Cultural Relativism is wrong

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by philosopher » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:09 am
So, 'WHAT' is it again that "they" think, which "we" do NOT?
Are you asking what's the difference between a liberal, social-liberal, libertarian, social-democratic and moderate conservatives), and nazis?
Are you serious?

I want to know, before I start spending my limited time on people like you.

But for a start I can tell you that nazis believe in exterminating people for carrying the "wrong" genes, even though they live a happy life and don't want to die.

Nobody else wants to do that. There may be eugenics where you sort the desired and undesirable genes. But that does not apply to those already born.

I'm not talking about the methods (euthanasia, eugenics, death penalty and torture). Because lots of people are for all of those, without being a nazi.

The difference is to whom these methods apply to.

Wanting to impose the death penalty on some group of people does not make you a nazi.
It is the group in question that is the issue.

Age
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Age » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am

philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:09 am
So, 'WHAT' is it again that "they" think, which "we" do NOT?
Are you asking what's the difference between a liberal, social-liberal, libertarian, social-democratic and moderate conservatives), and nazis?
No.
philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
Are you serious?
Yes.

Because you have quoted my question on its own it is more easily to be taken out of context. So, to put it back into context i also wrote: I certainly would NOT want to exterminate, in a horrible death, one of "us" now would I? So, HOW EXACTLY do I separate "them" from "us" again?

You, after all, want a group of people exterminated, and wish in a horrible death, right? Now, to want a group of people dead, you will NEED some HELP to exterminate them ALL. So, to rally up another group of people to round up an exterminate the group of people that you do NOT like and WANT dead, then you will NEED "others". In order for me to be able to help you exterminate this group of people that you hate, then I will NEED to KNOW certain things about that group so that I only exterminate the "right" ones. Therefore, in order for me to help you EXTERMINATE the group of people you want dead I firstly NEED to KNOW how do I separate "them" from "us". For me to be able to do this correctly and accurately I NEED for you to tell me what it is that "they" (their group) THINK, which "we" (y/our group), supposedly, do NOT THINK. Unless of course you just want me to pick them on genetics, color, or some other distinguishing feature?

It is YOUR choice, especially considering it is YOU who WANTS and DESIRES a certain group of people EXTERMINATED. Just like hitler and the nazis did.

philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
I want to know, before I start spending my limited time on people like you.
What do you mean by 'people like 'you' '? I hope you do NOT think that I am 'one of "them" '?

Also, if your time is "limited", then how much time do "we" have left to exterminate all of 'them"?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
But for a start I can tell you that nazis believe in exterminating people for carrying the "wrong" genes, even though they live a happy life and don't want to die.
And, you have told us that you believe in exterminating people for carrying the "wrong" thoughts, even though they live a happy life and do NOT want to die.

This is more or less the EXACT SAME.
philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
Nobody else wants to do that.
But you believe in exterminating people for having different thoughts, than you do, and carrying labels?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
There may be eugenics where you sort the desired and undesirable genes. But that does not apply to those already born.

I'm not talking about the methods (euthanasia, eugenics, death penalty and torture). Because lots of people are for all of those, without being a nazi.

The difference is to whom these methods apply to.

Wanting to impose the death penalty on some group of people does not make you a nazi.
No, you are right that may NOT make you a nazi, but it makes you the EXACT SAME as one of them. You have the EXACT SAME WANTS, DESIRES, and WISHES. That is; To exterminate a group of people that who you BELIEVE do NOT deserve to live.
philosopher wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:04 pm
It is the group in question that is the issue.
And that is the group of people that you, yourself, DO NOT LIKE, which you want to exterminate and wish a horrible death upon, right?

ANY person, or group of people, who WANT to exterminate and WISH a horrible death upon belong in the EXACT SAME group of people, which NEED help and support to DISCOVER WHY they have this type of thinking and NEED continual support and encouragement to LEARN and SEE that NO person is better NOR worse than "another".

Expressing YOUR WANTS and DESIRES to exterminate a group of people that you do NOT like, and WISHING that they die a horrible death, puts you into the EXACT SAME class/group of people as hitler and the nazi party was.

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by philosopher » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am

Because you have quoted my question on its own it is more easily to be taken out of context. So, to put it back into context i also wrote: I certainly would NOT want to exterminate, in a horrible death, one of "us" now would I? So, HOW EXACTLY do I separate "them" from "us" again?

You, after all, want a group of people exterminated, and wish in a horrible death, right? Now, to want a group of people dead, you will NEED some HELP to exterminate them ALL. So, to rally up another group of people to round up an exterminate the group of people that you do NOT like and WANT dead, then you will NEED "others". In order for me to be able to help you exterminate this group of people that you hate, then I will NEED to KNOW certain things about that group so that I only exterminate the "right" ones. Therefore, in order for me to help you EXTERMINATE the group of people you want dead I firstly NEED to KNOW how do I separate "them" from "us". For me to be able to do this correctly and accurately I NEED for you to tell me what it is that "they" (their group) THINK, which "we" (y/our group), supposedly, do NOT THINK. Unless of course you just want me to pick them on genetics, color, or some other distinguishing feature?

It is YOUR choice, especially considering it is YOU who WANTS and DESIRES a certain group of people EXTERMINATED. Just like hitler and the nazis did.
First I'd like to say that I certainly do not want to illegally exterminate any group of people.
What I want is to change the law - legally - so that any members of any National Socialist party or movement, can get arrested and face the death penalty for being a member of a National Socialist party/movement.

So what characterizes those? Well, I suggest you do a google for national socialist parties/movements its all there for you to see how "they" look like.

Arresting them could be done simply by having some inside job done by intelligence service or however they figure out what party/movement people are associated with. And then the courts can take it from there and decide their fate.

My use of the word "extermination" should be read in that context of a legally imposed death penalty.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
What do you mean by 'people like 'you' '? I hope you do NOT think that I am 'one of "them" '?
No. I do not think you are a nazi or someone else who should face the death penalty.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
And, you have told us that you believe in exterminating people for carrying the "wrong" thoughts, even though they live a happy life and do NOT want to die.

This is more or less the EXACT SAME.
No, because you CHOOSE your thoughts. But you do not choose your genes.
Btw. I don't want thought control. I want a law that governs the way you use your thoughts - in actions. Speech is an action, not a thought. Political membership is an action, not a thought.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
But you believe in exterminating people for having different thoughts, than you do, and carrying labels?
Read comment above.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
No, you are right that may NOT make you a nazi, but it makes you the EXACT SAME as one of them. You have the EXACT SAME WANTS, DESIRES, and WISHES. That is; To exterminate a group of people that who you BELIEVE do NOT deserve to live.
The nazis used motorized vehicles. So everyone who's using motorized vehicles were like the nazis.
Can you see how ridiculous that fallacy is?
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
And that is the group of people that you, yourself, DO NOT LIKE, which you want to exterminate and wish a horrible death upon, right?

ANY person, or group of people, who WANT to exterminate and WISH a horrible death upon belong in the EXACT SAME group of people, which NEED help and support to DISCOVER WHY they have this type of thinking and NEED continual support and encouragement to LEARN and SEE that NO person is better NOR worse than "another".

Expressing YOUR WANTS and DESIRES to exterminate a group of people that you do NOT like, and WISHING that they die a horrible death, puts you into the EXACT SAME class/group of people as hitler and the nazi party was.
I appreciate how naive you are. All of those who think such naive thoughts as you do, are usually good people.
However, fact is that you are too naive to realize the reality. The nazis are going to take advantage of people like you, in order to destroy you or enslave you.

That's what they do (or want to do).

You can't help and support your enemy without your enemy destroying you by exploiting your naive altruistic help and support.

In this world, it's either eat... of be eaten.

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by philosopher » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:07 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:28 am
Stop calling them "nazis" for a start, then you will stop LOOKING AT them in a particular way.

They are, after all, just human beings who LOOK AT things from a particular different perspective, just like you do.

Then, we could start encouraging them and supporting them to LOOK AT "others" from a Truly OPEN perspective in a Truly loving way, just like we NEED to do with you and your "kind". The Truth is 'we' NEED to do this with all of us, which is literally ourselves.
I've been doing some... thinking over what you wrote here.

I keep finding flaws in your argument, but they seem to be countered.

I must say, you really convinced me. I cannot promise I'll remember it though, so I'm going to insert your quote in my OP.

