The Hazards of Belief

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Since you've shown you're familiar with the term cultural relativism, it probably comes as no surprise that your views on the inferiority of others values would be described as ethnocentrism; a trait you share with ISIS oddly enough. Given a choice between the two I'll take the tolerance of cultural relativism any day.

Isis equivalent of Goodwin , well done! If particular values hold a person back wheras other values help a person develop then its obvious that some values are inferior to others . the job of a progressive society is to promote good values and discourage bad ones when possible. Your relativism leads you open to charges of supporting child marriage, fgm and the suppression of women because its their culture and who can say or something.
Do you not see that adhering to 7th century values is unlikely to be a good thing in the 21st century when everything is different now? Or that from a particular society's point of view its in its interest to attempt to bring everybody along? As not doing so causes problems

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Cultural relativism is a denial of human evolution, both biologically and culturally . Its a leap of faith not backed up by any evidence. What you are calling "ethnocentrism" is merely an observation of clear examples of western superiority(also Eastern, but Japan and China are not importing these cultures, so lets keep it at Western), be it culturally, sociologically or in scientific endeavours. Unlike ISIS however, I dont think anyone is going on a crusade to spread their version of civilisation.
Africa and the middle east can keep their culture and stay as ****holes, I frankly dont care, but the idea that you say those clearly failed and regressive cultures should be held up as the equal of western civilisation, just lol.
3000 years of westerns civilisation, art, science, law, philosophy is the same as some 6th century barbarism masquerading as religion, or random African tribalism, come off it. The noble savage is dead.

.....yep, if there was a mask its long long gone.

silverharp

even Cenk manages to get on the right side of this one. I believe she was killed since

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Yx7Yizxdc

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

.....yep, if there was a mask its long long gone.

"A mask", I dont hide my opinions, call me when Abu Bakr Al Bhagdadi sends someone to the moon.

cowboyBuilder

silverharp wrote: »

even Cenk manages to get on the right side of this one. I believe she was killed since

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Yx7Yizxdc

I heard about this one, be careful, I don't think she was killed, I think it's used as propaganda against Islam - which I wish it wasn't as it makes genuine concerns less valid.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"A mask", I dont hide my opinions, call me when Abu Bakr Al Bhagdadi sends someone to the moon.

I seem to remember that there once similar disparaging comments about the Chinese and the Indians, both now nuclear powers.

You seem to be implying that somebodys nominal religion is linked to intelligence or acheivment there. This would be another string to your self avowed racist bow.

silverharp

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I heard about this one, be careful, I don't think she was killed, I think it's used as propaganda against Islam - which I wish it wasn't as it makes genuine concerns less valid.

That's fair enough , its not like the story needs to be inflated

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

I seem to remember that there once similar disparaging comments about the Chinese and the Indians, both now nuclear powers.

You seem to be implying that somebodys nominal religion is linked to intelligence or acheivment there. This would be another string to your self avowed racist bow.

Whilst I would not, necessarily, link someone's nominal religion to intelligence, surely it is not unreasonable to point out that, in some cases, there appears to be a link between certain religions and the levels of attainment achieved by the adherent of that religion...? Or is this another of those things we aren't supposed to talk about...?

Surely if you have a religion or culture that considers the only book one needs to, or should, be read is their specific holy book then it will logically follow that the people that follow that consideration would, in comparison to religions or cultures that have no such consideration, achieve less. Where achieve is, obviously, what us privileged white racists consider to be achievement...? No?

If you have a religion and or culture that dictates that, for example, girls and women should not be educated is it wrong to point out that girl and women in that religion and/or culture are likely to be less well educated than women or girls not in that religion and/or culture?

If a particular religion and/or culture engages in activities that we consider to be wrong surely we can point that out? No? We, as a society believe it is not acceptable, for example, for a male adult to have sex with a 14 year old girl. So why can't I say I think Italy is wrong to allow this and I consider it to be rape? Or can I say that...? Am I only not allowed to say that when the men aren't white? If I can say it for Italy can I say it for other countries where it is allowed?

What are the rules here? How do we discuss this?

