So there's this god and it created stuff over which it has no control. Hardly a god of any sort, I'd say, and still no explanation of where it came from.

Wow. You're reduced to that as an argument.

And so religion, thankfully, continues it's long drawn out death rattle as the gaps get narrower and fewer...

Malvern Rider - Member
Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo..
I think it's best we'll call it a typo. I made a lengthy typo

I googled your bit of prose assuming it was a copy and paste initially? 😀

It really isn't is it? Got some talent there mate!

Poop. Fret not. I wasn't tryimg to upset or insult you either so if I did then that was wrong, so please accept my apology in return. I am hard to annoy.
My point was that even if you are open minded there is zero evidence for a deity. You may as well believe in the flying spag monster or Russells teapot, as there is equal evidence for them. Theonly reason for opening yourmind to god over the FSM or Teapots is a concern that some of the superstition is true. So saying you are open minded about god seems suspiciously like superstition to me... Not trying to be mean or insulting. Just attempting to be objective about it.

Also, as others have said, even if one could see evidence of a God, you need to be open minded enough to ask where did that god come from? The problem is that the deity concept is just a logical fallacy, the idea that creation just stops in the trail at God.

Am surprised that no-one has already said:

[img] [/img]

oh God...

And so religion, thankfully, continues it's long drawn out death rattle as the gaps get narrower and fewer...

Again, I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

Again, I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

PS the word of god is immutable but many practitioners seem happy to ignore the bits they dont like and "modernise it"
gods are not wrong they dont need updating

anyone on here a microbiologist that can answer it for you lol

If not, a chip shop owner or molecular biologist will do.

I can't be arsed. Epigenetics was the corner stone of my PhD thesis so had enough of it to last a life time.

Well, I just take what you say on faith then

I can't be arsed.

But really, all I'm asking for is confirmation or denial

I think that's about right kimbers. A mystical power created the universe

But really, all I'm asking for is confirmation or denial

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA. This form of inheritance allows the transmission of information from mother to daughter cell without the information being encoded in the nucleotide sequence of the gene, for example when a liver cell divides, the daughter cells do not start to express proteins specific to muscle cells. Methylation of a CpG dinucleotide at cytosine C5 (mCpG) is a major epigenetic gene silencing modification in vertebrate genomes. This modification recruits proteins which specifically recognise this motif. These methylated DNA binding proteins then recruit enzymes which chemically and physically alter chromatin, which induces transcriptional repression. Although most CpG motifs are methylated it should be noted that short (500-2000bp) CG-rich regions, known as CpG islands, found within 60% of human gene promoters remain non-methylated (Bird, A. 2002). While this is true for normal cells, de novo methylation of CpG islands occurs in various cancers, inducing silencing of tumour suppressor genes e.g. CDH1 in breast, bladder and prostate cancer (Graff et al. 1995), CDKN2A in many epithelial cancers (Merlo et al. 1995), and the Rb gene in retinoblastomas (Sakai et al. 1991).

Control of gene expression/repression is important in cell development and differentiation to ensure that only cell-specific genes are transcribed. Some genes are constitutively transcribed in almost all cells, e.g. Glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH); some genes are only transcribed in certain cell types, e.g. carnitine palmitoyltransferase I C in rat brain and testes (Price et al, 2002); others are only transcribed after a signaling cascade has been initiated, e.g. induction of insulin gene transcription by glucose in beta cells of the Islets of Langerhans (Leibiger et al. 1998). Eukaryotic DNA is packaged into a nucleoprotein complex called chromatin that is organized into two structurally distinct domains, euchromatin and heterochromatin (Heitz, 1928). Euchromatin is condensed during cell division but more open and transcriptionally active during interphase while heterochromatin is tightly packed and transcriptionally inactive throughout the cell cycle. While there is only one class of euchromatin, heterochromatin has two variants, constitutive or facultative. Constitutive heterochromatin is fixed, irreversible and located at very specific spots in the genome that consist of DNA that contains many tandem (not inverted) repeats of a short repeating unit known as satellite DNA. Facultative heterochromatin can revert to a euchromatin state for example, when a woman transmits the X-chromosome to a son; it reverts to euchromatin from heterochromatin. Replication of these two types of chromatin occurs at different time points, with heterochromatic DNA late and euchromatic DNA early within the cell cycle (Gilbert, 2002). DNA methylation is functionally connected to these two states through histone modification. In a simplified view, euchromatic DNA contains non-methylated CpGs and the histones are often acetylated whereas the CpGs in heterochromatin DNA are methylated and the histones are deacetylated with methylation occurring at histone 3 lysine 9 (H3K9 ) (Cameron et al. 1999). De-methylation of CpG motifs allows H3K9 to be re-acetylated (Bachman et al. 2003) which ultimately leads to a switch from hetero- to euchromatic DNA. Thus DNA methylation is a pivotal signal for the epigenetic control of gene expression in a reversible heritable manner.