I was wrong.

Age
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Age » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:46 pm

philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am

Because you have quoted my question on its own it is more easily to be taken out of context. So, to put it back into context i also wrote: I certainly would NOT want to exterminate, in a horrible death, one of "us" now would I? So, HOW EXACTLY do I separate "them" from "us" again?

You, after all, want a group of people exterminated, and wish in a horrible death, right? Now, to want a group of people dead, you will NEED some HELP to exterminate them ALL. So, to rally up another group of people to round up an exterminate the group of people that you do NOT like and WANT dead, then you will NEED "others". In order for me to be able to help you exterminate this group of people that you hate, then I will NEED to KNOW certain things about that group so that I only exterminate the "right" ones. Therefore, in order for me to help you EXTERMINATE the group of people you want dead I firstly NEED to KNOW how do I separate "them" from "us". For me to be able to do this correctly and accurately I NEED for you to tell me what it is that "they" (their group) THINK, which "we" (y/our group), supposedly, do NOT THINK. Unless of course you just want me to pick them on genetics, color, or some other distinguishing feature?

It is YOUR choice, especially considering it is YOU who WANTS and DESIRES a certain group of people EXTERMINATED. Just like hitler and the nazis did.
First I'd like to say that I certainly do not want to illegally exterminate any group of people.
Just like hitler/Nazi party would not have wanted to "illegally" exterminate a group of people either.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
What I want is to change the law - legally - so that any members of any National Socialist party or movement, can get arrested and face the death penalty for being a member of a National Socialist party/movement.
So that hitler and nazi members would not have had to arrest themselves, for doing something illegal, they would have had to change the law also.

But just because the law is changed so that exterminating a group of people is now legal that, by itself, does not make the doing of it right nor good.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
So what characterizes those? Well, I suggest you do a google for national socialist parties/movements its all there for you to see how "they" look like.
Okay, so Google has ALL the answers on which group of people to exterminate and which ones not to, correct?
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Arresting them could be done simply by having some inside job done by intelligence service or however they figure out what party/movement people are associated with. And then the courts can take it from there and decide their fate.
So it is just as simple as like working inside religions and arresting those christian and Islamic terrorists as well?
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
My use of the word "extermination" should be read in that context of a legally imposed death penalty.
I feel so much more comfortable now, just like I did when hitler made it legal to exterminate those called "jews".
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
What do you mean by 'people like 'you' '? I hope you do NOT think that I am 'one of "them" '?
No. I do not think you are a nazi or someone else who should face the death penalty.
Lucky for me hey.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
And, you have told us that you believe in exterminating people for carrying the "wrong" thoughts, even though they live a happy life and do NOT want to die.

This is more or less the EXACT SAME.
No, because you CHOOSE your thoughts. But you do not choose your genes.
So, you completely FREELY chose to WANT to exterminate a group of people and also FREELY choose to HATE them, and WISH them a horrible death, right?
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Btw. I don't want thought control. I want a law that governs the way you use your thoughts - in actions. Speech is an action, not a thought. Political membership is an action, not a thought.
But it is completely OBVIOUS where these actions come from.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
But you believe in exterminating people for having different thoughts, than you do, and carrying labels?
Read comment above.
So, the answer is YES. Even if you do NOT want to openly admit this, right?

Age
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Age » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:00 am

philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
No, you are right that may NOT make you a nazi, but it makes you the EXACT SAME as one of them. You have the EXACT SAME WANTS, DESIRES, and WISHES. That is; To exterminate a group of people that who you BELIEVE do NOT deserve to live.
The nazis used motorized vehicles. So everyone who's using motorized vehicles were like the nazis.
Can you see how ridiculous that fallacy is?
Yes I can SEE how ridiculous THAT fallacy is, which you just wrote down. But TRYING TO use THAT fallacy to detract away from the fact, that both YOU and HITLER both want to exterminate a group of people, in a horrible death, (because they deserve it?), because both YOU and HITLER both do NOT like a particular group of people for the way they think, will NOT work. This fact still remains the same and true.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:05 am
And that is the group of people that you, yourself, DO NOT LIKE, which you want to exterminate and wish a horrible death upon, right?

ANY person, or group of people, who WANT to exterminate and WISH a horrible death upon belong in the EXACT SAME group of people, which NEED help and support to DISCOVER WHY they have this type of thinking and NEED continual support and encouragement to LEARN and SEE that NO person is better NOR worse than "another".

Expressing YOUR WANTS and DESIRES to exterminate a group of people that you do NOT like, and WISHING that they die a horrible death, puts you into the EXACT SAME class/group of people as hitler and the nazi party was.
I appreciate how naive you are. All of those who think such naive thoughts as you do, are usually good people.
There are NO good people, NOR bad people. ALL adult people have good/right AND bad/wrong thoughts.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
However, fact is that you are too naive to realize the reality. The nazis are going to take advantage of people like you, in order to destroy you or enslave you.
Ah okay. On what day do you propose that will happen?

By the way, from my perspective, "they" seem to have control over you already, and thus have you enslave now as well.

The thinking within that body (you) appears to be very controlled by what "they" do.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
That's what they do (or want to do).

You can't help and support your enemy without your enemy destroying you by exploiting your naive altruistic help and support.
But I do NOT have any enemies.

Some people may HATE me. But they are NOT my enemies.
philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am
In this world, it's either eat... of be eaten.
That is only if you SEE it that way.

To me, the reality of this "world" is to live in peace and harmony with each other. But your idea of what 'reality' actually IS and what my idea of what 'reality' means and IS could well be two very completely different things.

Age
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Age » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:15 am

philosopher wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:07 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:28 am
Stop calling them "nazis" for a start, then you will stop LOOKING AT them in a particular way.

They are, after all, just human beings who LOOK AT things from a particular different perspective, just like you do.

Then, we could start encouraging them and supporting them to LOOK AT "others" from a Truly OPEN perspective in a Truly loving way, just like we NEED to do with you and your "kind". The Truth is 'we' NEED to do this with all of us, which is literally ourselves.
I've been doing some... thinking over what you wrote here.

I keep finding flaws in your argument, but they seem to be countered.

I must say, you really convinced me. I cannot promise I'll remember it though, so I'm going to insert your quote in my OP.

I was wrong.
I would NOT say "you are wrong", but that there was just some thinking going on in that body, which was very counter-productive to what you actually wanted to achieve, which is just a "world" without the hatred like that of hitler and the nazi party. It was just unfortunate that that thinking in that body was just more in line with the nazi party than it was with what you would really like. This happens because the words expressed outwards, and/or inwards in internal dialogue, have far more effect on us, then we consciously realize yet. For example if we say/use the word "nazi", or "jew" even, with an inner, subconscious, dialogue of 'I hate them', then what can actually be caused by hatred has already been SEEN and WITNESSED throughout history. If we do NOT want to make the same mistakes, and have history repeat itself, then instead of remembering what I wrote and we just constantly OBSERVE the thoughts arising within the body, and take NOTICE of those subliminal words, which do, after all, have far more effect on us than was previously realized, then we can and WILL have control over our own selves, instead of "others" controlling us.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:47 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am
@Immanuel Can,

RE: the last response first.
Immanuel Can wrote:The "genetic" bit might fit the Third Reich, and the "religious" bit might fit a place like...well, maybe the Islamic world? But what about the secular ideologically-driven? Secular ideologies have killed far more people than religious ones. Don't you worry at all about them?
Reality is 'secular'.
That's an assumption. It's not at all taken for granted by around 93% of the people still living on the Earth, and a higher proportion of those who have lived on it before. So it will need a showing.
This is expected from the religious people. Atheism is NOT a 'belief'. It is the default state of ignorance of reality that is ONLY a relative position to the religious who COMMAND their own myths are real, teach them, and impose morality in light of their beliefs. The 'secular' reality is that people are emotional animals that think our feelings are reflections of the universe. The facts that we feel pleasure and pain, love and hate, and other incidental emotional things due to the evolutionary advantage of any animal to be more cooperative and compassionate, are accidental but biased to reality apart from our subjective minds.