MrP

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

I seem to remember that there once similar disparaging comments about the Chinese and the Indians, both now nuclear powers.

You seem to be implying that somebodys nominal religion is linked to intelligence or acheivment there. This would be another string to your self avowed racist bow.

China and India have long histories of higher civilisation, art, sculpture, philosophy, technological progression. By contrast, the monoculture/religion of Islam that conquered and displaced the myriad of cultures that made up North Africa and the Middle East, had a brief "golden period" piggybacking off the ancient Greeks and Romans, and then collapsed and regressed, and will continue to regress until the people reject it and take on their national identities in its stead.

In the case of Islam it is. Cousin marriage/inbreeding which is massively prevelant in muslim communities, leads to lower IQ's. Facts arent racist. I've posted the links to this before, if you have a people that consistently intermarry you will have higher rates of genetic disorders and lower IQ.
Thats not to say "all" fall into this, its just that these Islamic societies have produced a massive underclass that do fall into this category. Hence their societies and culture being a completely regressive one.

There are tonnes and tonnes of medical journals backing this up. But hey play the "racist" card and buy into this cultural relativity nonsense. Its not like the countries themselves dont recognise this and healthcare professionals are being silenced due to religion(where have we seen that type of crap before, wouldnt be our own windswept rock would it?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world/saudi-arabia-awakes-to-the-perils-of-inbreeding.html


Ive had this discussion with you before and you had the same answer blah blah blah racist, fingers in ears.

http://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-6-17
http://www.gluefox.com/min/IQ%20effects%20india.pdf

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Whilst I would not, necessarily, link someone's nominal religion to intelligence, surely it is not unreasonable to point out that, in some cases, there appears to be a link between certain religions and the levels of attainment achieved by the adherent of that religion...? Or is this another of those things we aren't supposed to talk about...?

Surely if you have a religion or culture that considers the only book one needs to, or should, be read is their specific holy book then it will logically follow that the people that follow that consideration would, in comparison to religions or cultures that have no such consideration, achieve less. Where achieve is, obviously, what us privileged white racists consider to be achievement...? No?

If you have a religion and or culture that dictates that, for example, girls and women should not be educated is it wrong to point out that girl and women in that religion and/or culture are likely to be less well educated than women or girls not in that religion and/or culture?

If a particular religion and/or culture engages in activities that we consider to be wrong surely we can point that out? No? We, as a society believe it is not acceptable, for example, for a male adult to have sex with a 14 year old girl. So why can't I say I think Italy is wrong to allow this and I consider it to be rape? Or can I say that...? Am I only not allowed to say that when the men aren't white? If I can say it for Italy can I say it for other countries where it is allowed?

What are the rules here? How do we discuss this?

MrP

You seem to be confusing lack of resources, wealth and infrastructure for a lack of I hestitate to guess what. The US has won 357 noble prizes, of which 28 occur before 1946. The whole of Western Europe has won (roughly) 294 in the same period despite being more populous. One can look at Spain (5) Greece (2) and then see Ireland (9). Are we to presume that the Spanish are somehow deficient in mental capacity?

jpnelsforearm wrote:

China and India (................) fingers in ears.

A wonderful fusion of religious bigotry with pseudo scientific racism. Well done Sir.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

A wonderful fusion of religious bigotry with pseudo scientific racism. Well done Sir.

So you deny inbreeding causes lower IQ and other genetic disorders? If Catholicism was leading the Irish to an inbreeding rate between 40-60% and the Bishops silenced any medical opposition due to Jesus's life, stance and actions in marrying his cousin, as it is with Mohammed, would you be so quick with accusations of "religious bigotry". All religions are ****, some are more delusional and dangerous than others.

You can just throw out racist and attempt to kill the discussion, or you can actually ask me to back up whatever particular statement you find objectionable. I base my opinion on science and the medical reality on the ground, research papers etc, I'll be happy to share them with you.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

So you deny inbreeding causes lower IQ and other genetic disorders?..................

If you think I'm going down the "inferior" rabbit hole with your racist generalisations you're mistaken.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

If you think I'm going down the "inferior" rabbit hole with your racist generalisations you're mistaken.

