Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest end3]

 

 

Equating mental illness and sin is disgusting.

 

The whole point of mental illness… to a certain degree, is that the afflicted do not have freedom of choice, they are not entirely in control mentally of their faculties. To make this a moral issue is incomprehensible, and abhorrent.

 

Fuck off.

Don't know why you can't comprehend that it may not be a function of the person directly but past generations and past circumstances. Don't think you are understanding. Matter of fact I expressly said "we are so far removed" from cause that it makes sense to love everyone.

 

And did you ever hear of have a conversation just for the exercise in asking the questions? If you want to get all emotional about it.....

 

My great uncle had paranoid schizophrenia.. he was also the gentlest and most intelligent person I have ever met. It's an imbalance and disorder of dopamine and serotonin uptake receptors in the brain… it's known to have genetic components but it does not always express itself in the disease. Nurture has as much to do with it as nature.

 

Please educate yourself before wild speculation designed to fit your crapshoot of a theology.

 

You must somewhat understand something (say.. science) before you can love it.

 

Did you not even read anything about epigenetics? Who gives a rat's rear about the mechanism. I am discussing what changes the mechanism...

[Guest end3]

 

 

(rear)End--They are saying if you base your views on the Bible you must first establish that the Bible is true, otherwise your argument is a house built on sand. There is no link between "sin" and mental illness because sin is a concept created by theologians; it doesn't objectively exist. Mental illness exists in tribal cultures with no notion of sin. The two are not related, and you need evidence other than the Bible to establish a link.

IMO the theories to be tested experimentally can come from anywhere.

 

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on benzene:

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

 

Using the Bible as inspiration for a theory is no sillier than using a dream. The key is to test the theory with experiments, peer review, etc. (I know others understand the details of the scientific method better than me, but that is what I think.)

 

Also, sorry if I'm missing the point that others are arguing about establishing the Bible before we discuss the idea that epigenetics matches some ideas in the Bible.

 

1. Mental illness is not sin.

2. You can't find sin on a gene because sin is not a physical reality, it is a human concept.

 

I see what you are saying. Thx.

[midniterider]

End3's argument in 7 pages:

 

1.  Hey Ex'C, schizophrenia could have a link to my god's original sin story!

2.  Proof?  You're all idiots, that would take lots of time and money!

3.  I hate you guys because you dismiss my book and its ties to science!

4.  You can't prove that schizophrenia does NOT link to my book, therefore my link is valid!

 

I skimmed this story in the bible about talking donkeys and believe this is another way of describing a current scientific theory...just not sure which one yet. :-)

[directionless]

1. Mental illness is not sin.

2. You can't find sin on a gene because sin is not a physical reality, it is a human concept.

You are right if we use the traditional definition of sin, but I wondered if maybe end3 might be defining sin more broadly to include the fallen state of creation. So cancer or schizophrenia might be considered sins because they are not God's will?

 

IMO the problem in end3's idea is showing that breaking God's laws causes epigenetic harm. If somebody murders how does that affect epigenetics? I can understand how diet or smoking might affect it.

[Guest end3]

http://www.genome.gov/27554258

[Orbit]

 

1. Mental illness is not sin.

2. You can't find sin on a gene because sin is not a physical reality, it is a human concept.

You are right if we use the traditional definition of sin, but I wondered if maybe end3 might be defining sin more broadly to include the fallen state of creation. So cancer or schizophrenia might be considered sins because they are not God's will?

 

IMO the problem in end3's idea is showing that breaking God's laws causes epigenetic harm. If somebody murders how does that affect epigenetics? I can understand how diet or smoking might affect it.

 

I don't agree that bad things are not God's will. If God created a fallen nature, he meant to do that. Breaking God's law does not lead to mental illness or any other genetic illness. Illnesses are physical. This thinking is really straight out of the dark ages.