"Secular" is the word we use to express what we do without regards to interpretation or meaning on religious levels.....such as that some think that our life is only a kind of testing ground for some 'real' other-world place and time. This makes these people utilize their beliefs to impose hardships ON OTHERS. How else do you convince those born in less fortunate circumstances to serve as good servants and slaves? As for the privileged, their power is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' secularly; but IF they can justify their fortune as not merely something accidental but ASSIGNED by NATURE through some GOD to the masses who they actually OWE to their good fortune to, they feel justified and want those beneath them to think this (even if it is a fraud.)
Religion is a tool of manipulation ONLY.
Some is. But is all? On what basis would you include them all -- have you knowledge of them all? How would you show that they were all only "tools of manipulation"?
As to 'governments', for which I am ONLY concerned about, when managers (as governors are), have and hold religious ideologies and/or use them, even if apparently harmless in constituting some or all laws by some subset of people, these are ONLY tools for manipulation that serve to harm some subset(s) of the population in some way.

Religious ideology BEGS what is or is not 'good' UNIVERSALLY upon others, even if the beliefs are only merely subjective preferences based upon their own personal, family, or group interests. Allowing even somewhat trivial 'harmless' allowances automatically justifies even the extremist views because there is no way to demarcate the values of 'good' nor 'bad' universally. The best you can do is to create laws that 'rule' people for temporal purposes on a secular justification. As soon as you assert making some law for some presumed intrinsic universal value outside of the practicality that serves the individuals OF the whole, you set up barriers to some external subset of people by criminalizing their ability to communicate with their own subjective power of expression.

Governments BY and FOR the people are management systems we presume are universal. As such, having laws that favor particular cultural expressiveness is arbitrarily empowering those in POWER to maintain their place by eliminating those who could express things based upon inherent factors alone. That is, if you are poor, there will always be some genetic plurality that can be found that associates you to some presumed 'culture'. This then can be used to DEFINE laws that discriminate against the class by misdirecting the justification of the laws to be about something favoring culture. For the conservative, poverty, for instance would be best sold as something one is at fault for due to their intrinsic culture. They 'choose' to be poor rather than are poor because of inherent defect of their inherent 'culture'. The progressives will use a different kind of religious set of justification to 'fix' this when they too know they cannot resolve the real problem. By enhancing select groups defined by 'cultural' standards of inheritance, they can defeat the conservative economic class by asserting favor to pluralities impoverished on the opposite but equally faulty basis: that the poor are of some significant 'culture' and that they are only poor because of their cultural distinction to the conservative majority's culture.

Any 'cultural' law is a religious law of some sort. Any religious law is always a means for those in power to justify laws that have no foundation, no soundness, to or by Nature itself. Religion in government law making decisions is biased to non-Natural (or 'super-Natural' :wink: :wink: ) justifications to hide accountability of one's actual secular reasons. The rich don't want to admit they are rich because of some distinct coincidence of birth or environmental fortune. Rather they want to assert their fortune as 'ordained by God' and make the multitude of the poorer they maintain their power on believe they too can either be successful if they appeal to their dictated wisdom and channel to the Gods OR to accept their impoverishment as a 'good' thing regardless of hardships because they want them to put faith that God will REPAIR any injustice and reward them later anyways. The poor, in contrast, will be more favorable to cultural relativism because they are weaker without the support of other pluralities in common pursuit of defeating the wealthier by wanting laws that 'favor' diversity. Usually, the poor are still defended by those rich but in relative minority against the dominant group precisely BECAUSE it can be used to both overthrow the competition and gain popular appeal by manipulating the realities of larger pluralities among the poor uniquely.

[I'm posting to preserve my post. I am already reposting much of what got deleted for this site timing me out.]

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6455
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:47 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am
@Immanuel Can,

RE: the last response first.


Reality is 'secular'.
That's an assumption. It's not at all taken for granted by around 93% of the people still living on the Earth, and a higher proportion of those who have lived on it before. So it will need a showing.
This is expected from the religious people.
You mean the 93% who don't agree with this, plus the 4% (agnostics) who admit not to knowing? That's 97% of the world.
Atheism is NOT a 'belief'.
Absolutely it is. Atheists want to play both sides of the fence: on the question of God, they want to say something like "I know it's irrational to believe in God." But when asked how they know this, they suddenly want to slide away into uncertainty -- "Well, I'm not saying I know anything..."

But it cannot be both ways. Either Atheists know something, and thus they have a case to make, or they do not know whether or not God exists, and thus really have nothing to tell anybody. And as their critical examiners, we have every right to expect them to take a position of knowing or ignorance, and to hold it -- for the one thing that is clear to anybody, of any rational disposition, is going to be the fact that an ideology that plays two sides of the fence is simply being dishonest.

So do Atheists know anything, or are they ignorant on the question?
"Secular" is the word we use to express what we do without regards to interpretation or meaning on religious levels...
Actually, that's not true. "Secular" comes from Protestant theology, not from Atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity) It means "of the world," or "of this age," as distinct from the transcendent and sacred, but is not in opposition to religion.

Protestantism recognizes both a secular realm and the realm of the religious. But not all ideologies do. Some reject the whole idea of secularity (Islam, for example), and some reject the whole idea of the sacred (Atheism, Pragmatism, Nihilism, etc). For ideologies that recognize no distinction of this kind, the word "secular" doesn't even have an objective meaning. Either it describes everything, or it describes nothing, for them.
.....such as that some think that our life is only a kind of testing ground for some 'real' other-world place and time. This makes these people utilize their beliefs to impose hardships ON OTHERS.
This is true of some religions, and untrue of others. One has to distinguish.
How else do you convince those born in less fortunate circumstances to serve as good servants and slaves?
Heh. I'm afraid that maybe you've been reading too much Marx.

Marx was wrong: not just about society and the direction of the future, but also about religion. As it turned out, in the very England Marx observed, "religion" turned out to alleviate the misery of the poor -- through the invention of public schooling (which was originally religious), prison reform, welfare, hospitals, and various forms of religious volunteerism.

Marx's revolution never came, and Christianity did not turn out to be "the opium of the masses." In fact, it turned out to be an immense force for social good.
Religion is a tool of manipulation ONLY.
Some is. But is all? On what basis would you include them all -- have you knowledge of them all? How would you show that they were all only "tools of manipulation"?
As to 'governments', for which I am ONLY concerned about, when managers (as governors are), have and hold religious ideologies and/or use them, even if apparently harmless in constituting some or all laws by some subset of people, these are ONLY tools for manipulation that serve to harm some subset(s) of the population in some way.
You postulate that no religious politician can be sincere? That the "ONLY" thing they can be doing is "manipulating" people to their "harm"?
Religious ideology BEGS what is or is not 'good' UNIVERSALLY upon others, ...there is no way to demarcate the values of 'good' nor 'bad' universally.
I put these two statements together, so you can see the contradiction in them. You can scarcely deplore the "begging" of what is "good universally" if there is "no way to demarcate" such thing, can you?
The best you can do is to create laws that 'rule' people for temporal purposes on a secular justification.
If so, then "might makes right" -- or rather, there is no "right," and "might" simply wins every time. But worse than that, there is no justification even for protest. That's pretty hard on the oppressed, but I agree that this is the outcome of the belief that there is no God.
Governments BY and FOR the people are management systems we presume are universal.
Oh, heavens no. That's a democratic ideal. That's held nowhere else on the planet.
For the conservative, poverty, for instance would be best sold as something one is at fault for due to their intrinsic culture.
I see this most on the Left. It's the Leftists that say, "If you're gay, you must vote Democrat." The Left says, "African Americans are not capable of getting themselves ahead without government aid and affirmative action programs." It's the Left that has the racist history -- for example, the KKK and Segregation. The conservatives think everybody can stand on his or her own two feet, regardless of culture.
They 'choose' to be poor rather than are poor because of inherent defect of their inherent 'culture'. The progressives will use a different kind of religious set of justification to 'fix' this when they too know they cannot resolve the real problem.
Yes, this is closer to the situation. But what makes Progressivism "religious"? I agree that they are deeply ideologically indoctrinated, but I think their ideology is pretty secular, don't you? I don't seen them worshipping any gods, do you?
Any 'cultural' law is a religious law of some sort.
Well, you'll have to define what you mean by "religious" then. Because however many people remain privately religious, it's pretty clear that at least Western cultures are primarily run on secular assumptions, not religious ones.
Religion in government law making decisions is biased to non-Natural (or 'super-Natural' :wink: :wink: ) justifications to hide accountability of one's actual secular reasons.
This seems rather obviously untrue, especially in the West. To confess a strong, particular religious position is usually a political liability there, not a way to create a public justification for a policy.

