Really? Why is it you are making the assumption that I am simply trying to answer their questions? Had it ever occurred to you that I was also trying to seek clarification as to what they meant by their questions? As the issue of the Bell curve and intelligence is quite a loaded one. If you will also look at my previous post, you will also note that I did answer their question. Although pointing back to my point I just covered here, as I did not have a clear idea as to what they meant by their question, I answered their question in a rather specific question. In a sense I took a shot in the dark as to what they were asking. When and if they answer my questions I posed back at them, I will have a clearer indication if my aim was correct. If it turns out I have addressed points which were not part of their questioning then I will attempt to answer their questions again. Your stance on questions leading to answers instantaneously does puzzle me though, as it would seem that you have a very black/white understanding of how the world works.

You seem to answer you own question in this quote. I have been attempting to establish that when it comes to looking at something such as religion it is important to look at it in its own context. As it is quite literally Anthropology 101, that applying the cultural values and norms from one culture to another will heighten the risk of your discoveries being removed from reality. Science (both the natural and social sciences) in itself being a cultural view can at times make this mistake. One only needs to look at the damage that this bias has had on small scale societies and marginalized peoples to see what I mean.

My point on the funding was more about which research projects get accepted for funding versus those which are denied the funding. An easy example of this is studies into race science. Where there is more funding available to those seeking to do research which confirms the legitimacy of Race Ideology in comparison to those seeking to disprove it.

Another example would be in systems of Healing. Where Medical Doctors enjoy having quite a strong voice, whereas Shaman and other such healers do not enjoy the same position. Quite often when they are given a voice, it is not even them speaking but someone else talking for them. Or in other situations they are treated simply as being quirky. It stems from the Us and them complex, where we establish us as being central and peoples with differing cultures are placed on the margins as others.

I do not doubt that there are Anthropologists who are quite biased. Indeed I would possibly argue quite the opposite. As their understandings of the cultures and societies they study will be limited by their personal experiences, what they see and what they don't see. Not only that but how much is their very presence in the society they are studying biasing the results? As we can not longer pretend that they are omnipotent and invisible. There will be things they do and don't see and they will have an influence over how the people they are studying act.

Although does it always reach the stage of truth? As culture and society are highly complex situations. Instead of getting closer to a certain truth as to such things as the universal human condition and the understanding of other cultures, I was under the impression that we were realizing our limitations. As who would understand a Shaman culture better? Us as outsiders? Or someone from within that culture?

If you are asserting that I purposefully ask questions which I think are unimportant, then you would be wrong in such an assertion. But rather I attempt to challenge the ethnocentric perspectives of peoples and highlight areas of their bias.

I will take this opportunity to stress that I do not think that cultural relativism should prevent us from ever drawing a line. In the past (possibly not in this thread?) I have highlighted areas where the Christian/Catholic church has done things which I have disagreed with quite strongly. Their quickness to support Race Ideology is certainly questionable as seen with their stance in Apartheid Africa and towards Race science in general. I also find it quite deplorable when Christians and/or Catholics blindly apply their cultural views to other cultures. They too can be quite guilty of being highly ethnocentric. Their readiness to attempt to ban differing cultural practices based on said ethnocentrism has had devastating effects. Not only Christianity, but many other religions as well. Hindu nationalism is India is another example.

Although saving the positive for last, you are absolutely correct that people should look at things with a more critical mind. This seems to have been a point which I have been unable to clearly express in my posts here. We should not simply take things at face value, but rather should attempt to dig below the surface. From this it is important to note that many of my criticisms of science, lie more in people who simply take it at face value and fail to apply a critical lens to potential biases and inaccuracies behind it.

Possibly I was over thinking, as I am taking a paper at the moment which specifically deals with issues such as the Bell Curve, IQ and whether or not they have a relationship with intelligence. So I was not entirely sure which aspect of my example you were questioning, as I have come across a few different angles my example could be challenged from. The purpose of me seeking clarification was to find out which angle you were taking. As for its relationship to Maths, to the best of my knowledge it falls under the category of Statistics, which is a field in mathematics.

The purpose of asking this question, is I was wanting to know if you equate Intelligence with IQ. I am quite pleased to note that you do not. This was one of the possible angles I mentioned you might of been taking.

I ask myself this same thing all the time. My hubby and me always had this understanding that we would not go to church or practice the religeon. Then all of a sudden one day he gets curious and goes to this bible study that his friends at work have created. He then decides he will continue to go to this study and I find it very hard to stomach cause he comes home with all these ideas from these stories they tell him and it really makes me sick to the stomach to think Im slowly loosing my hubby over this religeon. He is loosing his sense of reality and although some of the morals the religeon can teach you is good, most of them are just stupid. My hubby goes to Sabath (or something spelt like that) on Saterdays and stays till past midnight. It saps our time together and that is very fustrating. I dont see why he cant go for a hour or two and then come home so we can spend the day together. He said that god comes first and then family second. I find that very insulting and wrong. God is not in your life, your family is however. You cant get that time back that you waste worshiping something that you will never be able to see or touch.