[Roz]

Page 10 and End3 just keeps dodging giving proof of his particular god and his particular bible.  He's dodging the proof needed in order for skeptics to give a damn about his religion's concept of sin, and he keeps dodging the final point which is to tie his genetic malady to original sin.

 

This is End3, a typical christian, and he can't go any further than "oh, I think it has a connection.  Don't ask me what that connection is!  But it's valid!"

 

Christian lurkers, think about the nature of your discourse before you start preaching.  Think about the tactics of other religions in their goal of convincing you.

 

Don't try their methods if they haven't convinced you, because you're going to run into the same thing when you try to present to skeptics.

[midniterider]

http://www.genome.gov/27554258

 

Checkmate! You rotten atheists!

 

Scientific proof that child abuse can mess up your genes.....which proves Adam and Eve and the fall of man. The whole nine yards.

 

o.O

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

I would advise against trying to get any sense out of end3 on these matters.  He is not qualified to talk about mental illness.  Or religion.  Or science.

Check you facts ma'am. I manage an analytical laboratory for a $100,000,000 corporation and own an analytical lab myself, have been so far in depression that I am educated enough to understand the meds associated with mental illness are a farce and am as qualified and anyone for religious interpretation.

 

What we might try is better communication, after all, these are relationship issues...

 

 

You are not qualified to talk about mental illness because you think it has something to do with a theological concept called sin, ignoring the enormous body of scientific evidence that it is caused by tangible, measurable biological and environmental factors.  Further, you ignore the enormous body of scientific evidence that medications are safe and effective in the majority of cases, vastly improving the quality of life of millions of people.

 

You are not qualified to talk about religion because you have god goggles on, therefore everything you say is affected by deep bias.

 

You are not qualified to talk about science because you have shown repeatedly that you have little understanding of the scientific method.  I have no training beyond high school level science but even I can understand the basic rules of scientific inquiry and can therefore readily see the errors you are making.

 

If you want to improve the communication of your ideas, you might want to start using logic and evidence instead of making unsubstantiated claims and suppositions.

 

Listen goofball, bad behaviors are not in environmental factors???

 

What are you on about?

[moanareina]

Oh wow...

 

end, you really don't get irony? RedneckProfessor used it in some of his posts to tell you how silly your claims are and you take them literally...I guess that is the reason you can't get the points people make here either and don't even go into it, just telling everyone else to be open minded and all.

Then you play the victim and complain about others calling you names when in fact it is you who is calling people goofball and show pretty low respect.

And last but not least you accuse people of not doing their research when in fact you don't even have a general concept of what science is about.

 

How to have a conversation this way? I don't know. All I know is, that you really are not open to have one. You fixate on your idea of original sin linked to mental illness and when you realize you get nowhere with your arguments you start bashing people, tell them they need to be careful etc. Don't you see that this is exactly how the Church is handling its issues? Don't you see that what you do is not really discussing?

 

As I said, I am pretty amused.

[bornagainathiest]

Yesterday End3 replied to Directionless...

 

"Yes I am guilty of mental jumps, leaving out the other participant to make the jumps for themselves."

 

Yesterday End3 replied to FreeThinkerNZ...

 

"I manage a analytical laboratory for a $100,000,000 corporation and own an analytical lab myself..."

.

.

.

1.

Is that the way you manage the objective analytical science in the lab - by making subjective mental jumps about it? 

 

2.

Or do you leave those working for you to make their own subjective mental jumps about the work?

 

3.

And what about the link you think you see between schizophrenia and scripture?  

 

4.

Is this another subjective mental jump you've made?

 

5.

And subjective mental jumps like yours can be objectively explored by science, can they?

 

6.

So what's your objective scientific methodology (beyond dictionary definitions ) for investigating sin?

 

7.

Do you STOP thinking objectively once you leave your $100,000,000-funded lab?

.

.

.

 

See the pattern here, End?  (Rhetorical question, this time.)