Wow! You really couldn't be arsed could you!

For all that, I'm not sure you answered my question

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

DNA methylation is a pivotal signal for the epigenetic control of gene expression in a reversible heritable manner.

Thanks for breaking that down into simplistic terms ..but could you please go into a little more detail...
Cheers 😉

Copy and pasted from my thesis. The info is there btw

But are you talking about somatic cells or embryonic stem cells?

Both are under epigentic control. The research area is huge and not something I'm going to type out on my phone while in bed. Pretty sure there is a wiki site dealing with epigenetics so you should find your answer there or wait till I'm on a computer

This reminds me of one of those Twitter arguments that go:

"You're wrong. Have you read this book?"

"Yes - I'm the author."

Both are under epigentic control. The research area is huge and not something I'm going to type out on my phone while in bed.

Sure, it's just that I wasn't sure that both would be in CpG context.

Yes, probably in a few wikis but none make it as clear as you do.

5plusn8 - Member
Poop. Fret not. I wasn't tryimg to upset or insult you either so if I did then that was wrong, so please accept my apology in return

No apology necessary bud,I was feeling a little thin skinned to be honest. I should definitely know better. More annoyed at myself than anything.

Lots going on at the moment and should have shown a bit more restraint and basically stayed away from the mobile. 🙂

Given me a lot to think on today actually. About the actual thread topic and my little storm in a tea cup. Will mull it over some more tomorrow no doubt.

If a close friend or family member told you that they had taken to worshipping the old gods, say the Greek or Norse pantheon. How would you react and would it, in your mind, differ from how you view somebody who follows one of the three larger modern faiths? If so, why, how is it different?

perchypanther - Member
The first cockapoo didn't come from a cockapoo, it came from a poodle
....or a Spaniel?

Weren't expecting that, were you?

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANIEL INQUISITION!

OUR CHIEF WEAPON IS SURPRISE...

theocb - Member
Clouds are a miracle, you need to open your mind.. wind it back a few billion years and have a think about how that cloud you gazed at today was formed, you won't see another the same even if you live for 8000 billion and 70 years. That cloud came from nothing, like a nothingness no man can comprehend just like mazzers baby. Like I said your senses have been dulled.

Thought I’d chuck this in, sums things up for me at any rate...

“I can believe things that are true and things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not.

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Beatles and Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectable, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkled lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women.

I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state.

I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste.

I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like martians in War of the Worlds.

I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman.

I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself.

I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck.

I believe that anyone who says sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too.

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.

I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”
? Neil Gaiman, American Gods

A fictional character reacting to CGI events in a movie. ..

jade is dried dragon sperm

🙂

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/stoned-guys-agree-organised-religion-is-bullshit-but-there-probably-is-a-god-20170924136304

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/17/im-an-atheist-who-goes-to-church-heres-why-you-should-too-6909729/ ]Because he thought it was time for another religion thread. [/url]

Good link Woppit. I agree with his sentiment and I too have enjoyed sermons on occasion. But I don't think personally that I can get over the hump.

From the other closed thread:

They will never be happy UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IT AS WELL.

I've been on a lot of bike rides with various religious people and I can honestly say none have tried to covert me or even shown any animosity. I'm even someone's Godfather.

Hello trollgrips.

Drac spoilt the joke. I think he was bullied by the other [s]bouncers[/s] moderators.

I think the article is hateful.

Hateful as in filled with hate?

Drac spoilt the joke. I think he was bullied by the other bouncers moderators.

🙄

<mod>
Drac's reopened the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/an-atheist-goes-to-church ]closed thread[/url]. Can we move this tail of the conversation back there please, then we don't have parallel discussions running? Ta.
</mod>

I can honestly say none have tried to covert me

What did you have to agree to do openly when you were made a god parent- see i told you they were subtle https://churchofenglandchristenings.org/godparents/role-godparent/

Do you want the catholic one and what they have to pledge?

They will never be happy UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IT AS WELL.