That really is sad. I hope it doesn't come down to that. We are married after all and have kids and responsibilities together. So I doubt it would be something he would consider very lightly. Especially since he trying to be a Christian and they don't believe in divorce. Other wises we have a very good relationship. He supports me a lot and I support him. We have plans for the future and I hope none of those changes cause he suddenly decides to take on a religion.

People have a right to believe in what they want to believe in. Being Christian isnt the worst thing in the world. They are human like everyone else. They make mistakes and they slide alot down the wrong path sometime. But whether you believe in God, Budda, Allah or any other supreme being, for most believers it does make them realize they are accountable for what they do. Though like any other religion, I feel true believers should try to win people over through example not by putting it in your face. Even within each religion there are different factions. Religion is like politics everyone has an opinion.

Okay please don't get mad at me for saying this because I'm just relaying already published information. People who are more educated are usually not as religious as those who are less educated. And I think it also depends on how you were brought up and how religious your family is. For example, my mom has three other sisters and they were all brought up in a moderately religious fashion. The youngest sister is extremely smart and is an atheist, while my mother and the other two sisters are religious. I'm not saying that if you're stupid you are a high believer in God. I'm just saying that the more educated one is the more facts they are given and so the more they can choose whether or not they believe in God.

You should watch a movie called "Religulous" with Bill Maher. He basically goes around asking Christians questions that they can't seem to answer. It's really funny and shows how naive people are.

Already have, it was pretty good. My favorite was the head of the Human Genome Project. I can't remember his name right now, but if you look it up you can find it. He's one of the most famous Apologists because of his scientific background and controversial work...good stuff.

You're right, Kah. Atheism is not a religion. It is a belief claim, namely that you either don't believe in a god or believe that there isn't one. You can be atheist and have a religion, like LaVeyan Satanists and many Buddhists, but atheism isn't a religion in and of itself, anymore than having a favorite colour is a religion.

Also, Religulous sucks. Seriously. Maher edited the movie to make the people he talked to say what he wanted them to, and for the most part, only dealt with nutjobs that the majority of the people in the religion they belonged to didn't even claim. It's one thing to question something society holds as sacred and above criticizing. But Maher just made fun of everyone and everything and then acts surprised when people are offended.

I haven't read this whole discussion board so I'm starting from scratch... just playing off of a few I read at the beginning and what you just wrote. I'm continuously amazed at the judgement of a religion, specifically christianity it seems, based upon the actions of it's people. Many leave God not because of God or anything He has done as much as what the people who are supposed to be followers of his do. And why shouldn't they. One would assume that the people of a religion would follow it and be able to represent it well. The only problem with assuming this is one huge problem, man is essentially evil.

God commands christians to have faith, but not blind faith. It's a trusting faith. The Bible talks about trusting God. The only way that you can trust God is to ask questions. All the questions of christianity can be found in the bible, you just have to know what your reading. We would understand the book a lot better if we had the same language derivitives as the original hebrew, but we don't. One really has to understand what words really meant in order to get a real understanding of whats going on. It's not a matter of misinterpretation as much as it is word variences. I personally have been a blind christian to an athiest to a overwhelmed christian to an agnostic to what i am today. i am a christian in the fact that i believe in God/The Christ/The Holy Spirit and everything surrounding them. But I have asked the questions. And my end result has been in faith. Church has a tendency to lean to the left or right side. Either hellfire and damnation or tralala we're all forgiven. But this is very black and white and neither one healthy. The congregation goes out and spreads the word of this one or the other thinking and the truth becomes skewed. People become proud of their christianity though. and by proud i mean prideful. and that leads to what you have today. it leads to why people hate christians and think we are all idiotic zealots. there is a lot more method and intent to God than people realize.

Here's a little tit for tat. for those of you who believe in darwinism, evolution, all things in science. what if these things exist because thats how God wanted it to work? obviously the world can't run on miracles the same way a car can't run on being pushed. but an engineer knew what was needed to make a car function. created the parts to do thier thing, and they work all on their own, without the engineer having to do anything. why is it impossible to see God as an engineer?

Why do you feel the need to stick God in? Unlike faith, fact is non-negotiable. We can't just consider something that has no evidence for it because certain people want it to be that way. Things can work without a god, therefore, while it's not necessary to assume they do (most scientists are theists, after all), there's no reason to try and make a niche for him. Believe in your favorite flavour of deity, go right ahead, but don't expect us to reconsider your ideas because you've thought up a new way we can all be right. Or, rather, the scientists and Abrahamics.