If a population group from anywhere in the world deliberately creates a breeding depression the results will be the same, its not a "racist generalisation", its a medical fact.
Whilst I haven't really researched it, I would hazard a guess that a breeding depression is also responsible for the general ill health and low attainment of the travellers in Ireland, who are genetically the same as you or I. So no "inferior" rabbithole" for you. It can happen in any population group if its a cultural norm, but hey, fall back on the "racist" line, far easier to throw out, then to engage with reality.

silverharp

First cousin marriage is a part of the Quran and Islam unfortunately and Mohammed (pbuh) married a first cousin. On purely medical grounds first cousin marriages should be banned imo.

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1265

Question
Why was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married to his cousin? Is this permitted to Muslim people or was it special for the Prophet (peace be upon him)? I personally do not think it is a good idea. I respect my cousin like my sister! Moreover, I heard from some people that none of the Companions ever married his first cousin.

Answered by
the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî


......Allah has made marriage with first cousins lawful. There is no dispute about this in Islamic Law. Anyone who wishes to dispute with this is placing his own religion in serious danger.

.......We hope that you can see that there is no basis for disputing the issue of a Muslim marrying his first cousin. It is established by the Qur’ân, the Sunnah, the practice of the Companions including the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the consensus of the Muslim Ummah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Such unions are seen as strong, building as they do on already tight family networks.


"You have an understanding," explains Neila Butt, who married her first cousin, Farooq, nine years ago.

"Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related," she says.

"You have the same family history and when you talk about the old times either here or in Pakistan you know who you are talking about. It's just a nicer emotional feel."

But the statistics for recessive genetic illness in cousin marriages make sobering reading.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing lack of resources, wealth and infrastructure for a lack of I hestitate to guess what. The US has won 357 noble prizes, of which 28 occur before 1946. The whole of Western Europe has won (roughly) 294 in the same period despite being more populous. One can look at Spain (5) Greece (2) and then see Ireland (9). Are we to presume that the Spanish are somehow deficient in mental capacity?




A wonderful fusion of religious bigotry with pseudo scientific racism. Well done Sir.

So why do you think the lands of Suleiman the Magnificent are now just a collection of underperforming states (to put it mildly) and the Europe which he terrified has ,despite the most appalling self destructiveness, gone on to recover every time ,and progress century after century ?

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Cultural relativism is a denial of human evolution, both biologically and culturally.

Actually, cultural relativism is the principle that an individual person's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its a leap of faith not backed up by any evidence.

The leap of faith would be assuming your culture is superior to anothers based simply on the fact that it's your culture.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What you are calling "ethnocentrism" is merely an observation of clear examples of western superiority(also Eastern, but Japan and China are not importing these cultures, so lets keep it at Western), be it culturally, sociologically or in scientific endeavours. Unlike ISIS however, I dont think anyone is going on a crusade to spread their version of civilisation.

The observation that a value is inferior without applying an objective standard is not an example of superiority, it's an example of supremacism.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Africa and the middle east can keep their culture and stay as ****holes, I frankly dont care, but the idea that you say those clearly failed and regressive cultures should be held up as the equal of western civilisation, just lol.

And loling at unobjective and unsubstantiated claims of failure, regressiveness, '****holes' would also be an example of supremacism.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

3000 years of westerns civilisation, art, science, law, philosophy is the same as some 6th century barbarism masquerading as religion, or random African tribalism, come off it. The noble savage is dead.

Sure. Because there isn't a single notable artist, scientist, jurist, philosopher, mathematician, or physician who hasn't come from western civilisation in the last 3000 years, is there? Lol... as you say.

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

philosopher, mathematician, or physician who hasn't come from western civilisation in the last 3000 years, is there? Lol... as you say.

Care to do a pro rata comparison say since the time of this man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

So why do you think the lands of Suleiman the Magnificent are now just a collection of underperforming states (to put it mildly) and the Europe which he terrified has ,despite the most appalling self destructiveness, gone on to recover every time ,and progress century after century ?

