@reddeath: Well, you just said Shamans mix their knowledge with other cultures knowledge. If they're using occidental knowledge, then they're not just functioning as a Shaman, but as a doctor, even if they don't have the degree, because they're using that information.

And I don't blame occidental doctors for ignoring information that isn't backed up. I can only blame them for the times they didn't at least experiment and try to find out why they believe their knowledge fits reality.

And bias is bound to happen when you don't know every single detail out there. I don't think I can say I'm unbiased when I don't know every single culture out there, and I would have to be some kind of deity or superhuman to do that. We can only hope to get as near as possible.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@reddeath: Well, you just said Shamans mix their knowledge with other cultures knowledge. If they're using occidental knowledge, then they're not just functioning as a Shaman, but as a doctor, even if they don't have the degree, because they're using that information.

Although this is still going by the assumption that the only way to serve the role of a doctor for a community is to do so as our cultural values dictate. Whereas in reality numerous cultural groups have had shamans performing this role long without the existence of our cultural beliefs. Although the role of the Shaman can not be simplified so easily.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

And I don't blame occidental doctors for ignoring information that isn't backed up. I can only blame them for the times they didn't at least experiment and try to find out why they believe their knowledge fits reality.

Although when you look at the wider picture you see quite the opposite that in some ways our society is starting to head in the direction of shamanism. Take psychoanalysis, much like one of the Shamans roles, it involves giving the patient meaning. In both the person has been isolated and separated from society, through their healing they are given meaning and understanding. This then enables them to realign themselves.

Watch Religulous.
Unless your the kind of person that becomes horribly offended when someone questions your beliefs. Yes it is a bit harsh, but it does have very specific key points.

"God" is also not "Gods" True name, "Gods" True name originally appeared in the hebrew language as Yahweh.
The Jerusalem Bible: The tetragammaton, is tranlsated to Yahweh, at the start of genesis 2.4.

Yada Yada Yada. there are alot of other things I could say about Christianity, and other religions, but that decision to believe is a persons own right.

dont worry about it. what other's beleive is their buisiness. unless they try to enforce it on you, i wouldnt bother changing anyones mind.

Why do non-Christians not see that every denomination is not alike, and the Bible has been interpreted in thousands of ways, including what parts Christians are supposed to follow?

(Coming from a non-Christian, btw)

@Reddeath26: Another Dual major! Suddenly I feel so much less alone... Biology-History! I think this thread attracts us. Besides that I agree with what you are saying and am glad that someone has found the linguistic capacity to say it more astutely then I apparently was! I left this thread for a while, so I missed this latest bit, but thank you for adding your most valuable insight on this!

Not all Christians are bible thumpers. :no:

Well, I'm just saying this from a standpoint that's neither Christian or Atheist.
Some Christians simply think of the bible as a book of stories written by other people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Personally, I wouldn't take the wall of text as a serious thing, and just more of a man-written story with a few good morals to live by (Don't kill your neighbors, quit shoplifting you punk, ec.)
I can see what you're talking about though. Some of the stories in there are just weird, but then again, that era itself was pretty strange.

Originally Posted by Firemare

@Reddeath26: Another Dual major! Suddenly I feel so much less alone... Biology-History! I think this thread attracts us. Besides that I agree with what you are saying and am glad that someone has found the linguistic capacity to say it more astutely then I apparently was! I left this thread for a while, so I missed this latest bit, but thank you for adding your most valuable insight on this!

Really? Maybe it is just the university you are in, or even your fields themselves? As I find in my classes the people who only have a single major are the odd ones out. Although I do find your choice of majors to be quite interesting. You have a foot in both fields (natural and social sciences). Also thank you for the compliment, I will have to go back and read your posts (as I am on capped internet, hadn't read all the posts in this thread :sweat:)


Although so far I have worried I have not been clearly expressing myself so far. The point I have been trying to raise has been that because cultures differ so much, the norms and values of one will many a time be inapplicable to others. Because of this it is extremely important to try and set your cultural values more to the side and try to see other cultures in their own cultural and historical perspective. I chose the Shaman as an example for this very reason, as by many definitions they are liminal. While I believe they are an amazing example of the point I am trying to make, I am only just starting my paper on Systems of Healing. So my ability to describe them is quite poor at the moment.

