolerable, in the sense that I just mentioned. :)
Czar Natovski Romanov
23-02-2006, 06:37
Then Muslims would be the most "modern" incarnation, as you have been stating? Islam follows both the old and new testaments and adds the Koran as the final clarification of God's word. They are all of the Abrahamic tradition and thus if you talk about Islam you must include both Christianity and Judaism, and so on. Judaism is the "mother-religion" so to speak and the others are all more and more related as we follow our history.

I think that whatever religion gives people the most hope and freedom while still saying that things that clearly wrong people by making whatever they do mean/earn less than others will be the most popular. This is why islam isnt very popular(relatively speaking)- its the only religion that from its start was spread by conquest. It forces people to be subjugated to others and is in general belligerant towards the world. Most people who now adhear to islam do so only because years of oppression made them forget that their ancestors didnt WANT to be muslim to begin with. Besides, just look at what happened to the rgion it entered- alot of the greatest cultures came from the middleeast, but not anymore.
Dirty Wankers
23-02-2006, 06:37
The culture that is more successful (at the time at least) should always win out over a less successful one. Whether it wins by demolishing the other culture, or adopting the other culture into part of its own. There's just many different ways of measuring success. Military advantage, economic power, technology, all or any one could decide which is more successful or better adapted at any one time. As to whether or not it is 'right', I'd say yes. The more advanced culture is most likely going to be better equipped to advance the species as a whole.
Jonezania
23-02-2006, 06:37
I picked A) stronger cultures will triumph over weaker.

Don't get me wrong, different cultures are great, and I love different opinions and cultural norms. I don't believe in or advocate violence (in fact i see violence as a cultural weakness). But the fact remains, some cultures are just better than others. Take africa. It has only one civilization to it's credit (Egypt) and even today is factionalized and divided. Yet, it has the best natural resources in the world, and ranks seccond in number of people. You have to conclude that the culture is crappy. I don't know why this is. It may be that those who migrated from africa acquired adaptability skills that were incorporated into their culture, and that's what gave rise to the development of civilization (why native Americans didn't develop quicker then, I don't know). Whatever the case, it's clear that the problems of Africa are, for the most part, cultural.

I knew Africa would be mentioned sooner or later.

Try checking out the history of the continent since about 1400 before you start talking about their 'crappy' culture. Their 'crappy' culture was brought over and prostitued by merchants in the form of most of the popular music you hear.

Africa's problems are economic. I have a friend from Ghana and he was explaining to me why Ghana won't pay its loans on time. These international banks are taking 40% to 60% of the GDP in a "payment". How can you build a government with $0.40 to $0.60 of every dollar headed out the door? Every country has something like this happening: Nigeria has Shell, South Africa (and Namibia) have deBeers, DR Congo -- formerly Zaire, formerly Belgian Congo, formerly Congo Free State -- had all sorts of problems that weren't started by the people that were there. They can thank Leopold I for that. The Central African Republic can thank France because France supported a certain dictator (Jean-Bédel Bokassa) because he gave them uranium pour les bombes atomiques. Fifty-two countries, fifty-two different root causes. You may have noticed that there have not been very many wars over borders in Africa -- the last one was over Ethiopia-Eritrea (in the 90s), and before that, Nigeria-Biafra (in the 60s).

So who or what again is at the root of the problem?

EDIT: This is FACT, not conjecture.
Jonezania
23-02-2006, 06:39
No Darwinsim does not work here, theres just to many variables...Saying that would be saying one race is better than another and thats jsut racist. The only reason European culture's advanced faster than anyone else's was because they fought so many wars against themselves and war advances technology rapidly.

They had money too.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:40
The culture that is more successful (at the time at least) should always win out over a less successful one. Whether it wins by demolishing the other culture, or adopting the other culture into part of its own. There's just many different ways of measuring success. Military advantage, economic power, technology, all or any one could decide which is more successful or better adapted at any one time. As to whether or not it is 'right', I'd say yes. The more advanced culture is most likely going to be better equipped to advance the species as a whole.
Which is again, flexibility, adaptability and environmental optimisation.
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:42
So who again is at the root of the problem?
It's a mix of colonial legacies and corrupt African dictatorships (not all of which stem from colonial legacy), as well as civil warring amongst themselves. So it's very much a bilateral thing.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:47
You mentioned that studying religions should come from their context and thus understanding and respect will flow from this. While I agree with this, that does not mean certain notions are tolerable, in the sense that I just mentioned. :)

True, very true! Although it makes it easier to understand why certain cultures have those beleifs
Europa Maxima
23-02-2006, 06:49
True, very true! Although it makes it easier to understand why certain cultures have those beleifs
Indeed, although in many cases it is purely unjustifiable bigotry.
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:50
I think that whatever religion gives people the most hope and freedom while still saying that things that clearly wrong people by making whatever they do mean/earn less than others will be the most popular. This is why islam isnt very popular(relatively speaking)- its the only religion that from its start was spread by conquest. It forces people to be subjugated to others and is in general belligerant towards the world. Most people who now adhear to islam do so only because years of oppression made them forget that their ancestors didnt WANT to be muslim to begin with. Besides, just look at what happened to the rgion it entered- alot of the greatest cultures came from the middleeast, but not anymore.

What studies have you done in Islam? Once again just a question
Brocktoria
23-02-2006, 06:52
Indeed, although in many cases it is purely unjustifiable bigotry.

To clarify what oppression of women are you referring to?
Jonezania
23-02-2006, 06:55
It's a mix of colonial legacies and corrupt African dictatorships (not all of which stem from colonial legacy), as well as civil warring amongst themselves. So it's very much a bilateral thing.

I'll give you that, but I won't sit around while the whole culture is called names by someone that probably hasn't read anything on the subject.

