Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest]

 

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.

 

 

I fail to see how not doing a rain dance can bring about changes to myself at the genetic level.  Smoking cigarettes or sunbathing, yes.  But not following arbitrary rules from some random silly religion has no consequence at all to anything.  The Aztecs stopped ripping the hearts out of humans centuries ago, yet the sun still rises every day...

[Roz]

End3's trying to do a double take here.  First he says that sin is the breaking of religious law (which religion?  well his of course, because allah can fuck off but not yeshitwa).

 

Now he's saying that sin is anything that promotes health and well-being.  

 

If Bin Laden dodged half as well as our resident apologists, he might still be alive today.

[Guest end3]

 

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.

 

I fail to see how not doing a rain dance can bring about changes to myself at the genetic level.  Smoking cigarettes or sunbathing, yes.  But not following arbitrary rules from some random silly religion has no consequence at all to anything.  The Aztecs stopped ripping the hearts out of humans centuries ago, yet the sun still rises every day...

 

Good question....without the research, I don't expect we DO know what changes us...

[Guest end3]

End3's trying to do a double take here.  First he says that sin is the breaking of religious law (which religion?  well his of course, because allah can fuck off but not yeshitwa).

 

Now he's saying that sin is anything that promotes health and well-being.  

 

If Bin Laden dodged half as well as our resident apologists, he might still be alive today.

Good lord Roz, you are an aggravating person.

[Roz]

Only because you make no sense begin with.  

 

1.  You've presented a positive claim in your OP

2.  Do the research instead of being the laughingstock of the Den for 11 pages and counting

 

This is our same reaction if a Muslim were here trying to tie genetics to breaking Allah's laws.  Hop to it, to your research and ask your god for proof of your nonsense.

[Roz]

I present as proof of god glasses making people stupid:  End3

[Guest]

 

 

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.

 

I fail to see how not doing a rain dance can bring about changes to myself at the genetic level.  Smoking cigarettes or sunbathing, yes.  But not following arbitrary rules from some random silly religion has no consequence at all to anything.  The Aztecs stopped ripping the hearts out of humans centuries ago, yet the sun still rises every day...

 

Good question....without the research, I don't expect we DO know what changes us...

 

 

Except science has done research and has shown us many things that change us on a genetic level.  Radiation, toxins, malnutrition, etc.  

 

You postulated in the OP that not following arbitrary religious rules causes genetic changes.  You have shown nothing to support this at all.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

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.

 

I fail to see how not doing a rain dance can bring about changes to myself at the genetic level.  Smoking cigarettes or sunbathing, yes.  But not following arbitrary rules from some random silly religion has no consequence at all to anything.  The Aztecs stopped ripping the hearts out of humans centuries ago, yet the sun still rises every day...

 

Good question....without the research, I don't expect we DO know what changes us...

 

 

Except science has done research and has shown us many things that change us on a genetic level.  Radiation, toxins, malnutrition, etc.  

 

You postulated in the OP that not following arbitrary religious rules causes genetic changes.  You have shown nothing to support this at all.

 

I hear you Marty. I'm ok with where I'm at. Thanks for the post.

[Roz]

 

I hear you Marty. I'm ok with where I'm at. Thanks for the post.

 

 

And here is where we finally get to the heart of it.

 

End3:  I have nothing to back up my original post's speculation, I am ok with that.

 

11 pages of asking for proof that his god is real, that original sin is something people should care about, and that genetic dispositions are linked to the fall of man in his book?

 

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Congratulations christians.  I'm going to have to study this thread later as apologetics 101, what not to do in an ex-c environment.

[Guest end3]

Ta DAH!!

 

I'll be here all week Roz. I can tap dance but balloon animals will be extra....

[Roz]

11 pages of saying "I have nothing to back up what I said, but since you guys don't know then it's a valid thing!"

 

You don't need to tap dance, you can't even place coherent arguments for your religion.  Tap dancing for you would be a health hazard.

[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?

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

 

I'm sorry, End 3, I misunderstood you. I also think sin is make believe, but evil is not make believe.

[Orbit]

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.

To test a hypothesis you must first have things that EXIST in the physical world. Sin does not physically exist in the physical world. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment CAN be replicated in laboratory conditions (without the cat, obv). The idea that sin is genetic isn't a thought experiment, it's an unprovable assertion with no basis in the physical world, and this opens the door for all kinds of nonsense and pseudoscience.

[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

 

Responding to Roz and Marty, but not to me, End?

.

.

.

 

Ta DAH!  

 

I haven't just been here all week - I've been POSTING HERE for weeks!

[moanareina]

end only responds to those he feels he has arguments...when he runs out of em he has three ways to deal with it.

 

1. Trying to play stupid, do some mind jumps that no one gets so he can entangle you into a whole other discussion.

 

2. Calling you names and telling you that you don't get his original thought.

 

3. Leave the conversation and answer the posts he feels cosy to answer because he does not see where they are going so far...

 

So BAA, end not responding to your posts actually is a compliment. Because he shows you he can't really compete with your logic and sharp thinking.

 

And I guess that sounds insulting to end but this is how he made himself look in those 11 pages of nonsensical discussion.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

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.