Another point I touched loosely on, before changing direction was the functionalist approach. While I do not agree with it completely I find it does present an interesting and valuable lens for aiding in the study of a culture and/or society. This applies strongly to religion where I hold whether the beliefs are correct or not to be irrelevant. But rather it is more beneficial to analyze them in terms of the functions they perform in their societies. Furthermore being such a central part in many cultures, I hold they should not be studied outside of their context.

Finally another point I use quite often in other places, is somewhat of a combination of the previous two. Where I explore the devastating effects of not looking at cultures in their own contexts and subsequently not understanding the functions. As historically ethnocide and forced assimilation have proven to be highly damaging to their victims. Even in cases where they wanted to help the people, their ignorance has done them harm. A good example of this is in Australia when missionaries wanted to give the Aborigines Steel axes to replace their stone axes. Not understanding the function they played in their society they could not foresee the negative impact this was to have on them.

Also I am glad you have enjoyed my input. I have typically found forums to be a really useful place for me to develop my thoughts on certain topics. It is my belief that this gives me an edge when it comes to my assignments.

Edit: I had a quick look over your posts and I am quite inclined to agree with you. A great example which would suit your case is Genomania. There is also the angle the evidence can never speak for itself but is always depended on the person making the observation to give it meaning. Furthermore this meaning is heavily influenced the culture of the person. I also came across an interesting counter to the point truth can only be established through testing (not including the cultural biases) The blog is in response to a science writer for a New Zealand paper, whom I strongly dislike. For instance he has done an article on the 'warrior gene' and somehow failed to see its extreme bias and shortcomings.
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2008/10/take...-anything.html

At the heart of Brockie’s argument is a mistaken epistemology and fairly naïve Philosophy of Science. Brockie contends that “true scientists question all authority, trusting only to experimental and verifiable evidence”. However, if science is defined in these terms, science is an incoherent position. The claim that one should question all authority and trust only “experimental and verifiable evidence” is not itself an empirical claim. Hence, if the claim is true we should reject it because Brockie has not provided any “experimental and verifiable evidence” of its truth.

I'm sorry that I didn't read all of the things said before posting.. ^_^;

But I do agree with the things you're pointing out. Some things in the Bible just don't make sense--But hey, they were written by men who claimed to be sent by God. They were rewritten by scribes that have been working for hours on the same book..

Not that they would get tired of the same thing and add something new to it.. -rolls eyes-

The truth is, I believe in God. Shtona; just to let you know, I am an athiest turned believer. xD (I can't really say Christian, since I don't exactly live by the Bible)

And with that being said, my main point is, don't base Christianity completely off of the Bible. Sure--You can read it, believe it, and enjoy it, but you should never base your whole life off of a book. No matter how old it is.

To the people who do.. I can't really say much to them, since my grandparents are worshippers of the Bible. I respect your views.

Originally Posted by Faygocytosis

Not all Christians are bible thumpers. :no:

-nod- =D

@reddeath26 what a facinating and well put article. I'm going to save it to show it to my friends and get their opinions on it. Besides that I must admit that like any person, I speak from my cultural standpoint and system of beliefs, and also like any person I find putting them aside, even for a culture different then my own. For all my words I am most often on the outside, looking in. Really I find that the best way to understand a culture is to speak to the people that are a part of it. In the case of religon however, this can be understandably difficult!
Each person has a different religon. Different in some small way to become the faith that they wanted to hear, to see. Those that choose to see got as a loving caring father either find a church that presents him that way, do not attend, or attend and believe regardless and the same for the reverse. I think that the whole question of this thread, a sudden change in topic to be sure, but it was the original question, is false. Perhaps you could ask, why does THIS christian refuse to see, and you would find a whole history of multifaceted reasons, but to ask why do ALL christians not see is quite frankly the wrong question. Each individual in the world has their own sets of beliefs, their faith, their ideas. Asking them why they do not give them up... well it becomes impossible to answer! They believe because they were raised to, or because they choose to. Personally I do not agree, but it is their decision and I respect it as I expect them to respect mine.