You work objectively in your lab.  You think objectively in your lab.  You manage objective scientific procedures.  You follow and enforce the highest possible standards of objectivity and filter out as much subjectivity as you can.  You avoid making subjective mental jumps in your work - because if you didn't you'd be fired!  Yet, when you lock up the lab, you also lock your professional objectivity away in a drawer and don't use it again until it's needed, the next day. 

 

See the mile-wide split in your thinking, End?  (Rhetorical again.)

For you, the highest professional standards of objectivity and objective thinking are ok - but ONLY when it comes to making a living.  When it comes to posting stuff in this forum, you make subjective mental jumps and that's ok.  You make them and you expect us to do the same.  You make them and expect us to accept them as objective and valid and binding on us.  But somehow you DON'T engage the objective thinking facilities in your brain that you use at work, in the lab.  They are there and you do use them, but not here - only at the lab, where you work.

.

.

.

 

Think about it.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wonya]

Posted Today, 08:29 AM

end3, on 27 Jul 2014 - 8:24 PM, said:

 

 

FreeThinkerNZ, on 27 Jul 2014 - 7:27 PM, said:

Listen goofball, bad behaviors are not in environmental factors???

 

What the hell do you mean "bad behaviors are not in environmental factors".  Living with someone that has bad behaviors is a rotten environment. And you think FTNZ is a goofball?

[directionless]

I don't understand all the complaints about end3's discussion topic. I see some confirmation bias, because end3 is reading about epigenetic discoveries and confirming bits and pieces of the bible. But what seems to be confirmation bias to one person might seem to be testing a hypothesis to another person. It's not black and white.

 

Epigenetics is very interesting, but we can't get the discussion out of the starting gate because people are being so nit-picky IMO.

 

Why can't we view this more like a thought experiment and see if we can learn something in the process? Like people learned things by thinking about Schrodinger's cat even though it was not a realistic experiment.

[Guest end3]

Posted Today, 08:29 AM

 

end3, on 27 Jul 2014 - 8:24 PM, said:

 

 

 

FreeThinkerNZ, on 27 Jul 2014 - 7:27 PM, said:

 

Listen goofball, bad behaviors are not in environmental factors???

 

 

 

What the hell do you mean "bad behaviors are not in environmental factors".  Living with someone that has bad behaviors is a rotten environment. And you think FTNZ is a goofball?

W, she was not willing to associate sin and environmental factors.....because sin is make believe, has no relevant meaning.

[Guest]

 

 

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

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

 

So how do you equate this definition of sin with your OP?  Especially due to the fact that many people with mental illness are more religious than the general population?  Religion feeds into mental illness, so how can mental illness be sin?

 

And, more to the point, your definition of sin proves that it is a religious term and religious idea, not a scientific one that can be objectively studied.  Sin is nothing more than breaking a religious rule.  You sin at least 5 times every day by not facing Mecca and praying at the appropriate times.  You sin every time you do not follow any religious law from any religion...

[Roz]

I don't understand all the complaints about end3's discussion topic. I see some confirmation bias, because end3 is reading about epigenetic discoveries and confirming bits and pieces of the bible. But what seems to be confirmation bias to one person might seem to be testing a hypothesis to another person. It's not black and white.

 

Epigenetics is very interesting, but we can't get the discussion out of the starting gate because people are being so nit-picky IMO.

 

Why can't we view this more like a thought experiment and see if we can learn something in the process? Like people learned things by thinking about Schrodinger's cat even though it was not a realistic experiment.

 

Why can't we view this as a thought experiment?  Here's why I think that's not possible.

 

The original claim:  "Schizophrenia has links to the christian bible's 'original sin' story"

 

Well what is the christian definition of sin?  1Jn 3:4  "4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

 

Well ok then.  Whose law?  Oh right, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god -the christian god.

 

This is why End3 must first prove that his god is real before we give a damn about breaking his laws.  

 

Do you have any issues with breaking any of Allah's laws?  Do you drink?  Eat pork?  Don't pray towards Mecca 5 times a day?  Have friday obligations?  Observe Ramadan?