Now, being vaguely "religious," like Obama or Trump, that seems to have some mild currency. But taking one's beliefs very seriously is likely to get one pilloried like Mitt Romney or Mike Pence, as "too religious." So I don't think you can make the case that "religion" functions in the way you suggest.
The rich don't want to admit they are rich because of some distinct coincidence of birth or environmental fortune.
That's because a great many aren't. What we call "the rich" isn't a fixed class, like an aristocracy. In the West, it's a mobile group, with people going into it and some coming out. I know people of both kinds.

There are plenty of stories of people rising from great economic and social deprivation, and making good. In fact, to deny them their respect would be a huge injustice. And there are plenty of cases of "the rich" tanking their fortunes and losing them. So it's not some kind of tidy, Marxist, class struggle that's going on there.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:33 pm

Emmanuel Can wrote:
If you interpret the fact that religions are also 'secular' myths, than yes, ideologies based upon 'secular' reality is actually ALL that kills anywhere.
I did not say this. Religions have to own up to 7% of the wars of history. The rest are on other causes, such as economics, language, migration, resources, and so on. But by far the biggest killer of human beings has proved to be secular ideologies. They killed 148 million in the last century alone.
I am saying that, given I am not even religious, that the reality of religion is just one part of the secular reality. Why would I believe that there truly IS some realm of religious truth when I'm not even of any one religion? As such, religion would have to still be a natural psychological phenomena. As such, all governments are 'secular'.
Etymology Online Defintion wrote:secular (adj.)
c. 1300, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from Old French seculer (Modern French séculier), from Late Latin saecularis "worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or age," from Latin saecularis "of an age, occurring once in an age," from saeculum "age, span of time, lifetime, generation, breed."

This is from Proto-Italic *sai-tlo-, which, according to Watkins, is PIE instrumental element *-tlo- + *sai- "to bind, tie" (see sinew), extended metaphorically to successive human generations as links in the chain of life. De Vaan lists as a cognate Welsh hoedl "lifespan, age." An older theory connected it to words for "seed," from PIE root *se- "to sow" (see sow (v.), and compare Gothic mana-seþs "mankind, world," literally "seed of men").

Used in ecclesiastical writing like Greek aiōn "of this world" (see cosmos). It is source of French siècle. Ancient Roman ludi saeculares was a three-day, day-and-night celebration coming once in an "age" (120 years). In English, in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality, from 1850s.[https://www.etymonline.com/word/secular]
I'm using the term in its root reference as in the times with or without religion. As such, all governments HAVE to favor the 'secular' at a minimum. If they were to serve religion, they would have to either serve ONE religion or SOME religions, but never ALL, AND, when specifically "anti-secular", such governments are defining all people as necessarily religiously affiliated and unified most predominantly against the non-theist. You assume the non-theist as ANTI-religious when the intent of such governments where they exist were merely intent on separating church from state. Laws that remotely favor any religion would be biased and non-democratic because the reality of the whole is never in line with one particular religion nor of any set of religion except if it treated EACH person as its own authority of religion.

Also, I have to point out that when you also assert the 7%, you are telling me that you likely mean only the 7% of your own defining belief of what is truly 'religious' AND that any religion, OR Atheist non-belief, is what you think of as "secular". You support a government that doesn't respect "cultural relativism" in its laws, not THAT the reality of culture is a relative factor of artificial or arbitrary lifestyles. Culture is art.

And, the reason for those societies that HAVE officially assigned an anti-religious constitution that have done any atrocities, their 'secular' justification for annihilation of any groups are due to the relative extremes of those groups to segregate, not because they aren't free to BE religious necessarily. The concern for things like Communism in the standards of Marx, is that those minorities that insist on enclaves of closed communities, strict private rules of marriage and of private institutions, are 'conspiratorial' of against the whole for their devotion.

The difference between the Communists and the Nazis on the religious factor is that the Communists tended to divorce culture strictly from government while the Nationalist believed in EMBRACING the strengths of a MONO-religious culture. The fact that they both disdained the Jewish communities were related to the power of devotion of the Jewish communities have held onto regardless of external biases. In fact, any group so extreme as to create a devoted restriction of an 'us' and 'them' is counter to a secular system as it is to a strictly universal mono-religious system.
immanuel Can wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:The reality of cultural relativism IS a fact unless there were ONLY one actual culture in the world.
No, that's not so. The existence of multiple answers to a question does not tend to the conclusion that there is no answer. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to the question, "What is 2+2?" But that certainly doesn't mean there's no right answer.
If you are talking science and nature, you are correct. Art, as culture and its dominant factor of religion involve, have no power of natural truth to them other than the fact of our emotional and naive beliefs that interpret what we FEEL 'good' of ourselves, is somehow universally 'good' of all others. The fact that we have moral dilemmas such that for any 'good' of one to be a relative 'evil' of another suffices to prove religion is in fact a mere arbitrary subjective phenomena.

To make clarity in respect to your example: "What is 2 Good things + 2 Good things?" Is beauty universal? Is there absolute 'goodness' where no 'evil' exists by contrast?
Emmanuel Can wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Culture is a byword for a conservation of particular people's insane belief that specific people OWN some set of behaviors that their ancestors had through the force of some religion.
So now, according to you, culture isn't "relative": it's "religious" and bad?
No, the word 'culture' as it is used in official government definitions is intended to disguise some anti-rational laws, usually regarding some combined belief that particular genetically related peoples OWN some heritage of their ancestor's contemporary behaviors. So, for instance, given one is genetically a Native of North America, it is presumed that one who is proven to have some genetic ancestral link to an ancestor of North America, have a special heritage right to OWN the behaviors and lifestyles unique to them. It begs why we DON'T have the same right to judge any negative associations to some group as to the positive ones? Why is it alright to 'inherit' unique SELECT arbitrary artificial behaviors of one's ancestors when they are uniquely 'positive' to the in-group but NOT the 'negative'? To me, if you think culture is appropriate to own, then it is equal grounds to assign the negative stereotypes as to the positive ones.

A 'secular' non-cultural government is one that doesn't bias ownership NOR debt to our parents. If we choose to accept inheritance, is it not appropriate that one require the debts as well rather than imposing them upon the whole which include all those who have no relevance to them? Cultural beliefs ARE religion if they are SPECIFIC protections or denials of any government actions that don't treat them as ALL OF OURS. For instance, to me, what is 'Cree' or 'Jewish' or 'Christian', etc, is all OUR history in this world that doesn't belong to specific special people for positive nor negative legal justifications.

I don't favor cultural relative laws but recognize that culture IS relative by nature.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:The Nazis likely recognized the reality as I have but opted to destroy cultural relativism given they TOO thought that this is 'wrong'. That is, it is 'wrong' for those commanding one cultural rule upon the others to respect the authority of some group of people in power. When dictated that these people are the TRUE children of some God (ie Nature), it presumes they are superior.

Okay, but you've now reversed your own argument. If the Nazis were wrong to do this, then their "culture" is not legitimate in that. That means they are not part of the "culture is relative" grouping. And there are other cultures you'll likely want to exclude, too...such as Sharia Islam, for example. They don't believe in the rights of women, homosexuals or dissenters -- even dissenters from another faction of Islam. So what do you do with such things, if culture is "relative"?
You mistake the difference of the meanings here. THAT culture is 'relative' is a FACT about people and thus any theory about culture in this is called, "cultural relativism". Yet when governments opt to make laws concerning culture, some will believe in fostering that nature OR in defying it. To the Nazis, culture was relative and meant, artificial. But they wanted a system that enhanced a mono-culture to bind the people and the philosophy with the strength of conviction that people who maintain strict adherence to beliefs in light of the relative reality prove as successful. The targeted Jewish population was to the apparent strength of the Jewish community. Notice that this is even true today. People who call themselves, "Jewish" are not merely those who follow Judaism. Yet, for those who set up and believe in the Zion of modern-day Israel, their relative puritanical conservation of collectivism is based upon that ideal that the Nazis were admiring but wanting to compete in KIND. The Nazis thus enhanced a myth of the Aryan genetic puritanism of what it means to be German and wanted to defeat ANY anti-assimilated counter culture to that. So they believed in defying cultural relativism in opposition to the reality precisely for its benefits through the power of a devoted and strict religion.