Well the bible in general is a strange thing to begin with. Most of the Old Testament is plagerized from the Torah. The people who created the bible kind of picked and choosed what they wanted to keep and tossed away based on their own personal feelings. Which is a very common theme in both Christians and their Mythology. But in essance, it's true with most people I suppose. You learn something new and you choose to accept it or question it.

I prefer not living in blissful ignorance, so I chose my own path. I can't say I really fit into any religion. I see the humanity in all their imagined deities. But I do agree with you, I don't understand how someone can not see what's going on. How someone can go to church every sunday and not realize that their pastor is, in essense, telling them which parts of the bible they should read so they don't go reading it themselves and see the discrepencies and cruelty in it's characters.

Originally Posted by Firemare

@reddeath26 what a facinating and well put article. I'm going to save it to show it to my friends and get their opinions on it.

Yeah I found the blog quite interesting as well. I actually found it by chance when I was looking for an article written by the scientist getting criticized in that blog. Although my bias comes as I detest that science and the nonsense which dribbles out of his mouth/pen/keyboard (you get the picture). He has a really bad habit of simply spewing out pop science and conforming to stereotypes. In particular his blatant support for social stratification! It is also not uncommon for him to finish articles with an unsupported statement.

Originally Posted by Firemare

Besides that I must admit that like any person, I speak from my cultural standpoint and system of beliefs, and also like any person I find putting them aside, even for a culture different then my own. For all my words I am most often on the outside, looking in. Really I find that the best way to understand a culture is to speak to the people that are a part of it.

Why are you not in Anthropology? It sounds like you have a keen understanding in some of its principles. Agreed very strongly that looking in gives us extreme disadvantages in understanding. However at the same time this can be of value in itself (more so when the bias is taken into account)

Originally Posted by Firemare

In the case of religon however, this can be understandably difficult!

I would personally be hesitant to claim that religion is more difficult than other aspects of culture. Although it is no simpler.

Originally Posted by Firemare

Each person has a different religon.

This is equally true of culture. As it is not so important that you have the exact same cultural/religious views but rather that you *believe* you have the same views. This can be seen in ethnic boundaries, national identity and religion. As for the rest of your post you are going quite strongly into the micro level. An area which extends beyond my limits :lol:

i agree...on some of what you said. leonardo da vinci once said
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals! Open your eyes!"
however, dont make an attack on all christians. not every one is the same. (i have no clue what i am...)

I just want to know why religion is such a big deal for athiests. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from if you're complaining about religions that sacrifice people and are harming others, but why does it matter if someone believes in something to give them hope?

I mean honestly, most people (I admit, not all) are religious because they feel like they have someone/something to go to when times aren't perfect. It's merely a comfort system, and what's so wrong with that?
And I don't mean to offend people who this isn't true for, but that's just the way I feel.

It becomes a problem when it interferes with our lifes, like being all anti-gay marriage or shun those who do not follow their religion. I've been told I follow the demon and that I'm stupid for not believing in Christianity.

In many instances it is all about power. It is used to justify the social stratification system found on an international level. As exploitation of other cultures can be reasoned by us bringing them 'progress' and 'development'. It also enables us to maintain our hegemonic position over what is and isn't qualified to be 'knowledge'. As 'Western science' and 'Western science' alone is knowledge, everything else is little more than 'religion' and consequently a barrier to 'progress'.

Only if you can't give solid proof to it, though. Why should I believe marihuana is used in a productive way by bolivarians, unless I, or someone who I can trust, gives a documentation of the way it works and how they use these properties to be productive? The problem appears when either the group refuses to show a proof of their beliefs, or the witnessing group ignores the indeniable proof.

Now, if you told me putting salt on the pot's cover makes the soup inside more tasty without a proper explanation, like that if you believe you'll perceive it as if it were, then I have no reason to believe.


I don't know if I'm misunderstanting your philosophy, reddeath, but I see that problem with ALL cultures. The only difference would be that "whites" [e_e] had always managed to have a higher authority and power, so they could show-off this trait.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Only if you can't give solid proof to it, though. Why should I believe marihuana is used in a productive way by bolivarians, unless I, or someone who I can trust, gives a documentation of the way it works and how they use these properties to be productive? The problem appears when either the group refuses to show a proof of their beliefs, or the witnessing group ignores the indeniable proof.