Because the resources, climate and general conditions weren't there to fuel an industrial economy. Once Europe began the progression into a modern industrial society it was unable to compete. Europe might have been ravaged by wars but industrial technology was not lost and progress perhaps slowed but never ceased. European progress takes off apace, fuelling European trade dominance, securing wealth which fuels further progress.

Take for example the vast amount of Nobels won by the US post 1945 vs Europe. Here you can see the effect of power and wealth causing advance and research to shift from one sphere to another sphere in living memory.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Isis equivalent of Goodwin , well done! If particular values hold a person back wheras other values help a person develop then its obvious that some values are inferior to others . the job of a progressive society is to promote good values and discourage bad ones when possible. Your relativism leads you open to charges of supporting child marriage, fgm and the suppression of women because its their culture and who can say or something.

I think you mean Godwin? Triumph for the progressive values of western education there, I'm sure.
So, when Western values hold a person back (45 million (14.5%) Americans were living below the poverty line in 2013) can we say those values are inferior? After in all Qatar that figure is 0%. Their literacy rate is 97.3% compared to the USs 86%. But yeah, they're inferior because the let young people get married, sure. I can't really speculate on what the job of a progressive society is; I've never heard of a whole society that had a unifying goal or 'job' that lasted longer than a particular emergency, and progressive is very much a relative term, even within a society never mind when comparing one with another. For instance it might be considered progessive to extend the right to vote to people at a younger age, or even the right to marry, or to extend the right to life to those as yet unborn. Others would consider it progressive to do the exact opposite of all three, and that's just within one society.

silverharp wrote: »

Do you not see that adhering to 7th century values is unlikely to be a good thing in the 21st century when everything is different now? Or that from a particular society's point of view its in its interest to attempt to bring everybody along? As not doing so causes problems

7th century values like fidelity, compensation for personal injuries, public holidays, literacy and education? These are all values Western (and Eastern) society held in the 7th century; neither we nor they abandoned them, we brought them with us into the 21st Century. The fact that you as a Westerner feel your 21st values are 'better' than Middle Eastern 21st century values isn't evidence of anything other than your ethnocentricity.

Absolam

marienbad wrote: »

Care to do a pro rata comparison say since the time of this man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna ?

Why? The very fact that there are any at all refutes the proposition.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Because the resources, climate and general conditions weren't there to fuel an industrial economy. Once Europe began the progression into a modern industrial society it was unable to compete. Europe might have been ravaged by wars but industrial technology was not lost and progress perhaps slowed but never ceased. European progress takes off apace, fuelling European trade dominance, securing wealth which fuels further progress.

Take for example the vast amount of Nobels won by the US post 1945 vs Europe. Here you can see the effect of power and wealth causing advance and research to shift from one sphere to another sphere in living memory.

I think you need to revisit history Nodin , the above is missing out a fair bit . We just didn't start with the industrial Revolution - the was as a result of past events .

The Ottoman Empire could have just as easily kicked on but it didn't . Why ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

I think you need to revisit history Nodin , the above is missing out a fair bit . We just didn't start with the industrial Revolution - the was as a result of past events .

The Ottoman Empire could have just as easily kicked on but it didn't . Why ?

.........no, it couldn't have. There needed to be a conjunction of events and circumstances to allow the technology to prosper but which didn't exist there. Likewise China, Africa and so on. Simplistic "but its Islam" nonsense just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. There are perfectly legitmate criticisms of the religion to be made, but this is not one of them.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

7th century values like fidelity, compensation for personal injuries, public holidays, literacy and education? These are all values Western (and Eastern) society held in the 7th century; neither we nor they abandoned them, we brought them with us into the 21st Century. The fact that you as a Westerner feel your 21st values are 'better' than Middle Eastern 21st century values isn't evidence of anything other than your ethnocentricity.

and society moves on , it progresses and drops the stuff that isnt needed or based on bad knowledge. Also Islam is an idea not an ethic thing so your term "ethnocentricity" is wrong. It is logical to judge a society that punishes Apostasy, or permits sexual activity with children based on religious ideas

silverharp

meanwhile in Pakistan

http://www.britishpakistanichristians.org/blog/christian-sisters-abducted-and-forced-into-islamic-marriage

Christian Sisters Abducted and Forced into Islamic Marriage

As the world looks on two more Christian women have been abducted, raped and forced into Islamic marriage. Two sisters Tahira (21 years) and Reema Bibi (20 years) were kidnapped from near their home in Sargodha, Pakistan on December 2nd 2015, whilst travelling home from work. Their kidnap is believed to be an act of retaliation for a perceived dishonour.