Also, just a note: "darwinism" usually refers to social Darwinism, something people tend to get bitey over. So while you're trying to make people who "believe" in evolution seem like they belong to a religion, kindly watch that you're not using terms that makes everyone mad.

I felt the need to stick God in it for the very same reason you feel the need to take him out. My goal is not to convert anyone. People get so twisted up in their own way of thinking that they become closed to anyone who may express a different opinion than their own. You've become defensive over me asking you to think outside of your anti-god box. It is impossible for me to prove the existance of God just as it is impossible for you to disprove it. You can't point to science and say "there's your answer" but what set the answers into place? how did plants come to use photosynthesis? what is the universe expanding into? what drives animals to evolve? what decided that your body would have mitochondria? the very beginnings of all things cannot be proven by science any more than i can prove that God created them. but at least be open to the idea that the earth may not be flat.

i'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post as a way of "trying to make people who believe in evolution seem like they belong to a religion". i don't push my religion on anyone. at no point did i say "you should be christian because bla bla bla". i think people should believe what they want to believe. but the last time i checked, this was a discussion forum so i'm mearly discussing.

another problem with people is that they are easily offended over the tiniest things. it's almost like you WANT to be mad. you WANT to get offended. the reason why people get "bitey" over things is because they find something in a word that they don't like. so they get mad about it... as you did. i'm not going to appologize for my use of words. maybe if we all stopped nit picking over tiny words and actually analyzed the real subjects at hand, people would have more to actually say and less to argue about

@Avaxis Spin: You, being a Christian (albeit, you have a different take on the religion, but still a Christian), believe in the Bible. Now, a jealous and narcissistic God, such as the one described in the Old Testament in the Bible, wouldn't create the Universe then just step back. At least, not according to your sacred texts. If there's a Christian God then he is here, in the forefront of our lives, making decisions and causing miracles daily. Trying to make everyone right only makes you wrong...there's no way to do it. I recommend you don't try...

Oh, and P.S.: In case you forgot, it was Christianity that had the restricted view of the world until SCIENCE proved it was not, indeed, flat.

I think it would be funny if everything people thought was fact, turned out to not be true. Like how people thought Pluto was a planet, in fact some people still think Pluto is a planet, and some refuse to believe otherwise even though science has proved it's not. There are many types of close mindedness, and people you have to remember, you choose to believe in God, or not to believe in God. It's not like your sexuality. You choose it.

I think this topic is just going to make people angry and frustrated. In the beginning I thought it was just a big bomb waiting to explode. I think theres a lot of stereotypes and misunderstandings, so maybe people should just agree that "I don't believe what you believe but I'm not gonna judge you for what you believe"...I mean isn't that the open-minded nice thing to do? I guess everyone has the right to express their opinion but when you stop listening to what others are saying I think its time to just stop to discussion completely because then people aren't doing the nice thing. ^^

I don't know. I was just told, and have told others, don't look at other christians, look at God and what God is doing, not others. People have choices and sometimes they choose to do the wrong things. It doesn't mean you should hate them or think they are inferior or unintelligent because of those things.

It is true that I believe in the Bible. Old and New Testament. I do see where you derive God as being jealous because he himself says He is a jealous God. I think to say God is narcissistic would be implying that a person can understand the motive and intent of God. But if your going on the aspect of "if the bible is true" then you cannot do that because the Bible says we can not understand the nature of God. Once again my post was misinterpreted. I'm not trying to make everyone right. I merely wish for people to think outside of their box in the same way that atheists would hope that a christian would think outside of the box on what they believe.

If you are to engage in the topic of "God creating miracles daily" then I would say it's not true. In fact, if miracles were to be performed daily, then that would make them no longer miracles. By miracle you would be referring to something that happens that defies natural law. If we were to say that God was at the forefront and creating miracles daily, at that point we take away free choice. The "miracles" would intercept any idea that you had on your own, taking away free will and the outcome of our decisions. If there is anything that anyone can see is prevalent in the bible, no matter what reason you read it, mans free will is never messed with. all the way down to genesis and the garden of Eden. if what you say is true.. i doubt eve would have ever been able to eat the forbidden fruit. this is all based upon your saying "if the bible is true" because you cannot have one without the other. we can't poke at areas of a book that we disagree on without analyzing everything in that book. it becomes a manipulated argument at that point and is more of an agenda than anything else.

as for my statement about the earth being flat... i was using that as a metaphor... not literally.. but thanks for clarifying mans ignorance