 

 

It's not that I wasn't willing, I wasn't able to associate "sin" with anything, because sin is make believe and has no relevant meaning.  Talk about things that exist, and then we can have a sensible discussion.  Otherwise, we can't, and you will just sidestep by throwing out insults.

[Guest end3]

end only responds to those he feels he has arguments...when he runs out of em he has three ways to deal with it.

 

1. Trying to play stupid, do some mind jumps that no one gets so he can entangle you into a whole other discussion.

 

2. Calling you names and telling you that you don't get his original thought.

 

3. Leave the conversation and answer the posts he feels cosy to answer because he does not see where they are going so far...

 

So BAA, end not responding to your posts actually is a compliment. Because he shows you he can't really compete with your logic and sharp thinking.

 

And I guess that sounds insulting to end but this is how he made himself look in those 11 pages of nonsensical discussion.

No, BAA demands that you answer. He has control issues. And his posts are mind-numbing. Please don't speak for me.

[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.

 

 

It's not that I wasn't willing, I wasn't able to associate "sin" with anything, because sin is make believe and has no relevant meaning.  Talk about things that exist, and then we can have a sensible discussion.  Otherwise, we can't, and you will just sidestep by throwing out insults.

 

You are dishonest. Whether we call it sin or bad behavior or whatever, it's real. Address the reality of it.....millions upon millions consider sin real. You can't just dismiss it on some semantic technicality.

[Guest end3]

 

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

 

Responding to Roz and Marty, but not to me, End?

.

.

.

 

Ta DAH!  

 

I haven't just been here all week - I've been POSTING HERE for weeks!

 

I really don't agree at all with most of what you have to say BAA. And I don't like your need to control that I respond. You don't really know me nor my motivations and really have no jurisdiction on whether I say anything to you or not. Maybe you are a decent guy. I have seen glimpses of that. Show me that in your posts and I will be more apt to answer.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

It's not that I wasn't willing, I wasn't able to associate "sin" with anything, because sin is make believe and has no relevant meaning.  Talk about things that exist, and then we can have a sensible discussion.  Otherwise, we can't, and you will just sidestep by throwing out insults.

 

You are dishonest. Whether we call it sin or bad behavior or whatever, it's real. Address the reality of it.....millions upon millions consider sin real. You can't just dismiss it on some semantic technicality.

 

What gene does sin reside on?

[Guest end3]

end only responds to those he feels he has arguments...when he runs out of em he has three ways to deal with it.

 

1. Trying to play stupid, do some mind jumps that no one gets so he can entangle you into a whole other discussion.

 

2. Calling you names and telling you that you don't get his original thought.

 

3. Leave the conversation and answer the posts he feels cosy to answer because he does not see where they are going so far...

 

So BAA, end not responding to your posts actually is a compliment. Because he shows you he can't really compete with your logic and sharp thinking.

 

And I guess that sounds insulting to end but this is how he made himself look in those 11 pages of nonsensical discussion.

And additionally, y'all have left unaddressed many poignant points I have made....so right back at you sister.

[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.

 

 

It's not that I wasn't willing, I wasn't able to associate "sin" with anything, because sin is make believe and has no relevant meaning.  Talk about things that exist, and then we can have a sensible discussion.  Otherwise, we can't, and you will just sidestep by throwing out insults.

 

You are dishonest. Whether we call it sin or bad behavior or whatever, it's real. Address the reality of it.....millions upon millions consider sin real. You can't just dismiss it on some semantic technicality.

 

What gene does sin reside on?

 

Funny they can attribute genetic change to abuse. You would consider abuse a sin? Are you that stupid where you are going to use this as an argument?

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

It's not that I wasn't willing, I wasn't able to associate "sin" with anything, because sin is make believe and has no relevant meaning.  Talk about things that exist, and then we can have a sensible discussion.  Otherwise, we can't, and you will just sidestep by throwing out insults.

 

You are dishonest. Whether we call it sin or bad behavior or whatever, it's real. Address the reality of it.....millions upon millions consider sin real. You can't just dismiss it on some semantic technicality.

 

What gene does sin reside on?

 

Funny they can attribute genetic change to abuse. You would consider abuse a sin? Are you that stupid where you are going to use this as an argument?

 

Question repeats: What gene, or constellation of genes, does sin reside on?

[sdelsolray]

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

[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.

To test a hypothesis you must first have things that EXIST in the physical world. Sin does not physically exist in the physical world. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment CAN be replicated in laboratory conditions (without the cat, obv). The idea that sin is genetic isn't a thought experiment, it's an unprovable assertion with no basis in the physical world, and this opens the door for all kinds of nonsense and pseudoscience.

 

O.k. you are probably right that the Schrodinger cat experiment is not a good comparison. (I don't remember anything about that lecture after the shock of sealing his cat in a box. )

 

But I don't see the problem with using the Bible and sin in our discussion as long as we have clear definitions. For example, we can debate if the foods Jews don't eat are more likely to have damaging effects on epigenetics. Or maybe activities like prayer and meditation have beneficial effects on epigenetics. We already saw that child abuse might have damaging epigenetic effects. That is surprising to me.

 

I don't see why we need to accept the "truth" of the Bible or sin to have a discussion about them. We just need to define them carefully first - any definition will do as long as everybody understands. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't understand why this is a problem.