Apparently the girls were targeted as one of the male members of their family had eloped with a Muslim girl who had willingly married her Christian lover.

The young women were abducted by two Muslim men, Muhammad Mustafa (29 years) and Muhammad Kashif (30 years), who lived locally in an area named Chak 38 Janubi. Despite living in an existing marriage with two young children Mustafa raped and forced Tahira to marry him in the usual route for forced conversion in Pakistan. Muhammed Kashif repeated the practice on Reema and both women were then held captive at a location in Islamabad.

Shamim Masih, BPCA reporter, said:

"The family are in grave danger and are already receiving threats from Muslim groups and the Police. Their situation is sadly not uncommon in Pakistan and is a product of years of inculcated hatred towards minorities. In my opinion there is little hope for justice for this family whilst they remain in Pakistan."

Tahira, the eldest of the two sisters, escaped the clutches of the Muslim abductors in February and on the 11th of February police officers duly arrested six of the male members of her family, after a First Incident Report was filed at the behest of the lecherous Muhammed Kashif. Police have released the six male men after pressure from several humanitarian groups but have demanded that the family return Tahira to her husband Muhammed Kashif. ...

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

meanwhile in Pakistan

http://www.britishpakistanichristians.org/blog/christian-sisters-abducted-and-forced-into-islamic-marriage

Christian Sisters Abducted and Forced into Islamic Marriage

As the world looks on two more Christian women have been abducted, raped and forced into Islamic marriage. Two sisters Tahira (21 years) and Reema Bibi (20 years) were kidnapped from near their home in Sargodha, Pakistan on December 2nd 2015, whilst travelling home from work. Their kidnap is believed to be an act of retaliation for a perceived dishonour.

Apparently the girls were targeted as one of the male members of their family had eloped with a Muslim girl who had willingly married her Christian lover.

The young women were abducted by two Muslim men, Muhammad Mustafa (29 years) and Muhammad Kashif (30 years), who lived locally in an area named Chak 38 Janubi. Despite living in an existing marriage with two young children Mustafa raped and forced Tahira to marry him in the usual route for forced conversion in Pakistan. Muhammed Kashif repeated the practice on Reema and both women were then held captive at a location in Islamabad.

Shamim Masih, BPCA reporter, said:

"The family are in grave danger and are already receiving threats from Muslim groups and the Police. Their situation is sadly not uncommon in Pakistan and is a product of years of inculcated hatred towards minorities. In my opinion there is little hope for justice for this family whilst they remain in Pakistan."

Tahira, the eldest of the two sisters, escaped the clutches of the Muslim abductors in February and on the 11th of February police officers duly arrested six of the male members of her family, after a First Incident Report was filed at the behest of the lecherous Muhammed Kashif. Police have released the six male men after pressure from several humanitarian groups but have demanded that the family return Tahira to her husband Muhammed Kashif. ...

Yeah, clearly the fault of western imperialism.

MrP

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, cultural relativism is the principle that an individual person's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture.
The leap of faith would be assuming your culture is superior to anothers based simply on the fact that it's your culture.

Maybe in theory, but in practice all it seems to be is a defence of barbarism "because its their culture" and "tolerance". What someone does in their own homeland is irrelevant, but when its imported to Europe, one can, and must make a value judgement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo

The observation that a value is inferior without applying an objective standard is not an example of superiority, it's an example of supremacism.

The objective standard is scientific progress, life span and health etc, art sculpture. Take art, for example, figural/animal representations are banned, clearly western art, because it can, and has, evolved, is clearly superior to art from the Islamic world. Much in the same way of if the West had no Renaissance and all art was restricted to perspective-less iconography on the orders of the Catholic church, and Islam had a Renaissance in our stead they could rightly claim us to be hidebound and regressive, our art, expression stymied by religion.