Emmanuel Can wrote:It is the religious factor which makes all political action bad.
If what you're saying is right -- that people are good, but religion is bad -- then from where did religion come? Who made religions?

It wasn't "reality," according to you, because you say "reality is secular." So who made religions?
[/quote]
Religion is not 'bad' as art. Country music is an art that acts as a defining typographic Christian American Southern link. One's preference to like Country, though not my particular favor, is justified as 'good' to anyone who like it for whatever personal reasons. But if you had a law that conserved Country music as a protected right of the southern States, this would be a religious law.

Religions to me derived FROM secular origins that have evolved in latter times as presumed but incorrect truths of the past that were either lost or purposely dissolved by particular interest groups. The concept of temples and sacrifices, for instance, were actual secular rational means to bind contracts in ancient times. Idols were literal legal proof of land ownership and forms of identity. In time, when civilization evolved to lose a need for the old ways, some presumed that those apparently senseless rules and facts of the past as passed on were religious in a unique way. Thus you get the concern of those fanatics of the past who thought it anti-religious to have secular activity done in a Temple when the history of its origins were fuzzy or recreated with artistic license or interpretation.

So religion IS natural but not something we should allow for government law making because it is dictating artificial truths as reality. It might be one thing to admire some flag. It becomes religious if it is a crime to burn it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6455
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:45 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:33 pm
I am saying that, given I am not even religious, that the reality of religion is just one part of the secular reality.
A funny use of the word "secular." It's a religious distinction. If you're right, reality isn't "secular," because there's no "secular-religious" distinction. Everything, you say, including religion is "secular," so nothing is not-secular. The word has no particular content, then.
I'm using the term in its root reference as in the times with or without religion. As such, all governments HAVE to favor the 'secular' at a minimum.
Of course they don't. Islamic governments recognize no "secular" issues at all. For them, everything is religious.
If they were to serve religion, they would have to either serve ONE religion or SOME religions, but never ALL,
It's an issue worth discussing whether the purpose of a government is to "serve" any religion. Islamists say, "Yes," Catholics say "Yes," and many other religious groups would say "No."

But nobody would argue that the job of a government is to "serve ALL" religions.
You assume the non-theist as ANTI-religious when the intent of such governments where they exist were merely intent on separating church from state.
Actually, the separation of church and state is a Protestant idea from Locke, not a non-Theist idea at all. The Atheist idea is no churches, just State.
Also, I have to point out that when you also assert the 7%, you are telling me that you likely mean only the 7% of your own defining belief of what is truly 'religious' AND that any religion, OR Atheist non-belief, is what you think of as "secular".
That's not so.

The statistics I cite are from non-religious sources, and are based on self-identification criteria. It's because 93% say they are religious that we say they are, and it's because 4% self-identify as agnostic and only 3% claim Atheism that we can say what they are.
You support a government that doesn't respect "cultural relativism" in its laws,

No I don't. I didn't say anything about government. Government has no business dictating religion to anyone...that's what I'd say.

But you misuse the term "cultural relativism" there. Cultural Relativism doesn't mean "everybody can have his or her own culture." That's just religious or cultural toleration. No, it means, "there is no singular truth value that makes any one culture better than another."' And that's clearly wrong.
And, the reason for those societies that HAVE officially assigned an anti-religious constitution that have done any atrocities, their 'secular' justification for annihilation of any groups are due to the relative extremes of those groups to segregate, not because they aren't free to BE religious necessarily.
Like in Soviet Russia, you mean? Or Maoist China? Or Pol Pot's Cambodia? Or Kim Jong Il's North Korea? Or Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe? Your argument is that the religious people brought it on themselves by not knocking under to the secular regimes? Wow.

What's your evidence of that?
The fact that they both disdained the Jewish communities were related to the power of devotion of the Jewish communities have held onto regardless of external biases.
Wow. You're surely not blaming the Jews for what was done to them, are you?
In fact, any group so extreme as to create a devoted restriction of an 'us' and 'them' is counter to a secular system as it is to a strictly universal mono-religious system.
Maybe. But then you've got to exclude all of them from your "secular" toleration. And that means that you're not a cultural or religious relativist anymore...but rather you'd be imposing secularism by force.
Art, as culture and its dominant factor of religion involve, have no power of natural truth

That's an assumption, but not one most people would share. Religions, for example, all think they're involved in asserting the truth. In fact, do you not believe your "secularism" is the truth? So your view is actually no different: all these views are actually exclusive of one another, and all propose to tell us what the truth is.

Was it not you who wrote the phrase, "reality is secular"? Well, if so, you're saying secularism is realistic, but religious viewpoints are all non-realistic. That's not very "Culturally Relativistic." In fact, it's very exclusivist.
To make clarity in respect to your example: "What is 2 Good things + 2 Good things?"
That wasn't my example, actually. I was just speaking of the numbers, and pointing out that the presence of many wrong answers does not create an argument against the existence of one right one. That's all.
Is there absolute 'goodness' where no 'evil' exists by contrast?
In a world devoid of God, there is no "goodness" at all. Nor any "evil." There is only "what is."
A 'secular' non-cultural government is one that doesn't bias ownership NOR debt to our parents.
Do you have an example of that?
You mistake the difference of the meanings here. THAT culture is 'relative' is a FACT about people and thus any theory about culture in this is called, "cultural relativism".
Actually, that's wrong. "Cultural Relativism" is an ideology, one that says that all cultures have the same (or same absence of any) truth value as all others.

The "fact" to which you are referring is usually called "cultural pluralism," meaning the existence of more than one such ideology within a single polity. From now on, we should change your terminology to reflect that more normal usage, and say "cultural relativism" when you mean to deny there is truth to any culture, and "cultural pluralism" when you are only trying to say "there's more than one culture here."
The Nazis thus enhanced a myth of the Aryan genetic puritanism...
You mean "purity." The Nazis were not Puritans.
Immanuel Can wrote:It is the religious factor which makes all political action bad.
If what you're saying is right -- that people are good, but religion is bad -- then from where did religion come? Who made religions?

It wasn't "reality," according to you, because you say "reality is secular." So who made religions?
Religion is not 'bad' as art.[/quote]
Well, in fact, it cannot be "bad" at all, according to you. For in a secular world, there is no meaning to the word "bad."
Country music is an art that acts as a defining typographic Christian American Southern link. One's preference to like Country, though not my particular favor, is justified as 'good' to anyone who like it for whatever personal reasons.
Nobody believes that country music is reality, though. If it were, we'd all have cowboy boots and pickup trucks, a shotgun, an old dawg, and a girl that done ya wrong. :wink: So that's just a matter of taste.

But religions don't propose to be arts. They instead attempt to describe actual reality, and along with it, to define morality. That's a good deal more than you can look for in a country song.
Religions to me derived FROM secular origins
It's the dead opposite, actually. All ancient societies were religious, and the secular came out of late Protestantism.
The concept of temples and sacrifices, for instance, were actual secular rational means to bind contracts in ancient times.
They did cement contracts, but they weren't just that, actually. People really believed that they were doing something that corresponded to reality. Moreover, there really was no such thing as a "secular" person in those days...just many different religious beliefs.
Idols were literal legal proof of land ownership and forms of identity.
No, they were not. People actually incinerated their livestock and their children in the worship of these so-called "land ownership" icons. They really believed their idols represented the realities of the gods.
So religion IS natural...
Then it cannot be bad to be religious. However, it might be bad to have the wrong religion, if one of them turns out to be true.

On the other hand, from a purely secular perspective, religion is neither good nor bad; it just is. Secularism has in it no account of morality at all.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:16 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:47 pm

That's an assumption. It's not at all taken for granted by around 93% of the people still living on the Earth, and a higher proportion of those who have lived on it before. So it will need a showing.
This is expected from the religious people.
You mean the 93% who don't agree with this, plus the 4% (agnostics) who admit not to knowing? That's 97% of the world.
The question is to WHICH particular religion is correct of your presumed 97%. I don't care how unpopular I am, but I DO know that my own anti-religious stance IS finally being taken a dominant place in the intellectual place of this world. Most people of that 97% are still 'secular' non-devoted religious people who don't get represented except by the extremists making unfounded assumptions.
Atheism is NOT a 'belief'.
Absolutely it is. Atheists want to play both sides of the fence: on the question of God, they want to say something like "I know it's irrational to believe in God." But when asked how they know this, they suddenly want to slide away into uncertainty -- "Well, I'm not saying I know anything..."

