This is getting good. I'm enjoying this. Thank you. Abra//



I totally get what you mean. You are correct that vaccinations and modern medicine contribute to overpopulation worldwide and overcrowding in the US. They do. But I can't impugn either for what it's done for the good of mankind.

yes, there are plenty that would generally not survive the cold and flu season as recently as a hundred years ago. it makes the news when people die of the flu these days. back a long time ago people died all the time of flu and cold and thyphoid and turberculosis and all kinds of things no one die sof anymore, young, old or anywhere in between..

I take it you've heard of Malthus.

I think that these superflu's and mega-colds are nature's response to our combined immunities and living conditions. Think about it, we're seeing things that really haven't been around since the dark ages. plague is popping up here and there and you hear about it more and more often, it seems. disease is like a living thing. it'll feed on it's share of the population be it a few hundred million worldwide or a few billion. it will grow, like a snake in a cage, in proportion to the size of the enlcosure you put it in. and there are things we do that encourage it, so you can't blame it for doing what it does.

Abra, we discussed the word 'atheist' before, and you are entitled to your personal definitions, but recently JB mis-used this word the same way you do, causing me to become concerned over how your use of language may influence others.

An 'atheist' is a person who lacks belief in a deity. I believe you may be thinking of a 'materialist' when you speak of 'atheist'. If so, by confusing these terms, you suggest that all atheists are materialists, which is unfair to other people and mis-represents the diversity of beliefs (and lack thereof) that exists.

There are atheists who believe in spirits, ghosts, souls, reincarnation, over-souls, the Tao, cosmic energy fields, chakras, auras, the Force, - you name it, somewhere there is an atheist who believes in it (unless 'it' is a deity).

Well, just for the record, I'm not into genetics. It's not my field of study. Although having said that I did attend college and I majored in biology in the 80's. I took classes on cell biology, genetics, microbiology, and I was specializing in studying viruses.

So I had some understanding of evolution and how genetics works. Prior to that in the 70's I had alread majored in chemistry so I had a good foundation coming in.

None the less, things changed. I was originally studying to become a VMD, and due to some really wierd political problems with the college administration I ened up changing my major to physics. So I basically left biology behind in 80's.

I just took this course on the Human Genome as a 'refresher' to see where things are at today in genetics. Just as he says in the lectures the things they are able to do today quite literally seemed impossible back in the 80's. Even though they still had a pretty good handle on the overal picture back then. Today's knowledge and understanding is truly unbelievable.

They quite determined that all life on earth arose from a single cell.

To me that is just utterly amazing. They definitely didn't know that back in the 80's. They were still arguing about whether life originated at one place took root at several different places around the globe.

Today it has been determined that all life on planet Earth can be traced back to a single cell via the genome.

That's just amazing. And truly profound. Back in the 80's we didn't even believe that question could ever be truly answered, and now they answer it with confidence. All life on earth came from a single cell. And I mean that quite literally. All life on Earth came from one particular individual cell that somehow got started and survived to divide into enough mass of living matter that it created all life we see on this planet today.

That's is just mind boggling. I think.

To me it's mind boggling that it actually happened that way. And it's also mind boggling that we can actually know that this is true by simply looking at the genome of various species of life on Earth.

By the way, if you get a chance to view the course I mentioned check out those pie charts and graphics that they have been taking from the genetic samples of humans throughout the world.

It's mind boggling just in how many people's DNA they have recorded. My GOD! They must have the DNA from millions of people all around the world.

Plus plants and animals, etc. It's just totally mind boggling.

I know I'm wearing that word out, but it's truly amazing how much information they actually have to work with.

He gives a precise account of how humans evolved and even migrated around the planet hundreds of thousands of years ago. They can put this story together from the DNA they recover from fossils. They can tell who was related to whom.

He also says that we have the entire genome of the Neanderthal. We could potentially bring them back! He even poses the question of whether or not we should, and the gleam in his eye when he poses the question indicates to me that he would love to see that experiment done.

I don't know how I feel about that one. We already have too many people here without bring back the neaderthals. But it's kind of an interesting thing to think about just the same. I'm sure they'll keep that genome safe. Who knows maybe somewhere far in the future someone will bring the Neaderthals back to life?

So many interesting things to think about.

wait. I thought you were an atheist.

Pay close attention... very close attention!

or not.. hell I'm confused now..

