Ethnocentricism is an egoistic manner in which one views the world. One's world view is believed to be supreme over all other world view which is necessarily faulty. An ethnocentric person will judge other people based on one's own values and norms.

It's something like: I like the color Purple and I hate Orange. So, as an ethnocentric person, when I see someone wearing an orange colored shirt, I'd say that guy is stupid and has no taste. I judge that person simply by my own preferences and my own set of ideals.

Are realists ethnocentric?

Do you have something against ethnocentrics?

No I don't. Did I imply that?
If I was, then I'm automatically an ethnocentric

What I'm saying is, if realists were ethnocentrics, it would defeat the very founding idea of realists it self. - seeking what is real.

By being ethnocentric, one automatically rules out all other possibilities. Instead of looking at every possible choices, an ethnocentrics would prefer to believe in ideas and values that is already pre-established and fixed in the head, ready to reject any new/incoming suggestions, without a second thought.

By the sounds of it, a realist must be ethnocentric then. Ruling out all non-real possibilities?

with that definition of ethnocentric, you could use it interchangeably with the word close-minded

it's not the same.

ethnocentricity is the belief that one race is superior to another.

Race is another instresting issue that can be discussed in another thread.

Ethnocentricism is not about race - that would be racism.
It is about believing the superiority of one's values over another.

And like I said, If realists were truly ethnocentrics, then it would defeat the fundamental idea of realists itself.
I therefore, suggest, realists cannot and should not be ethnocentrics.

you've got the wrong idea of what ethnocentric is.

realists are not remotely ethnocentric.

culture and groups does not equal race. Sorry, I major in Sociology.

ahhh then, good to know that realists are not ethnocentrics. Therefore, they should not be advocating people who believe in mystical things are stupid right?

ethno-centric (look at the roots of the word itself)

ethnic groups, can be racial.

In such a context, the spanish, who invaded south america thought they were 'superior peoples' to the natives that lived there. They were ethnocentric, they justified what horrible things they did by thinking themselves worthier or 'superior' to others. We don't justify our beliefs by suggesting we're better than people, we justify our beliefs by reason. And being ethnocentric is not remotely reasonable (thinking yourself better because you're white or spanish or english or whatever).

As realists, we don't think we are the 'chosen' people, and we don't think we're better 'racially, or culturally'. But if you're going to say realists are ethnocentric because they believe themselve to be 'going about life' in the correct manner, then everyone, by that watered down shitty definition would be ethnocentric, including yourself.

On a lighter note:



hmm, I have no soul. Don't believe in one, does that mean I'm unhappy

Realists aren't better, Reality is better.

Ok, fine..... I'll play by that definition.
I'm not saying realists are ethnocentric. I do not know. That is why I asked.

So, let me drop the term ethnocentric and rephrase the question to:
Do realists think people are stupid because they pray to something realists don't believe in?




hehehe.... i don't know about that. You can wake the guy up and ask him.

I get the feeling you're trying to manipulate us into a corner, Yunir, and that's a waste of your time and ours. So the following is probably wasted but what the hay I have a little time.

First, realists "believe in" what is demonstrably, see feel touch REAL. We don't know what all's real but we've seen a whole lotta bullshit, had it up to here with a lotta crap that's been foisted on us as real, as true, and said you must believe or you will go to hell or some other imaginary and ghastly place to suffer. We're going to be more than happy to "believe in" god when he steps on up in public and in person and introduces himself (or herself).

Actually, "believe in" is an inaccurate way to put it. It means basically to take some very critical "fact" on faith, which we aint a gonna. Been there, done that, you're wasting your time thinking you can drag us back into that morass. Go proseletize elsewhere.

Second, whether you're stupid or scared or brainwashed or childish or magically gifted with a belief in a god doesn't matter. It doesn't work for us. If it will make you cut the crap then fine, no you're not stupid to believe in god but you are irritating and come off as supercilious to find yourself wonderfully occupied by seeking converts here so please cut the crap or else go away voluntarily.

Arf Arf

yunir, you ask: "Do realists think people are stupid because they pray to something realists don't believe in?"


Some realists do think that. I don't. I generally think goddists have not intellectually evolved toward reality in the way that realists and atheists have.

It's actually okay by me, so long as they don't shove their religion down my throat in my own church.

Alright... that's all I wanted to know. You have answered my question. Thank you!

I am not seeking to convert anyone, not through a forum. Please!