But it cannot be both ways. Either Atheists know something, and thus they have a case to make, or they do not know whether or not God exists, and thus really have nothing to tell anybody. And as their critical examiners, we have every right to expect them to take a position of knowing or ignorance, and to hold it -- for the one thing that is clear to anybody, of any rational disposition, is going to be the fact that an ideology that plays two sides of the fence is simply being dishonest.

So do Atheists know anything, or are they ignorant on the question?
I used to call myself Agnostic Atheist. I'm now DO claim a positive rational disapproval of religion for logical reasons. (Gnostic == knowing)

I am like the bacteria or cat or cow that doesn't seem to come to me to let me know of their genetic disposition to know some God. If some God belief is default, it wouldn't need to be TAUGHT nor ENFORCED. You wouldn't need to WORSHIP an essence and if one such being existed, it wouldn't be subject to the wishes of humans who beg of it to do their own superior demands through PRAYERS. Imagine if the movies we CREATED were such that while watching them, stopped their acting to BEG us viewers to APPEASE their misfortunes rather than entertain us!! I also wouldn't want my computer screen to stop me in the middle of using if for my purpose to spit back at me accolades telling me of how superior I already know I am to it when I want it to function as I created it to:

"Siri, please compute 98.95 + 39.84"
"Oh precious Scott of all high and mighty thou being so Supreme and loving, how I love thee. I am weak and in need of assisting your wishes as I am created in the image of your wisdom and compassion. I could never hope to appeal to your own wishes of me as I am born of sin and thus cannot please you in ways that you have of me for providing life and free will...."

Fuck, I've got a virus!

"Secular" is the word we use to express what we do without regards to interpretation or meaning on religious levels...
Actually, that's not true. "Secular" comes from Protestant theology, not from Atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity) It means "of the world," or "of this age," as distinct from the transcendent and sacred, but is not in opposition to religion.

Protestantism recognizes both a secular realm and the realm of the religious. But not all ideologies do. Some reject the whole idea of secularity (Islam, for example), and some reject the whole idea of the sacred (Atheism, Pragmatism, Nihilism, etc). For ideologies that recognize no distinction of this kind, the word "secular" doesn't even have an objective meaning. Either it describes everything, or it describes nothing, for them.
.....such as that some think that our life is only a kind of testing ground for some 'real' other-world place and time. This makes these people utilize their beliefs to impose hardships ON OTHERS.
This is true of some religions, and untrue of others. One has to distinguish.
But I am NOT religious. The word, Atheism, would not need to be a word except for the artificial imposition of PEOPLE (not actual surpreme beings) to BEG that I AM either a BELIEVER OR the DEVIL (a knowing believer in God) who is just denying the reality as though I've actually seen and know God but am being a rebel.

I don't mind religion if it was kept to oneself. My 'religion' is my artistic preferences and they differ uniquely from anyone, including other Atheists.
How else do you convince those born in less fortunate circumstances to serve as good servants and slaves?
Heh. I'm afraid that maybe you've been reading too much Marx.

Marx was wrong: not just about society and the direction of the future, but also about religion. As it turned out, in the very England Marx observed, "religion" turned out to alleviate the misery of the poor -- through the invention of public schooling (which was originally religious), prison reform, welfare, hospitals, and various forms of religious volunteerism.
No, the acts of people consolidated under ANY belief CAN be 'good' or 'bad'. There is a sincere religious-type of subjective belief among those who happen to be IN religious groups who do good things. The 'measure' of this is subjective as well though. If I'm hungry and I need some shelter to which something like the Salvation Army provided me, I can appreciate their philosophy that appeals to my welfare. (Interesting that that group also happens to NOT believe in imposing upon those they help contrary to most other religions)

What is 'good' for a non-theist is redirected through government action, like a real welfare system that might appeal to people without bias to their religion but to their actual 'secular' needs.
Marx's revolution never came, and Christianity did not turn out to be "the opium of the masses." In fact, it turned out to be an immense force for social good.
I'm well read into most of the popular political philosophies, especially Marx. The nature of arguments regarding Hegelian logic with respect to phases of political changes sufficed to suggest that Marx contradicted himself or thought he could supersede the dilemmas. I don't support his many views but also know that Christianity originated as its own original 'communistic' system in its origins as adapted by the Romans.

Note too that when the churches act voluntarily, their behavior is most sincere WITHOUT government entrenchment. We also don't witness many actually doing good works external to act as a self-favoring community not indifferent to sororities and fraternities.

I'll pause for now. I didn't realize this post was another long one that needs time and backup. Later.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6455
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:58 pm
The question is to WHICH particular religion is correct of your presumed 97%.
Absolutely. I agree completely.
I don't care how unpopular I am, but I DO know that my own anti-religious stance IS finally being taken a dominant place in the intellectual place of this world.
Actually, it's not. You arrived at that ideology just as the train left the station, it seems (the 1960s). A great number of intellectuals, both historically and now, profess belief in some religion.
Most people of that 97% are still 'secular'
That's not what they say.
I used to call myself Agnostic Atheist. I'm now DO claim a positive rational disapproval of religion for logical reasons. (Gnostic == knowing)
Actually agnostic means "not-knowing." The "a-" is the Greek particle of negation. It's a confession of ignorance, not a claim to know something. A "Gnostic" does claim to know something, but he's a very different fish, and is religious.

But if you do claim to have "a positive, rational disapproval...for logical reasons," then I have no doubt you'll be able to justify that with evidence.

So now it's fair for me to ask, what's your "positive, rational, logical" evidence for the non-existence of God?
.....such as that some think that our life is only a kind of testing ground for some 'real' other-world place and time. This makes these people utilize their beliefs to impose hardships ON OTHERS.
This is true of some religions, and untrue of others. One has to distinguish.
But I am NOT religious.
You don't have to be. To see this, a person would just have to be honest.

When things are not the same, an honest person wants to recognize it. That doesn't mean that he has to believe in any of them...he just has to know the difference between them, and recognize it. That's all.
I don't mind religion if it was kept to oneself.

But "religions" and "cultures" are both collective things. A person who "makes up his own," is just a fantasist, at best...or delusional at worst. Because that's the name we give to people who see things that absolutely nobody else does.
No, the acts of people consolidated under ANY belief CAN be 'good' or 'bad'.
Not in a secular world. In a secular world, there are no criteria for "good" or "bad." There's only what IS.
I don't support his many views but also know that Christianity originated as its own original 'communistic' system in its origins as adapted by the Romans.
Not quite. Christianity was a persecuted group in the Roman Empire. The merely-nominal conversion of Constantine (312 AD) later changed this, but not for a very long while after Christ....about three centuries, in fact.
Note too that when the churches act voluntarily, their behavior is most sincere WITHOUT government entrenchment.
Well, as I've said before, I'm totally in agreement that no religion -- nor Atheism -- has any business controlling government. I am dead-opposed to anyone using a religious position to deny people freedom of conscience. I'm like Locke about that.

That being said, we know something else: a government without people who have convictions about good and evil is the worst kind of government, and this is the very sort of government that has killed more people in the last century than in all of previous human history. So secular governance, if that means an Atheist regime, is the worst possible alternative.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:58 pm
The question is to WHICH particular religion is correct of your presumed 97%.
Absolutely. I agree completely.
Then here is one interpretation about "cultural relativism" that you agree to. That is, the FACT of cultures being relative to one's self, family, community, country, their times, etc, all mean that any particular or arbitrary culture lacks a unique foundation in reality. That is the meaning of "cultural relativism".

Now you and the OP is suggesting that the moral realities, religions, and, all cultural behaviors are themselves not 'relative' with respect to the PRACTICAL realities. As such, it is not 'equal' that one particular religion could hold some belief about what is 'true' or 'correct' behaviors' that are shared across all religions. I agree on this too. Some DO interpret this on the more liberal political side and it comes across as though they are treating the religious FACTS about reality of any religion as equivalent. Many interpret one religion as though it were 'equal' in validity with respect to the interpreted claims within them. They often think that the SAME GOD exists in all religions equally but that God is communicating the relevant moral material THROUGH different cultures without concern for literal interpretation.