I never try to force a strict semantics onto anyone.

However if you feel so inclined to do so to me, could you offer me a single word or term to replace the term 'atheism' as I am using it?

If you can give me a good replacement word I'll consider using that instead from now one. If you can't give me a good replacement word then I'm afraid you'll just have to tolerate my continued use of the word.

I've used it this way all my life, and I've never had any objections untill very recently on this forum. Everyone seemed to fully understand what I meant when I used the word the way I use it.

Well no wonder you're confused.

I'm agnostic!

I'm completely open-minded.

I confess that I don't know. I confess this to myself. I confess it to any deities or spirits that "might" exist. And I confess it to the entire world.

I've always been agnostic and I have never claimed otherwise.

I do lean toward believing in spirituality.

And I lean in that direction for all reasons. I confess that I have always intutively leaned toward spirituality. But I also lean toward spirituality from both a scientitic and philosophical point of view. I feel the majority of the evidence points to a spiritual underpinning of reality.

Therefore I always look at everything from all possible views.

I've concluded that the question of Genetic Engineering gets a green light from me whether I view it from an 'atheistic' point of view, or a 'spiritual' point of view.

I'm ok with it from either point of view.

This is very gracious of you. I do not know the best word, and I'm not 100% sure of your meaning each time you use it, but I think you are speaking of a 'materialist'.



Of course, I mean the 1st definition.

Sorry, I don't like that word.

I think I just stick with what I've been doing for the better part of 60 years.



Besides, why defend a 'label'? Do you wear it as some sort of shield in a religious war or something?

By mis-using these words, you encourage a false understanding. You ascribe qualities to atheists that atheists don't have. This is tantamount to prejudice.

Pay close attention... pay very close attention.

No, not at all.

If you take theism to mean "a believe in God"

Then the very next question that comes up is, "What is God?"

Ok?

Well, many people believe that God is spirit.

Ok?

So now we have an "Atheist" who claims to believe in spirit?

Well, clearly that's an oxymoron.

And a misrepresentation of the very word "Atheist".

So from my point of view you are the one who is fostering a false understanding of the word. You also seem to be forcing me to use the word 'god' to only refer to egotistical godheads such as Zeus or Yahweh. But why should I accept that restriction?

And so now we're at a stalemate.

All we can do is accept each other's position respectfully.

You continue using the term in ways that it is meaningful for you, and I'll continue to use the term in ways that it meaningful for me.

Why force this to a head?

Correcting disease and illness is a far step from the perfect facial features and particular hair color.

It would be amazing to know that I'm not passing on my Hyper Trophic Cardiomyopathy or my Muscular Dystrophy. I'm sure my offspring would also be grateful to have their lifespan lengthened.

It's survival of the fittest and if we can make our offspring survivors, who's to say it's wrong?

not to put to fine a point on it but prior to the advent of modern medicine chances are you wouldn't have a chance to pass on your muscular dystrophy or cardiomyopathy.

That's what we were getting to before this frakus broke out.

Would you rather live today or a thousand years ago, at which point people died of the common cold? Nobody's going to think any of this was anything but a brilliant invention, all of these diseases will fade into nothingness.

whether I'd prefer to live today or a thousand years ago is irrelavent. the point is...

well, best answer I can give you is to refer to Thomas Malthus..

I lean against medicine. I would be long dead, but non-the-less...

It is a self-perpetuating machine with dangerous consequences. As mentioned before, in our shortsightedness we very well could be extinguishing ourselves through short-term gain.

Finding joy seems more important to me.

**DEADLY DESEASES APPEAR TO BE COMMING BACK
---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Although I cannot be sure, since I had "other things on my mind" then, but I thought such occurrences have been singular in the 60's/70's. Lately, however,it seems the incidents occurr as epidemics that affect a large number of people!..

Seems like the Social Engineering has matured into the Global Engineering!!! -- and the "deadlinness" of the deseases has also increased two-fold!

I guess we should be greatful to the scientists who help preventing the problem of the Overpopulaition, and/or keeping it under control! In that case, the ethical problem of having a tribunal deciding who's to be treated from a dangerous desease (and who isn't) might be avoided...

In any case, one should be very cautious while visiting (or, god forbid, living at)the rural, undedeveloped countries of the world -- for one never knows when the "Engineering" might take place! ******