Now, if you told me putting salt on the pot's cover makes the soup inside more tasty without a proper explanation, like that if you believe you'll perceive it as if it were, then I have no reason to believe.


I don't know if I'm misunderstanting your philosophy, reddeath, but I see that problem with ALL cultures. The only difference would be that "whites" [e_e] had always managed to have a higher authority and power, so they could show-off this trait.

Although why should they be in a situation where they have to prove the 'validity' of their culture using cultural values and norms which are irrelevant to said culture? This view that they have to justify their cultural beliefs and lifestyles is quite reflective of the hegemonic position that I mentioned 'Western science' is in. One of my points is that it is highly ethnocentric and subjective to assume that the values of 'western science' are the highest authority. When in reality they are little more than a cultural way of looking at the world.

My post was also looking at how by portraying peoples as being primitive, they have been able to justify the mistreatment and exploitation of them. These views turn out to be very destructive as it limits the input to those from 'western science'. Which has led to heavy exploitation through colonization and development theories.

Originally Posted by Andrea49

I just want to know why religion is such a big deal for athiests. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from if you're complaining about religions that sacrifice people and are harming others, but why does it matter if someone believes in something to give them hope?

I mean honestly, most people (I admit, not all) are religious because they feel like they have someone/something to go to when times aren't perfect. It's merely a comfort system, and what's so wrong with that?
And I don't mean to offend people who this isn't true for, but that's just the way I feel.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

It becomes a problem when it interferes with our lifes, like being all anti-gay marriage or shun those who do not follow their religion. I've been told I follow the demon and that I'm stupid for not believing in Christianity.

I am not anti gay I have gay friends but it seems like people like gays, athiests, etc tend to be very intolerent of people who dont believe as they do. They in essence are doing the same things and being just as biased as the people they accuse of being bias.

Religion is considered one of the key things needed to declare a group of people a 'civilization'. Basically, by this, it means that the people of that group have the ability to think existentially.
The Bible was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek, then Latin, then finally translated to English over the course of hundreds of years. During each of these translations, it was very possible that the message got lost due to the person holding the pen forwarding their own agenda (a great example of this is the more recent discovery that just about everything we know about Wilhelm Wundt, the 'father of psychology' was purposely mistranslated by his 'faithful' student Titchner to push his own views and the Amercian psychologists couldn't be bothered learning the original German :stare:)
As far as the idea of loving thy neighbor goes - it's a good message. However, history has shown to us that when people get ahold of something like religion, it will be twisted to control populations as they see fit. As long as there are hateful people, there will be some possibly good idea corrupted into hurting people.
I personally am an atheist, but subscribe to the Skepticism philosophy - meaning I do not believe that the questions of why we are here and how we got here will ever be answered, because there is no real way to know.
So, if the belief makes you happy, then keep your belief. But remember that religion for all intents and purposes only really does good when in the role of a personal ethics system and really only viable to you.

Originally Posted by wandering echo

I am not anti gay I have gay friends but it seems like people like gays, athiests, etc tend to be very intolerent of people who dont believe as they do. They in essence are doing the same things and being just as biased as the people they accuse of being bias.

That is because being biased is a human trait. Just because I'm christian/atheist/gay/straight doesn't make me right.


@reddeath: Maybe because the US has a big load of different cultures living in the same place which they have to control under just one political system which in case they followed certain moral path it could clash with x amont of other cultures' morals?

And is this "western science" the only single group in history that has ever done such? I don't think so.

@Rowan: I like to believe if Jesus ever existed he was a man who tried to bring good morals to the people of his time but some others who knew how to write used his public image as a way to marketize their agenda [well maybe not quite like it sounds but I hope you get the point].

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

Well the bible in general is a strange thing to begin with. Most of the Old Testament is plagerized from the Torah.

Plagiarism isn't using something from a different source. Plagiarism is using something from another source and not giving that source credit. Last time I checked, the bible tells us where the information is from.
The bible is just a collection of other books. It's an anthology (essentially). The bible didn't plagiarize the Torah. It just added the books from the Torah (another anthology) to the collection of books in the bible.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

The people who created the bible kind of picked and choosed what they wanted to keep and tossed away based on their own personal feelings.

Are you still talking about the Torah and the Bible? Everything in the Torah is in the bible. There was no picking and choosing there. The Catholics and the Orthodox Jews adopted all of the Jewish scriptures that were accepted as inspired at the time they broke away. The Protestants actually went back to see what the current Jewish cannon was in the 1500s to choose their Old Testament. (Though, I guess that could be considered picking and choosing, since they did nix 7 of the books still considered inspired by the Catholics and Orthodoxies because the Jews had gotten rid of them 1400 years earlier on account of the fact that they were not written in Hebrew.)

Or are you speaking of the fact that certain laws from the old testament (such as laws against homosexual relations) are adhered to, while other laws (such as don't wear cloth made from two different fibers or don't touch women when they're menstruating) are ignored.

If it's the second, I honestly can't decide whether I agree with you or not. I think in some cases, it is ridiculous, because people will use only the OT verses to tell you why it's wrong, but can't figure out why those verses apply when others don't. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It is an example of someone using religion to further their own agenda.
However, if the person is taking something that the OT does indeed say is wrong (example: murder) and showing how the NT upholds the immorality of that action and can explain that immorality with more loquaciousness than "the bible says so," then I find absolutely no problem with it.

The thing is, the world has changed and our covenant with God has changed from back in the OT days. We have a new agreement with him, so some things are obviously bound to change. To expect them not to would be foolish.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

I don't understand how someone can not see what's going on. How someone can go to church every sunday and not realize that their pastor is, in essense, telling them which parts of the bible they should read so they don't go reading it themselves and see the discrepencies and cruelty in it's characters.

I think very few pastors honestly try to do this. I think it's much more likely that they are of the belief that what they have found in the bible seems so clear that other people reading the bible are likely to come to the same conclusions. In that case, why not encourage them to read the bible?

As a general trend I see, most Protestant religions I've come across encourage their members to read the bible for themselves. Indeed, many of the Churches subscribe to the belief that every individual's interpretation of the bible is valid and the only real way to understand the faith. Thus, reading the bible would be essential for them.

As for Catholics and Orthodox Churches, they both follow the liturgical calendar for their readings. If you go to Sunday Mass for 3 years in a row, you'll have heard the entire New Testament and most of the Old Testament. If you go to daily mass for three years in a row, you'll have heard the entire bible.

Call me crazy, but I don't think these guys seem to be too keen on hiding certain bits of the bible.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@reddeath: Maybe because the US has a big load of different cultures living in the same place which they have to control under just one political system which in case they followed certain moral path it could clash with x amont of other cultures' morals?

And is this "western science" the only single group in history that has ever done such? I don't think so.

And it looks like the ball game might be on :O

Firstly it is worth pointing out that I am not saying that U.S.A is the only State which has ever committed such atrocious crimes on small scale people. Indeed the way I framed my response was in order to reflect the world wide impact that 'Western science' has had. I expressed that this problem comes from 'Western science' and 'Western science' alone being able to claim the mantle of being the highest authority when it comes to knowledge. Which in the fields of development studies and ethnic relations has been extremely devastating.

But turning back to U.S.A, maybe you are right. Maybe when they were enforcing policies both directly and through the IMF onto the developing world, they were doing so purely because of these size restrictions. Maybe when they were stealing the land from the Native Americans, killing them and putting them into conditions which increased their likelihood of death they were doing so for the same reasons? In the worst of cases we have seen such concepts as 'primitive' and 'development' being used as blatant excuses for atrocities and in the best we have seen our actions being blinded by our inability to see the value in other cultural values.

Take an example from Australia where a missionary noticed that the aborigine people near him were using stone axes. Now drawing on our concepts of advancement and technology, one could see steel axes would help these people out a lot. Indeed the missionaries there believed they could help the Aborigine peoples by giving them steel axes to replace their stone axes. After all this is what our concepts of reality dictated. Unfortunately for them, the stone axes played a really important role in the culture and social cohesion of the Aborigine tribes in question. The act of giving them stone axes ended up having highly negative impacts on the people.

I do recognize that other forces have been behind peoples exploiting each other. However my point is more aimed at the hegemonic position that science has over the realm of knowledge and how this has both been used intentionally to justify the exploitation of other peoples, how this has deprived peoples of a voice and finally how this has caused people seeking to help to instead cause harm.