Religion to me is more appropriately 'strict' such that they do NOT all meet on par with their contextual meanings because much also depends on a faith in something LITERALLY TRUE about them to have real force. This makes sense.

But would you think it wise to permit a government specific power of theocratic lawmaking? While this may be fine if it is of YOUR religion, you'd be jumping to favor liberal religious relativism when it is a religious theocracy in opposition to you inherently, would you not?
you wrote:
I wrote:I don't care how unpopular I am, but I DO know that my own anti-religious stance IS finally being taken a dominant place in the intellectual place of this world.
Actually, it's not. You arrived at that ideology just as the train left the station, it seems (the 1960s). A great number of intellectuals, both historically and now, profess belief in some religion.
It doesn't matter. Society will always have both the variable religions and some minority of non-religious people with various different percentages of popularity to each.

I can say that science is itself a 'secular' institution that is relatively favorable of the fact that reality has no gods....or if there were, that they too would have to have some apriori state of arbitrary value that has no basis in superiority. If they were born 'superior' and ONLY 'superior', there would be no such thing as 'inferior' without them creating it. The 'superior' idea would lack foundation itself to mean anything other than that something were what it is for being what it is, neither actually superior nor inferior.

We are in an era of science and tech that cannot continue to hold meaning for religious truth other than to those new ones or to those that ALTER old ones to 'fit' conveniently to the present known realities. As such, this flexibility suffices to assure us that they are 'relative'. If they weren't one would have to stick to the beliefs of the ancients with strictness. They'd have to remain doubtful of things like evolution or cosmology or require ALTERING their fixed god's history and meaning. This makes even any religion today 'relative' with respect to those outside (like myself) looking in.
you wrote:
I wrote:I used to call myself Agnostic Atheist. I'm now DO claim a positive rational disapproval of religion for logical reasons. (Gnostic == knowing)
Actually agnostic means "not-knowing." The "a-" is the Greek particle of negation. It's a confession of ignorance, not a claim to know something. A "Gnostic" does claim to know something, but he's a very different fish, and is religious.

But if you do claim to have "a positive, rational disapproval...for logical reasons," then I have no doubt you'll be able to justify that with evidence.

So now it's fair for me to ask, what's your "positive, rational, logical" evidence for the non-existence of God?
I'm aware of the varying definitions. Note that you just erred in assuming the word, "gnostic" is uniquely definitive of only the religious "Gnostics" of the mystic origins. These were the original forms of 'secular' religions that trusted stories as hiding interesting truths within the context of them. I am non-religious AND even share this when I relay how things like the word "Jehovah" [or YHWY] hides its root meaning as "I egg" meaning something similar to "I am the source", which in the past was a GENERAL interpretation of any source. And the meaning of the name of this to be considered 'ineffable' is due to a secular philosophical interpretation of the source of all reality as derived from absolutely nothing, not actually a curse against those to actually speak it.

"Agnostic" (==I don't know) is a selective behavior or stance of ignorance. I am no longer doubtful of knowing that the reality is 'atheistic', that nature itself has no religious foundation, ...because it is a rational construct of beings that have emotions only. I thus call myself a "Gnostic Atheist". The traditional "Gnostic" name to some groups is only short for "Gnostic X" where the X is Christianity, Judaism, etc. By shorting the term and capitalizing on this as though it were 'owned' by a particular sect is only a means to diminish the meaning by non-gnostic X believers to inoculate others against the remote use of the word.

Note too that "theist" and its alternative spelling, "deist", originally meant to summarize the belief of a dual moral reality. Yet now it means even those who simply believe in a supreme god that has only the value, "good". Older religions had equal gods in binary relation at minimal. Even these are 'secular' in that you cannot have something that is 'good' without something as 'bad', as with other duel valued words.
This is true of some religions, and untrue of others. One has to distinguish.
But I am NOT religious.
You don't have to be. To see this, a person would just have to be honest.

When things are not the same, an honest person wants to recognize it. That doesn't mean that he has to believe in any of them...he just has to know the difference between them, and recognize it. That's all.
You are begging a unique relationship of one being 'good' as OWNED by their God. But if this were true, you'd require also accepting the 'bad' ones as OWNED by their God too. So you are selectively ignoring the bad factors in light of your own perspective.

The problem here is that you assume that we 'sense' some understanding of what is or is not 'good' versus 'bad'. As a non-religious person knowing of what evolution means, I interpret the reality of us 'feeling' value as a necessary illusion that our biology evolved to be. We need a mechanism that motivates our consciousness to seek the environment and use information from it to evade dangers. We serve the collective cells of our body and the illusion of the feelings we interpret as 'good' is from arbitrary assignments from the environment. In various periods of development of us as children (and all the way back to our first brain activity likely, we have a type of program that seeks 'values' arbitrarily on a chemical level. If, say your consciousness associated a pin p**** every time you were successfully fed, during these windows of development, your system would DEFINE the associated sensation as 'pleasant'. When the window closes, that assignment may or may not 'fit' with survival in its environment. Unfortunately, an association of favoring the sensation of being poked with pins more likely would end up killing you and prevent you from going further.

These assignments are what initiates a 'moral' sense and is also relative to your environmental experience. Those things that are intrinsically 'good' to you may not necessarily fit to others. As such, you may recognize that your own interpretation may not 'fit' with the world's and so confuse your choice of words for what it means to be 'good' or 'bad'. That is, a child would interpret a behavior they LIKE that is penalized as 'wrong' when internally it is interpreted as 'good' by meaning. This confusion is what causes differences of peoples' behaviors and what leads to differences of rationalizations of reality that evolve into the collective activity of 'religion'.

I don't mind religion if it was kept to oneself.

But "religions" and "cultures" are both collective things. A person who "makes up his own," is just a fantasist, at best...or delusional at worst. Because that's the name we give to people who see things that absolutely nobody else does.[/quote] In light of what I just said, our illusion of value comes first from one's own interpretation of values that favor them. As one's self interpretation of sensations that might be pleasured might be conflicting with ones' environment. But you would preferentially associate with those who share your own in common, whether correct or not. You might also try to FORCE your interpretation of 'good' to be 'bad' by the environment that begs some religious truth that your own 'feeling' is wrong and needs to be defeated through religious conviction. This hints that the reason many hold stronger or not to religion is dependent upon their conflicted fitness to the environment.

Why do I have to suffer as a slave when others are born fortunate? How do I justify why I should conserve my position of wealth when my fortune is merely due to accidental factors of nature? These are two questions based upon one's economic state or predisposition. Note that the ones asking the second question of their fortune tell you they would likely favor a strict religion that needs to be imposed upon others as a means to justify and promote their position. For those who suffer, they would select (or be in an environment already) of those religious beliefs that favor a 'liberal' religion OR a strict religion if they want to utilize it for action.

We are all religious where we default to interpret reality necessarily from our own evolution for survival. The sensations of pleasure and pain are causal justification to religion. But this only would assure religion, as due to emotional fitness, is 'relative' to particular people's environments, their real experience, and are only rationalization mechanisms for why we feel values.
No, the acts of people consolidated under ANY belief CAN be 'good' or 'bad'.
Not in a secular world. In a secular world, there are no criteria for "good" or "bad." There's only what IS.
Government laws are what 'rule' morality. Some call it the "rule of law" in this way. We make laws that are secular recognition of the variation in beliefs of people. And think of it this way: IF reality were neutral of value for having no god, wouldn't it still not require us to reinvent it as a mere creation if only to manipulate others? In other words, you are incorrect to assume reality as NOT having values NEGOTIATED of people where no god exists. You can't interpret my atheism as holding the belief that there cannot be evidence of people behaving 'good' (or 'bad') in a relative way as I have explained. I have FEELINGS of some moral compass based upon my coinciding history in my environment. That some claim that the value could not exist without some being only begs how that being derived what is or is not 'good'. Certainly, if one also adds that "God is good" only AND is the sole Creating cause of all reality, then it too also begs it is the one responsible for creating evil in the first place.