 

No, you don't.  I don't.  End3 doesn't either.  

 

Why?  Because we don't buy into Allah being the real god.  

 

Christians, prove your shit book first before coming to Ex'c and linking all sorts of things back to its teachings.  

 

--

And sure, End3 and any other christian can go ahead and assert any damn thing they want.  It's their privilege to do so here in the Den.  However, if they get called out on it and repeatedly asked to prove their notions, the ball's on their court.  Look what End3's done in 10 pages instead of doing that.  Namecall, stall, whine, and have a pity party for himself.

 

"I have a baseball!"  Oh yeah?  Prove it!  "Here!"  Oh ok.

"I have jesus!"  Oh yeah?  Prove he's real.  "You can't prove he's NOT real!"  WTF...

[Roz]

And DL, please don't think of the above post as coming down on you.  I just talk that way, no malice intended.

 

Well... who knows... since christians view me as an agent of satan 

[Guest end3]

So how do you equate this definition of sin with your OP?  Especially due to the fact that many people with mental illness are more religious than the general population?  Religion feeds into mental illness, so how can mental illness be sin?

 

And, more to the point, your definition of sin proves that it is a religious term and religious idea, not a scientific one that can be objectively studied.  Sin is nothing more than breaking a religious rule.  You sin at least 5 times every day by not facing Mecca and praying at the appropriate times.  You sin every time you do not follow any religious law from any religion...

First, given it a religious concept, there would be those decisions, that environment that would enable/promote life or eternal life. In a fallen world, even the most religious astute would fall into the category, (excluding Jesus) of no knowing the choices that would promote life. For example, do my choices help my neighbor, and the environment, and their neighbor, and the people across the globe. I am assuming God would be the supercomputer that could put it all together and could say, "END3, no, that is not the right choice because your choice although good for your neighbor, screws the kid in India".

 

Yes, it could be studied given that we had the capability. If I sneeze here, what does it do across the room. What does my sneeze do across the globe. If I abuse (sin), here, what genetic changes does it cause there, and then what is the result of the person's actions that there genetics are changed do.

 

It IS seemingly physical.....and fits the fallen world scenario, IMO.

[Guest end3]

Well... who knows... since christians view me as an agent of satan 

You have probably already changed me genetically...lol.

[Roz]

Prove your notions christian, we're still waiting.  

 

Every page you delay just speaks volumes about your ineptitude of proving your god is real and that we should give a damn about breaking his laws.

[Roz]

Then again, now that I think of it, every single christian apologist in the Den has been inept about proving their god is the true god.  Par for the course.  

 

The funny thing is that it's their own god who said (Jn 14)14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

 

So... since it's obviously that easy for christians to gain unlimited knowledge from their omniscient god, it's reasonable to conclude they're just lazy, inept, lying, or a combo of the three.

[Storm]

 

Listen goofball, bad behaviors are not in environmental factors???

 

Bad behaviors can be environmental factors, but there needs to be a causal link between the behaviors and their effect on the person who is exhibiting the traits of the particular mental illness. I can make bad choices and do things that are not beneficial to me or my family and can affect environmental factors, but that in no way is a guarantee that my negative behavior leads my child to get a mental illness. There are plenty of parents who do drugs and live less than savory lifestyles who end up having kids who grow up to be perfectly normal, functioning adults. While bad behaviors can be a negative environmental factor, it is not a guaranteed thing. More information is needed before you can draw a conclusion on a causal link.

 

You're placing the onus of the whole mental illness thing on sin. But why do some sinners get punished with mental illness, but not others? Why is Joe Blow's sin any different than mine? Does god have a big Wheel of Fortune wheel where he spins it and whatever mental illness or physical deformity the arrow lands on is what we get? There must be a couple of no penalty slots too, because plenty of people sin and we see no ill effects of their behaviors. Your hypothesis that sin is the cause of these things is very inconsistent. One can only conclude that it is a flawed hypothesis and we would need to move on to something else.