BUT, some of those civil conflicts stem from colonial legacy, ESPECIALLY the massacres between the Hutus and Tutsis.

And something tells me that that isn't the only continent where that has taken place.
Czar Natovski Romanov
23-02-2006, 07:05
What studies have you done in Islam? Once again just a question

I have to admit I personally havnt done much. However I have researched the topic alittle and found that muhammad often contradicted himself, to correct this its a common practice to consider whatever he last said as the most important or aborrogating idea. And since the last years of muhammad's life was full of violence, there are many incidents of him having revelations so to speak that justified his actions of murdering and pilaging. Some of this was due to a sort of cult of personality, wherein muhammad represented God/Allah w/e, therefore anyone who defamed him did the same to God(a big no-no). Theres cases where muslims were sent personally by muhammad to kill women and the elderly who objected to his plans to rob caravans during holy months(ramadan was an arabic tradition before being considered islamic, and was used to prevent robbing during such times so that neccesary comerce could occur since trade was a major lifeline for Arabia), or to his killing of those who had previously objected this. Muhammad even had revelations allowing eating during times of fast so that they would be in good condition for a raid. Of course most these actions are only allowed when fighting against non-muslims, however those who profess to be muslim may not be in the eyes of others, and these things are also permited against them.
Czar Natovski Romanov
23-02-2006, 07:10
I'll give you that, but I won't sit around while the whole culture is called names by someone that probably hasn't read anything on the subject.

BUT, some of those civil conflicts stem from colonial legacy, ESPECIALLY the massacres between the Hutus and Tutsis.

And something tells me that that isn't the only continent where that has taken place.

Yeah, cause nobody ever had cultural/religious/ethnic cleansings but the europeans. IN FACT they opened pandora's box and commited original sin while everyone else was just loving one another dusk til dawn. Not, most cultures tend to have these things, however I would say that the territorial divisions of Africa stem from colonialism and as a result dont reflect ethnic/cultural bounds well and does result in much violence. Im just trying to say we need to stop blaming europe for everyone's problems...
Bottle
23-02-2006, 14:54
Well, what do you think about it. Lets say it has nothing to do with race or religion, just culture.

Do you think the stronger, more advanced cultures were meant to implement their ideas to indigent cultures, or, for that matter, do you beleive that there ARE even stronger more advanced cultures and indigent cultures, or just DIFFERENT cultures?

Keep in mind this is not racist...it could be American culture...with a bunch of different races in it.

This is just on a cultural scale.

Sorry forget the R in Darwinism.....
"Social Darwinism" is usually just re-packaged Calvinism. The strong are the chosen, the weak are weak because they are wicked and worthless, and therefore there's nothing wrong with strong people doing whatever suits them.

It annoys me when people use such transparent excuses, pretending like they have (or need) some justification for bland selfishness. I would actually respect them more if they just admitted, "I want to have things my way, I don't want to have to give a shit about anybody else, and so there."
The Atlantian islands
23-02-2006, 20:52
To clarify what oppression of women are you referring to?

Most likley the treatment of women in the muslim world, would be my guess...
The Atlantian islands
24-02-2006, 02:52
No Darwinsim does not work here, theres just to many variables...Saying that would be saying one race is better than another and thats jsut racist. The only reason European culture's advanced faster than anyone else's was because they fought so many wars against themselves and war advances technology rapidly.

Sigh...I already said in my OP...this isnt about race...its about culture.

It could be American culture.....
Europa Maxima
24-02-2006, 02:59
I'll give you that, but I won't sit around while the whole culture is called names by someone that probably hasn't read anything on the subject.

BUT, some of those civil conflicts stem from colonial legacy, ESPECIALLY the massacres between the Hutus and Tutsis.

And something tells me that that isn't the only continent where that has taken place.
Indeed. European and arab colonialism had rather widespread effects.
Europa Maxima
24-02-2006, 03:01
Most likley the treatment of women in the muslim world, would be my guess...
Mostly, although anti-feminine constructions that can be interpreted from other religions are also what I mean.
The Pontic Steppes
24-02-2006, 05:17
Well, what do you think about it. Lets say it has nothing to do with race or religion, just culture.

Do you think the stronger, more advanced cultures were meant to implement their ideas to indigent cultures, or, for that matter, do you beleive that there ARE even stronger more advanced cultures and indigent cultures, or just DIFFERENT cultures?

Keep in mind this is not racist...it could be American culture...with a bunch of different races in it.

This is just on a cultural scale.

Sorry forget the R in Darwinism.....

Social Darwinism does not just apply to superior- and inferior- cultures. Social Darwinism is defined as the theory of evolution applied to social systems and institutions. So technically eugenics is an idea of Social Darwinism. Imperialism is an idea of Social Darwinism. Etc.

Also, there is no unified American "culture." American culture is indeed split along racial lines. A Black American will almost always be culturally different from a White American. Etc. Class is not a factor here. If you are familiar with the term "multiculturalism" you know what I mean. The problem with America is that it doesn't force its people to assimilate and integrate. It actually encourages group differences. This is what is contributing to its breakup (take the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina for example).

How are you defining a culturally superior people? Are we talking about national politics and policy or family/societal customs and traditions? Culture is defined by the latter, although politics almost always stem from culture. Civilization is (generally) defined as a culture with a bureaucracy / political system. A strong political nation is one which cares for its people and defends them from foreign influences. A strong culture is a one which has its own interests in mind above all else and successfully molds individuals to its own paradigm and preserves its traditions.

If you were to ask me, I would say that yes there are stronger and weaker cultures, but these cannot be judged by morals or ethics. Only by their abilty to survive and their resistence to foreign influences.