I am here in the interest of realist itself. I give ideas for people to think about, and I let others present me with ideas to think about. I think the founders of this COR called it exploration? And also, seeking what is real by scrutinizing. Isn't that found in the main website somewhere?

anyway, thx again Plutodog and QQ!

Smart people can have some pretty stupid beliefs.

I admit I do sneer down upon some creationist's beliefs and some theistic beliefs. But I don't discriminate on the basis of religion. I discriminate on the basis of behaviour, oh wait, that isn't discrimination at all

Hey frosty,

Reality is. (period) I agree that realists are not better, realist is just a self-proclaimed title and quite subjective at that.

Andrew

Personally, I do not care what "realists" believe or don't believe in.

From what I have examined, observed, discovered and researched, I think that people who pray are not stupid, but programmed. This programming usually occures at a young age, but can occure later in life.

Praying has nothing to do with intelligence and neither does programming.

* How many people started to pray before knowing the concept of prayer, presently and historically?

* Is there any objective proof that prayers deliver any true answers, divine advice or miracles?

* Is there any objective proof that the power of prayer has healed a human being?

* If a child was born with no concept of prayer, would he or she ever feel the inclination to pray?

* Does a large portion of the human populous adopt false ideas from some form of human stimulus or programming?

* Can humans constuct fictional stories and have the ability to misinform or lie?

I have studied and answered these questions to the best of my abilities and have logically and rationally come to the answer that the idea of prayer is just a human concept past on by programming. If prayer works for someone who causes no harm to others or others' freedom and liberties, then I have no issue with them or their beliefs.

Thanks,
Andrew

programming.... interesting idea quist.
so, you mean, it is innately human to do prayers?
Now, after millions of evolution, why is it still an innate behaviour?
We can argue that prayers exists beacuse people are always preaching and all.

But I think wishing upon a star, having good luck charms and other non-deity superstition should also be considered praying.

When we are stranded on an unknown island, or in the mddle of the ocean, we hope for our survival. But what are these hopes based on? I think to hope is also a form of prayer.

hmmm... talking about getting stranded, I think my compass is broken. I'm drifting away from the topic.

yunir,

Why do some humans have no need for prayer, non-deity superstitions or good luck charms?

BTW, I am one of these humans. My answer to the above question is that none of these actions offer truth or substance, as far as I have observed and discovered.

I have hypothesized that the concept of prayers and superstitions have been imprinted or programmed into most people's psyches from the start of learning. I am not aware of any provable hypothesize that states that prayer, superstitions or charms offer any tangible effect upon humans and/or our world.

There is observable proof that the belief of prayer, superstition and charms can change a subject's psyche or physical state. In these cases though it is in the power of belief, not the actual praying, superstitions or charms that can offer change.

Thanks,
Andrew

I think it is innate for humans to perform prayers deity-based or otherwise. But overtime, some people overcome this innate behaviour through rationalization.

you posed the question "If a child was born with no concept of prayer, would he or she ever feel the inclination to pray?"

I would think yes. But how the prayer is done and to who or what would probably be entirely up to the child's own worldview. It's just my thoughts anyway.

I think this is one scientific question that will probably remain unanswered. We can seclude a child from the world and see how that child behaves, but that would be inhumane.

Hmm maybe we can use clones??

yunir,



What came first the concept or the action? Is any type of prayers seen in any part of nature, human or non-human? Did some people overcome their innate behavior or was it their programming in the belief in prayer? From my observations and discoveries, I think it is easier to overcome programming over innate behavior (human nature).



I would disagree that at least most humans would not need or believe in prayer without outside stimulus. I think that prayer is not a natural human instinct, but a programmed belief. I will agree that at least a few humans may come up with the concept of prayer, superstitions and/or charms through their use of imagination to figure answers to certain unanswered questions and problems. I think this is why there are so many forms of prayer, superstitions and charms in our world. Humans have quite the imaginations. Examples : various deities, dragons, vampires, 4 leaf clovers, black cats, goblins, zombies, broken mirrors, witches, elves, unicorns, voodoo, salt over the shoulder, Santa, angels, Adam & Eve, evil spirits and so on. Oh yah, don't forget Scientology.



I agree that it would be inhumane (possibly not, but this would be a whole other discussion on morals), but it sure would help to answer a lot of questions about human nature, society, programming and human hierarchy. Castlevania and I were talking about this same idea with the concept of deities and religion a month ago



Boy this would open up a whole bag of worms.

Thanks,
Andrew