It appears to me that this is just another bullet in the body of christianity that will ensure that it is another bogus religion. 

[bornagainathiest]

I've made nine (9) relevant and on-topic posts in this thread, for your attention, End.

 

# 99 (on the 25th) was a direct response to you in person.  

 

#188 was made to you today.

.

.

.

Please respond.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest]

 

So how do you equate this definition of sin with your OP?  Especially due to the fact that many people with mental illness are more religious than the general population?  Religion feeds into mental illness, so how can mental illness be sin?

 

And, more to the point, your definition of sin proves that it is a religious term and religious idea, not a scientific one that can be objectively studied.  Sin is nothing more than breaking a religious rule.  You sin at least 5 times every day by not facing Mecca and praying at the appropriate times.  You sin every time you do not follow any religious law from any religion...

First, given it a religious concept, there would be those decisions, that environment that would enable/promote life or eternal life. In a fallen world, even the most religious astute would fall into the category, (excluding Jesus) of no knowing the choices that would promote life. For example, do my choices help my neighbor, and the environment, and their neighbor, and the people across the globe. I am assuming God would be the supercomputer that could put it all together and could say, "END3, no, that is not the right choice because your choice although good for your neighbor, screws the kid in India".

 

Yes, it could be studied given that we had the capability. If I sneeze here, what does it do across the room. What does my sneeze do across the globe. If I abuse (sin), here, what genetic changes does it cause there, and then what is the result of the person's actions that there genetics are changed do.

 

It IS seemingly physical.....and fits the fallen world scenario, IMO.

 

 

So you are saying that by not praying in the direction of Mecca every day, you are causing changes to you genetic makeup?  How does that happen?

 

By wearing clothes made of 2 different types of fabric somehow changes your DNA?  How does that happen?

 

How about by not sacrificing a human to the sun god like the Aztecs did, you are changing your genetic code?  How do you figure that?

 

By your own definition, "sin" is not obeying any religious law, not just a christian law.

[Guest end3]

 

 

So how do you equate this definition of sin with your OP?  Especially due to the fact that many people with mental illness are more religious than the general population?  Religion feeds into mental illness, so how can mental illness be sin?

 

And, more to the point, your definition of sin proves that it is a religious term and religious idea, not a scientific one that can be objectively studied.  Sin is nothing more than breaking a religious rule.  You sin at least 5 times every day by not facing Mecca and praying at the appropriate times.  You sin every time you do not follow any religious law from any religion...

First, given it a religious concept, there would be those decisions, that environment that would enable/promote life or eternal life. In a fallen world, even the most religious astute would fall into the category, (excluding Jesus) of no knowing the choices that would promote life. For example, do my choices help my neighbor, and the environment, and their neighbor, and the people across the globe. I am assuming God would be the supercomputer that could put it all together and could say, "END3, no, that is not the right choice because your choice although good for your neighbor, screws the kid in India".

 

Yes, it could be studied given that we had the capability. If I sneeze here, what does it do across the room. What does my sneeze do across the globe. If I abuse (sin), here, what genetic changes does it cause there, and then what is the result of the person's actions that there genetics are changed do.

 

It IS seemingly physical.....and fits the fallen world scenario, IMO.

 

 

So you are saying that by not praying in the direction of Mecca every day, you are causing changes to you genetic makeup?  How does that happen?

 

By wearing clothes made of 2 different types of fabric somehow changes your DNA?  How does that happen?

 

How about by not sacrificing a human to the sun god like the Aztecs did, you are changing your genetic code?  How do you figure that?

 

By your own definition, "sin" is not obeying any religious law, not just a christian law.

 

I'm saying I'm not Omni anything, so how could I know what, in this case, promotes health and wellbeing. Seems obvious that we promote some changes as good and some is bad. You tell me.