And loling at unobjective and unsubstantiated claims of failure, regressiveness, '****holes' would also be an example of supremacism.

Im not "loling" at those cultures, as I said, I dont care so long as they stay in their place, Im loling at you comparing cultures and societies that haven't progressed to western civilisation, saying they are equal.

Sure. Because there isn't a single notable artist, scientist, jurist, philosopher, mathematician, or physician who hasn't come from western civilisation in the last 3000 years, is there? Lol... as you say.

Thats not quite what I said though was it? Have a read again, I cited two specific instances of culture's that haven't spawned anything to rival the fruits of Western civilisation.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Take art, for example, figural/animal representations are banned, clearly western art, because it can, and has, evolved, is clearly superior to art from the Islamic world.

You've clearly never been in the Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

and society moves on , it progresses and drops the stuff that isnt needed or based on bad knowledge.

Progress is most assuredly a relative term

silverharp wrote: »

Also Islam is an idea not an ethic thing so your term "ethnocentricity" is wrong. It is logical to judge a society that punishes Apostasy, or permits sexual activity with children based on religious ideas

I wasn't talking about Islam, not even whether it's 'an ethic thing'. I was talking about your attitude to other societies; ethnocentricity is the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture, or a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. A belief and tendency you seem to display fairly frequently in your posts.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Maybe in theory, but in practice all it seems to be is a defence of barbarism "because its their culture" and "tolerance". What someone does in their own homeland is irrelevant, but when its imported to Europe, one can, and must make a value judgement.

Yep, that's pretty much ethnocentrism right there

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The objective standard is scientific progress, life span and health etc, art sculpture.

What exactly is that the objective standard of?
If you like your art sculpture more than you like theirs, they're inferior barbarians?
Do we all have to make scientific progress, or are you going to select champions, 7th century style?
If they live longer healthier lives than you, will than make you inferior?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Take art, for example, figural/animal representations are banned, clearly western art, because it can, and has, evolved, is clearly superior to art from the Islamic world. Much in the same way of if the West had no Renaissance and all art was restricted to perspective-less iconography on the orders of the Catholic church, and Islam had a Renaissance in our stead they could rightly claim us to be hidebound and regressive, our art, expression stymied by religion.

And yet there are scholars and art experts who feel The Dome of the Rock, the Taj Mahal, the Alhambra, the Khamsa of Nizami,and the Ardabil Carpet number amongst the countless Islamic artworks unrivalled by Western artists, and clearly superior to all others. For a topic to demostrate objectivity, it's odd you choose one so utterly subjective.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im not "loling" at those cultures, as I said, I dont care so long as they stay in their place, Im loling at you comparing cultures and societies that haven't progressed to western civilisation, saying they are equal.

Really? You don't even comprehend that your notion that they are "clearly failed and regressive cultures" is ridiculously subjective? Nor am I claiming any cultures are equal; I'm saying that holding one culture up to the standards of another is simply an exercise in prejudice.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Thats not quite what I said though was it? Have a read again, I cited two specific instances of culture's that haven't spawned anything to rival the fruits of Western civilisation.

You did not; you compared the civilisation, art, science, law and philosophy of the last 3000 years of the West to what you imagine is some 6th century barbarism masquerading as religion, or random African tribalism; completely dismissing the civilisation, art, science, law and philosophy produced in the East in the last 3000 years.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've clearly never been in the Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi.

With Floral design by an Englishman;). Its pleasant, but it brings nothing new to the table. Its scale is impressive. But its still clearly built within the restrictive framework of religious tenants. Opulence, yes, depth? no. Take away the scale on the outside and its bland, a gothic church(though I dont like Gothic architecture) has more vision and direction, a certain strident, meaty presence . Where is the progress? Its still noticeably a mosque, a mosque with a lot of money poured into it, thats it.

Take for example the Birds Nest stadium, its a stadium so you have to work within sthe framework of an actual stadium as opposed to a structure, they still produced something striking. Abu Dhabi and these oil rich states have an opportunity to create their own Sistine ceilings, so far, they have neglected to do so.