As such, you don't NEED religious cultivation to define value. The opposite would more likely be the case. ...that the societies that collectively agree to sets of behaviors depending upon their own environments, assign value to the gods they create and evolve stories about.
I don't support his many views but also know that Christianity originated as its own original 'communistic' system in its origins as adapted by the Romans.
Not quite. Christianity was a persecuted group in the Roman Empire. The merely-nominal conversion of Constantine (312 AD) later changed this, but not for a very long while after Christ....about three centuries, in fact.
YOUR Christianity was ENFORCED IN LAW with penalties of DEATH by the evolution of that same Roman Empire changing INTO the Roman CATHOLIC Church. They also encouraged destroying history and evidence contrary to their present domination, as most societies in sudden change do (revolution style!) The original church was more likely HIDING (Gnostic style) the origins of those sects trying to adapt to the Greek/Roman empires. The stories of martyrs of Christianity prior to their reign would not be unique to Christians either.

Christianity was sold on borrowing the advantages of Judaism when Jews were NOT welcomed as they represented to mean "terrorist" to the Romans due to the contemporary problems in the Middle East at that time. The stories of this "Jesus" was more of a collection of other peoples', like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba]Simon bar Kokhba[/i] among others of the prior source of Judaism, the Egyptian beliefs.

Contrary to those today, the movement of the early adapters to Christianity was 'communistic' as it had value to the weaker and poorer people, not the wealthy. When Constantine recognized the POWER of religion, especially of the Jewish related religions, he likely selected it to reorient HOW the Empire was to run more effectively in its time. The Roman Empire didn't die; it turned INTO the Catholic Church that removed the meaning of the Emperor for the same reasons as we get the story of The Emperor With NO Clothes, a story that is secularly transcribed into the religion of Christianity. The new changes of assigning the leader as "pope" was to literally "pop-ularize" themselves to the masses better.
Note too that when the churches act voluntarily, their behavior is most sincere WITHOUT government entrenchment.
Well, as I've said before, I'm totally in agreement that no religion -- nor Atheism -- has any business controlling government. I am dead-opposed to anyone using a religious position to deny people freedom of conscience. I'm like Locke about that.

That being said, we know something else: a government without people who have convictions about good and evil is the worst kind of government, and this is the very sort of government that has killed more people in the last century than in all of previous human history. So secular governance, if that means an Atheist regime, is the worst possible alternative.
"Atheism" is NOT a religion. "Communism" is a religion that asserted atheism but does not represent the nature of atheism itself as being a religion. I also already pointed out that religion originates FROM the secular reality. They have to come from somewhere. I certainly wouldn't think that some REAL GOD came here, imposed the religion upon the people and then disappeared. This is where you are interpreting Atheism as affirming a denial. You can't conceive of the possibility that someone like myself could not not believe in YOUR GOD FIRST as though it WERE REAL and that I know it but am simply being in line with YOUR DEVIL.

Note that even non-religious cultures form today to COUNTER more directly your religion, like the 'satanism' that "Marilyn Manson" would seem to espouse. This is a MOCKERY of the religious interpretation by such an artist to the delusion that if you LACK some religion , you must be in opposition of the MEANING of that religion. Such expressions by some atheists as he, can come across as counter-religious. Note, by the way, that his style is one more adapted by the conservative who is atheist! Relating it back to this topic, the conservative atheist would still prefer to CREATE a top-down authoritarian religion upon the general population, diminish their intellectual skepticism, and prevent them from taking away the power of those fortunate people.

Can you not see how religion in constitutional or lawmaking purposes is dangerous regardless of the intentions of those who do good by religion?

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Cultural Relativism is wrong

Post by Dachshund » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:06 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:31 pm
philosopher wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:22 pm

Again with this shit from you?
I wish all current modern day nazis - members of National Socialist parties refering to Hitler - as horrible a death as the 6 million lives their predecessors caused.
Erm, so for the simple crime of being the wrong sort of person, without relation to anything they have actually done, you would send an entire class of persons into the gas chambers.

You are an absolute, total, fucking moron.
PHILOSOPHER,

The way the Jews died in Nazi gas chambers was RELATIVELY humane. They were poisoned with Cyanide (Zyklon B). When cyanide gas is inhaled death is relatively rapid. This is why in former American Gas Chambers cyanide gas was used to execute prisoners who had been given the Death Sentence for their crimes. What is shocking about the Holocaust is the highly organised systematic, technically efficient mode of killing that the gas chambers represented, a means of murder that enabled such unimaginably,large numbers (6 million say) of Jews to be "mechanically" exterminated with cold , scientific efficiency. Likewise, the incineration of the gassed corpses in the ovens, this was the most cost-effective and rapid way for the Nazis to deal with the disposal of the bodies of the Jews they had gassed.

In terms of murder, when it comes to a body- counts Stalin trumps the Nazis, BIG TIME. One particularly horrific example of mass murder organised by Stalin was a genocide that is called "The Holodomor". "The Holodomor was a man-made famine planned by Stain in the Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed between 7-10 million Ukrainians by starvation. To die by slow starvation is one of the very worst ways to die, the distress and suffering is unspeakable. Death in a gas chamber would be relatively merciful in comparison. (Mao Zedong, another Marxist was very big on starving his own citizens to death as well, during the "Cultural Revolution", but I leave you to look up the appalling details if you're interested.)

Another shocking example of mass murder was that carried out by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge army in Cambodia. In just two years 1976-1978, they tortured and killed some 2 million Cambodian civilians , men, women and children. Many were murdered by being hacked to death with picks, hoes shovel and other farm tools in the infamous "killing Fields" of Cambodia. They were killed like this because shooting them was regarded as being a waste of costly ammunition. That is, the regime was cash-strapped and could not afford the cost of bullets to kill its victims. Once again, I rather die in a gas chamber than be hacked to pieces while I was alive with a farm hoe or pick.

What Pol Pot and Stalin (and Mao Zedong) have in common is that they were Marxists, the fundamental principles of their political ideology were set down by Karl Marx. Fact.

And guess what Philosopher (?), there lots and lots of classical Marxists still active today. Universities in the West are full of them, all dressed in neat jackets and ties, living in the swankier middle-class suburbs of a town/city near you. Preaching Marxist poison to 19 and 20- year- olds. So, I guess you think that they (and other Marxists - there are lots of them in the woodwork, you know !)should all be rounded up and murdered ? AS for me, I think they are very sick human beings, (psychiatricly disordered) and they currently a inflict tremendous amount of damage on many individuals and on Western society in general. A large number of them are not "treatable"/"curable", and I would suggest they ( the most serious and chronic of the unsavagable offenders) should be identified by the authorities and segregated from mainstream Western society.

Finally, when will you get it through your thick skull, that the real Nazi party - the original National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP)- no longer exists. When will you finally grasp the fact that the NSDAP was a political organisation that emerged in a particular historical circumstance, namely in Germany in the 1920 during a very turbulent and unstable period of German history. If you read the original 1920 manifesto of the NSDAP ( which changed very little over the next two and one half decades, you will find its content is very different to what you are likely imagining. The NSDAP ( "NAZI") Party manifesto contains 25 points/principles, it was written by Anton Drexler, edited by Hitler, and proclaimed before a crowd of 2000 in a Munich beer hall in 1920. There are three fundamental principles in the manifesto that would undergirded NAZI ideology for the next 25 years. One of these was a commitment to abrogate the Treaty of Versailles and St Germain, an issue that relates to the defeat of Germany in WW1 that holds no relevance whatsoever for any modern-day "NAZI". Another was the demand for land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of the German race/people and colonisation for our surplus population, ( what was called "Lebensraum" by the original NAZIs, unless I am mistaken "Lebensraum" is not an issue on the agenda of any modern- day "NAZI" activist in the West. The third foundational principle was that: only a member of the German race can be a German citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without, consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race. OK, so Hitler hated Jews, we KNOW that. The Holocaust was an unspeakable crime against humanity, I KNOW that. But in terms of anti-semitism in 2019 you will find the current British Labour Party is riddled with it, and the leader of that party, Jeremy Corbyn MP, has done more over his political career to incite hatred of the Jewish people/Israel than any tin-pot group of Neo-Nazis in the West ( most of whom are bored middle-class teenagers with acute psychological issues of various kinds).

Interestingly, with regard to Hitler's ideas about race, and official NAZI ideology like "Blood and Soil" ("Blut und Boden") he never wanted war with England as he regarded the English race to be a kindred Germanic people. And this is true insofar as the Angles and the Saxons who settled England ( and gave rise to what we call the the Anglo-Saxon race) were both Germanic tribes from Western Europe.

Regards

Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests