Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Schizophrenia And Genetics


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

 

No, guys, define mental health scientifically.

 

Mental health is a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” - CDC, a scientific organization.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

 

behaviors....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You linked schizophrenia to original sin and the fall of man.  

 

"Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards. "

 

We're waiting for proof, though I expect you'll just be floundering around blaming people, name calling, and feigning ignorance as per usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sin isn't a behavior. That's where you are wrong. Sin is a religious concept.

 

Schizophrenia isn't a behavior either. Its a mental illness.

Oh gheeze S.

 

Behaviors can be classified as sins using the criteria set forth in the religious context. But I don't see how sins are behaviors. I can be angry and sin. I can be angry and not sin. Same behavior. Different constructs. Sin isn't behavior. Its a religious concept.

 

Does it really matter....none of us hold the rule book. Which leads me to ask about mental illness. Alex, for $1000, "What is mental health"? Scientifically define that. Oh, but wait, I'm to provide the definition tomorrow or remain a religious zealot....

 

Long story short, you cannot definitely split the concepts either.

 

I did not put that condition upon you. But you made a claim that sin is behavior. I disagreed. I gave an example that didn't fit (anger). Don't take your frustrations out on me.

 

In regards to your statement regarding defining Mental Health, that definition is different for every person. Everyone functions differently. We have to try to standardize a wide variety of behaviors that we consider "normal" in relation to society. The DSM V makes an attempt to provide as much definition to behaviors and symptoms that appear to possibly deviate from what the consensus would be considered normal human behavior. But if you understood how to diagnose someone, you would notice that the majority of the disorders have criteria that are not all inclusive. Some people only show some signs of disorders. That is why it states that the individual must meet x number of x criteria to carry that particular diagnosis.

 

Mental health and Mental Illnesses are still being learned about and understood. It is certainly an inexact science at this point. That is changing as we learn more and more. But your classifying it as a sin disorder carries unfounded assumptions and contains criteria and beliefs that no scientist would likely hypothesize and do experiments on. Its simply a religious dogma. Nothing else. Studying it would yield nothing, because, how would you even study it? You cannot classify behaviors as sin because all behaviors are not sins. Some can be both. There isn't any possible way to classify behaviors into sins where you could study them. It just doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Sin isn't a behavior. That's where you are wrong. Sin is a religious concept.

 

Schizophrenia isn't a behavior either. Its a mental illness.

Oh gheeze S.

 

Behaviors can be classified as sins using the criteria set forth in the religious context. But I don't see how sins are behaviors. I can be angry and sin. I can be angry and not sin. Same behavior. Different constructs. Sin isn't behavior. Its a religious concept.

 

Does it really matter....none of us hold the rule book. Which leads me to ask about mental illness. Alex, for $1000, "What is mental health"? Scientifically define that. Oh, but wait, I'm to provide the definition tomorrow or remain a religious zealot....

 

Long story short, you cannot definitely split the concepts either.

 

I did not put that condition upon you. But you made a claim that sin is behavior. I disagreed. I gave an example that didn't fit (anger). Don't take your frustrations out on me.

 

In regards to your statement regarding defining Mental Health, that definition is different for every person. Everyone functions differently. We have to try to standardize a wide variety of behaviors that we consider "normal" in relation to society. The DSM V makes an attempt to provide as much definition to behaviors and symptoms that appear to possibly deviate from what the consensus would be considered normal human behavior. But if you understood how to diagnose someone, you would notice that the majority of the disorders have criteria that are not all inclusive. Some people only show some signs of disorders. That is why it states that the individual must meet x number of x criteria to carry that particular diagnosis.

 

Mental health and Mental Illnesses are still being learned about and understood. It is certainly an inexact science at this point. That is changing as we learn more and more. But your classifying it as a sin disorder carries unfounded assumptions and contains criteria and beliefs that no scientist would likely hypothesize and do experiments on. Its simply a religious dogma. Nothing else. Studying it would yield nothing, because, how would you even study it? You cannot classify behaviors as sin because all behaviors are not sins. Some can be both. There isn't any possible way to classify behaviors into sins where you could study them. It just doesn't work.

 

Good God Storm....the entire health profession is based on life and death. So applying meaning is certainly viable. We classify behaviors into things that prevent death. It's rather meaningless to know the functionality without application. But y'all carry on.

 

And we do remember where priests were doctors right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 56 and still no proof or even a concept of objective experimentation whereby original sin (it was stated in his OP) is linked to schizophrenia.  

 

Nothing.  I guess god didn't reveal it to End3 yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Sin isn't a behavior. That's where you are wrong. Sin is a religious concept.

 

Schizophrenia isn't a behavior either. Its a mental illness.

Oh gheeze S.

 

Behaviors can be classified as sins using the criteria set forth in the religious context. But I don't see how sins are behaviors. I can be angry and sin. I can be angry and not sin. Same behavior. Different constructs. Sin isn't behavior. Its a religious concept.

 

Does it really matter....none of us hold the rule book. Which leads me to ask about mental illness. Alex, for $1000, "What is mental health"? Scientifically define that. Oh, but wait, I'm to provide the definition tomorrow or remain a religious zealot....

 

Long story short, you cannot definitely split the concepts either.

 

I did not put that condition upon you. But you made a claim that sin is behavior. I disagreed. I gave an example that didn't fit (anger). Don't take your frustrations out on me.

 

In regards to your statement regarding defining Mental Health, that definition is different for every person. Everyone functions differently. We have to try to standardize a wide variety of behaviors that we consider "normal" in relation to society. The DSM V makes an attempt to provide as much definition to behaviors and symptoms that appear to possibly deviate from what the consensus would be considered normal human behavior. But if you understood how to diagnose someone, you would notice that the majority of the disorders have criteria that are not all inclusive. Some people only show some signs of disorders. That is why it states that the individual must meet x number of x criteria to carry that particular diagnosis.

 

Mental health and Mental Illnesses are still being learned about and understood. It is certainly an inexact science at this point. That is changing as we learn more and more. But your classifying it as a sin disorder carries unfounded assumptions and contains criteria and beliefs that no scientist would likely hypothesize and do experiments on. Its simply a religious dogma. Nothing else. Studying it would yield nothing, because, how would you even study it? You cannot classify behaviors as sin because all behaviors are not sins. Some can be both. There isn't any possible way to classify behaviors into sins where you could study them. It just doesn't work.

 

Good God Storm....the entire health profession is based on life and death. So applying meaning is certainly viable. We classify behaviors into things that prevent death. It's rather meaningless to know the functionality without application. But y'all carry on.

 

And we do remember where priests were doctors right?

 

The entire physical health profession is based on life and death. The mental health profession is about quality of life and ability to function within relatively "normal" parameters and harm reduction for the ill person and his/her relationships. You are comparing apples and oranges. To be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't study behaviors. But it is not feasible to study them to try and find a causal link to some sort of religious dogma. That would prove fruitless. I work in the behavior modification field. I understand the need to understand behaviors and try to find their meaning and figure ways to modify the behaviors to fit within societal and safe parameters. But the direction you are trying to lead the studies is what I have an issue with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 "What is mental health"? Scientifically define that. 

 

Mental Illness

Mental illnesses refer to disorders generally characterized by dysregulation of mood, thought, and/or behavior, as recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV). Mood disorders are among the most pervasive of all mental disorders and include major depression, in which the individual commonly reports feeling, for a time period of two weeks or more, sad or blue, uninterested in things previously of interest, psychomotor retardation or agitation, and increased or decreased appetite since the depressive episode ensued. Learn more by viewing the pages below.

 

As defined by the Centers for Disease Control

 

*Pulled from:  http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics/mental-illness.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 It's rather meaningless to know the functionality without application. 

 

This is precisely the purpose of the study, as cited in the article.  The hope is that this new information will lead to better treatments.  The information provides the function (which genes influence the disease); now medical science can begin application of this information into new treatment options.

 

By contrast, the purpose of the study was not to provide information that could be warped by somebody's world-view into a connection between fact and fiction.

 

Also, it is equally meaningless to know the facts without applying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

No, guys, define mental health scientifically.

I have now provided you with two definitions which you requested.  How long must I wait for your definition of "sin"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

No, guys, define mental health scientifically.

 

Mental health is a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” - CDC, a scientific organization.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

 

behaviors....

 

As opposed to what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, guys, define mental health scientifically.

 

Mental health is a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” - CDC, a scientific organization.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

 

behaviors....

 

 

So is there an objective definition of sinful behavior that can be used scientifically, End?

 

If so, where can we read about this so that we can all understand what this objective definition is?

 

Do you know which scientists drafted this definition in the first place, so that we can read their work?

 

Are there any internationally-agreed, objective standards and codes of practice governing the science of sinful behavior investigation?

.

.

.

Oh... and here's some more questions that've been bugging me, End.

 

1.

When a scientist wants to publish a paper about the science of sinful behavior, that paper has to be submitted for peer-review, right?  But seeing as the Bible says that ALL have sinned - then the members of the peer-review board must be sinners too.  So you have a sinful scientist relying on other sinful scientists to check a paper about the science of sinful behaviors.  How can that ever work?

 

2.

A lot of science involves comparing samples of certain things and noticing the differences. 

So when we look at the blood of a person with sickle cell anaemia thru a microscope we can that their cells are different from those of a healthy person.  But can you see how it would be impossible for us to do the same with sinful behaviors?  We have no currently available examples of sinless behavior with which to compare the sinful behavior.  Adam and Eve were corrupted and have died and Jesus has ascended into heaven.  All we have to hand are sinful behaviors - because ALL have sinned.  So there's no kind of scientific comparison we can make here.  

 

Even if we look to scripture, that's not much help.

The book of Genesis and the Gospels tell us something about the sinless behaviors of those three people, but not in an objective and scientifically-useful way.  Also, lets not forget that Christians don't agree over the interpretation of the events, words and meanings of the Bible narratives, either.  So how can we possibly find the one, definitive and objective scientific standard of sinless behavior that all researchers into sinful behavior can use and agree on?

 

3.

Ok, let's suppose that such a standard could be found.

When some value or quantity is measured in science, that measurement is usually expressed in internationally-recognized units.  Like these.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units So researchers into sinful behaviors would all have to work, using a set 'unit' of sin that they can all agree upon.  What would such a unit be called?

 

Can you make any progress here?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez End. Another religious fit? What triggered this one? Did you SIN by eating shellfish? Or maybe you wore mixed fabrics while picking up sticks on the sabbath. Shake it off man. The big kahuna is powerless here, and I suspect everywhere else as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... this isn't going to be any help either. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology ...even if it "involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors."

 

Because this is science and science only investigates the natural, physical world, psychology therefore starts off on the wrong basis.  The root cause of sin isn't anything natural... it's supernatural.  So, by definition, the science of psychology can't investigate it.  

 

There's another glitch too.

Science posits that humans evolved from earlier forms of life over billions of years.  But the Bible tells us that this isn't so.  So whatever sinful behavior researchers do, they can't touch psychology.  It's founded on a false understanding of human origins.

 

Ooops!  sad.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez End. Another religious fit? What triggered this one? Did you SIN by eating shellfish? Or maybe you wore mixed fabrics while picking up sticks on the sabbath. Shake it off man. The big kahuna is powerless here, and I suspect everywhere else as well.

It's exercise for my brain L.....Y'all need a resident troll. Honored that you took the time to visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let me be clear.  I am calling your "thinking this fits the fallen world/original sin/epigenetic research" bullshit is because you have not presented a case for it at all.  You merely take 1 instance, find similarities with another instance, and call it "hey, it could be evidence for original sin!"

 

You are like this blogger that wants to find proof that Mormonism is real.  But you don't buy what he's selling, do you?  

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-evidence-for-book-of-mormon.html

You have a chip on your shoulder Roz....as do I.

 

 

If Roz has a chip on his shoulder, so do the rest of us.  Like many others here, he's just consistent and persistent in his attempts to hold you to account for your words.  More power to him, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Geez End. Another religious fit? What triggered this one? Did you SIN by eating shellfish? Or maybe you wore mixed fabrics while picking up sticks on the sabbath. Shake it off man. The big kahuna is powerless here, and I suspect everywhere else as well.

It's exercise for my brain L.....Y'all need a resident troll. Honored that you took the time to visit.

 

I just wish we had a resident troll who made more sense.  But keep exercising that brain, it might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it is equally meaningless to know the facts without applying them.

We can have the unadulterated mechanism, but we KNOW that nothing stands independent or is not in a relationship. So you CAN exclude the other relationships, but as you say, the next relationship would be the more complex set(s). But that's not science, regardless if the title we assign. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Let me be clear.  I am calling your "thinking this fits the fallen world/original sin/epigenetic research" bullshit is because you have not presented a case for it at all.  You merely take 1 instance, find similarities with another instance, and call it "hey, it could be evidence for original sin!"

 

You are like this blogger that wants to find proof that Mormonism is real.  But you don't buy what he's selling, do you?  

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-evidence-for-book-of-mormon.html

You have a chip on your shoulder Roz....as do I.

 

 

If Roz has a chip on his shoulder, so do the rest of us.  Like many others here, he's just consistent and persistent in his attempts to hold you to account for your words.  More power to him, I say.

 

I'm still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... this isn't going to be any help either. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology ...even if it "involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors."

 

Because this is science and science only investigates the natural, physical world, psychology therefore starts off on the wrong basis.  The root cause of sin isn't anything natural... it's supernatural.  So, by definition, the science of psychology can't investigate it.  

 

There's another glitch too.

Science posits that humans evolved from earlier forms of life over billions of years.  But the Bible tells us that this isn't so.  So whatever sinful behavior researchers do, they can't touch psychology.  It's founded on a false understanding of human origins.

 

Ooops!  sad.png

I don't remember you ever saying whether theoretical physics was science? Ooops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for him, FTNZ, but for the lurkers.  They might have more mental fortitude than End and can actually see the huge gap that End's illogic must bridge.

 

Namely the gap of "Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards." -End3

 

It's quite sad and adorable watching him try to justify his position by attacking other people, because that's all he can do.  He made the claim that schizophrenia fits into the fallen world/original sin narrative of his holy book, and now when pressed on it he's got nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, guys, define mental health scientifically.

 

Mental health is a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” - CDC, a scientific organization.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

 

behaviors....

 

 

So is there an objective definition of sinful behavior that can be used scientifically, End?

 

If so, where can we read about this so that we can all understand what this objective definition is?

 

Do you know which scientists drafted this definition in the first place, so that we can read their work?

 

Are there any internationally-agreed, objective standards and codes of practice governing the science of sinful behavior investigation?

.

.

.

Oh... and here's some more questions that've been bugging me, End.

 

1.

When a scientist wants to publish a paper about the science of sinful behavior, that paper has to be submitted for peer-review, right?  But seeing as the Bible says that ALL have sinned - then the members of the peer-review board must be sinners too.  So you have a sinful scientist relying on other sinful scientists to check a paper about the science of sinful behaviors.  How can that ever work?

 

2.

A lot of science involves comparing samples of certain things and noticing the differences. 

So when we look at the blood of a person with sickle cell anaemia thru a microscope we can that their cells are different from those of a healthy person.  But can you see how it would be impossible for us to do the same with sinful behaviors?  We have no currently available examples of sinless behavior with which to compare the sinful behavior.  Adam and Eve were corrupted and have died and Jesus has ascended into heaven.  All we have to hand are sinful behaviors - because ALL have sinned.  So there's no kind of scientific comparison we can make here.  

 

Even if we look to scripture, that's not much help.

The book of Genesis and the Gospels tell us something about the sinless behaviors of those three people, but not in an objective and scientifically-useful way.  Also, lets not forget that Christians don't agree over the interpretation of the events, words and meanings of the Bible narratives, either.  So how can we possibly find the one, definitive and objective scientific standard of sinless behavior that all researchers into sinful behavior can use and agree on?

 

3.

Ok, let's suppose that such a standard could be found.

When some value or quantity is measured in science, that measurement is usually expressed in internationally-recognized units.  Like these.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units So researchers into sinful behaviors would all have to work, using a set 'unit' of sin that they can all agree upon.  What would such a unit be called?

 

Can you make any progress here?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Didn't I notice an article where science traced humanity back to an "Adam and Eve"? Granted I am wonderfully ignorant here, but if they can work backwards like that, then one would assume there is a remote possibility to predict the "sinless" genome?

 

So then we would have to say that humans just are evolving without any freedom of choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for him, FTNZ, but for the lurkers.  They might have more mental fortitude than End and can actually see the huge gap that End's illogic must bridge.

 

Namely the gap of "Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards." -End3

 

It's quite sad and adorable watching him try to justify his position by attacking other people, because that's all he can do.  He made the claim that schizophrenia fits into the fallen world/original sin narrative of his holy book, and now when pressed on it he's got nothing.

I haven't backed away at all Roz. Please don't assume stuff for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of your scientific definitions of mental health are so wonderfully subjective, I find it hard not to laugh. And then you stand there like it's good candy.

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

 

Jesus people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for him, FTNZ, but for the lurkers.  They might have more mental fortitude than End and can actually see the huge gap that End's illogic must bridge.

 

Namely the gap of "Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards." -End3

 

It's quite sad and adorable watching him try to justify his position by attacking other people, because that's all he can do.  He made the claim that schizophrenia fits into the fallen world/original sin narrative of his holy book, and now when pressed on it he's got nothing.

Yes it is kinda adorable to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't answered how you can make the connection in your OP = you're backing away.  Running away's more like it.

 

And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/genetic-adam-eve-chromosome-men-man_n_3691084.html

 

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

 

Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.

 

---

Your bible is so far removed from that narrative that it's hilarious.

 

Your mind is so warped by your religion that you keep trying to tie all sorts of things together with it.  It's just the same as what Mormons try to do, or Muslims, or any other religion including your particular christian sect. 

 

You just can't see it, and it's sad and hilarious at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.