Can't say that mirrors my experience growing up in Luton with friends of Christian (various denominations), Muslim, Sikh, Hindu OR Atheist persuasions. Everyone just accepted each others' right to individual beliefs and just cracked on with being good mates to each other. The Atheist ones didn't need to try and attack the beliefs of the religious either. Mind you this was pre-internet so the only way you'd get to use the kind of combative language used by some in this thread would be face to face. And you'd quite deservedly be chinned for being rude.

^ I'm interested to know at what point in this thread (which words?) would (in your opinion) warrant actual physical aggression?

Serious question.

And you'd quite deservedly be chinned for being rude

No they wouldn't. If you have to descend into violence just because you think someone is being rude you have no right to be out in public. My comments would be the same in person as they are on here.

What did you have to agree to do openly when you were made a god parent- see i told you they were subtle

Replying to comment on the other thread.

I'm interested to know at what point in this thread (which words?) would (in your opinion) warrant actual physical aggression?

Serious question.

I'm not the kind of person who needs to get violent, but can well imagine a point where someone calling another's god a "made up sky fairy" being the trigger point. It's just rude and unnecessarily combative language. What's wrong with "I don't believe in God but respect that you do" without needing to demean their beliefs?

Nothing and you are correct. But there is precedent here - based on the topic in question

It was ever thus - hence most people of a certain persuasion do little more than dip into these threads

Still keeps people happy and the post count up!

*tags andyrm in*

You got this

But there is precedent here... It was ever thus

That's a piss poor excuse for the "sky fairy" stuff. It's really quite obvious it's meant to wind up those that believe in a god. Mikewsmith, for example, uses it to ridicule (and, I suspect, garner a few laughs) but you can find him shouting "Injustice, injustice!" whenever a racism thread pops up.

It's double standard central, this place. Such hypocrisy and lack of self awareness from what can appear, at times, to be a bunch of reasonably educated and balanced folk.

I guess we all have our foibles...

but can well imagine a point where someone calling another's god a "made up sky fairy" being the trigger point

do you really think someone is going to turn violent because someone calls their god a made up sky fairy? We don't live in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Teasel - tbc its not an excuse. On the contrary I find the "tolerance" of this stuff surprising but the mods are clear in their stance and the precedent well established. I agree with you.

Gotcha

You often hear of the complaint from religious people that they are "offended" by disparaging descriptions of their superstitions.

There have been many examples of violent reactions from religious types to descriptions they don't like.

Were I in the position to do so, I would simply say feel free to be as offensive as you like about my Atheism and see how upset I get.

Which us to say - not at all. You might have to put up with a condescending smirk, mind. ..

How timely

You often hear of the complaint from religious people that they are "offended" by disparaging descriptions of their superstitions.

Mostly, I think they are just bored by them. Sky fairy,imaginary friend, etc. Some were funny and even challenging originally, but now it's just a tiresome unoriginal repetition in attempts to provoke or get a laugh. It's all been heard before and does not add to the debate.

I think they are just bored by them. Sky fairy,imaginary friend, etc.

shouldn't believe in sky fairies then lol

Well to be fair, it's not as tedious as thousands of years of atheists having to put up with people talking about various types of "god" and "miracles" and so on, so I'd say you need to suck it up, even if payback is a bitch.

That's nearly the stupidest thing I've heard you say Woppit. If you are just looking for a rumble instead of a decent discussion you can **** off, frankly. You're not contributing, you're just being a dick.

Surreal. Almost as if he called his pint a poof!

How timely

That ad made me smile at the elephant in the room. And, blonde English-looking Jesus.

molgrips - Member
That's nearly the stupidest thing I've heard you say Woppit. If you are just looking for a rumble instead of a decent discussion you can **** off, frankly. You're not contributing, you're just being a dick.

Ooh.

from the big bang. what caused the big bang or what happened before is beyond me and other people at the moment but it would be an argument of ignorance to say a deity.

I knew you would get there pooh, well done. We can finally agree that those unique clouds have shared our miraculous journey.

Deity, mmm, it would depend on what description you are attaching to that word perhaps. A supernatural type of energy is the best we've come up with. These are just words defined by man and they will change as we understand more.
The agreed scientific theory points to a type of 'fairy in the sky' completely beyond mans thinking, beyond our science, beyond our religious teachings,beyond any words or definitions. Science has led us to the gateway of a miraculous supernatural beginning just as faith has done for thousands of years.

"Not only is the universe queerer than we think, it's queerer than we can think..."

So there's this god and it created stuff over which it has no control. Hardly a god of any sort, I'd say, and still no explanation of where it came from.

And so religion, thankfully, continues it's long drawn out death rattle as the gaps get narrower and fewer...

A supernatural type of energy is the best we've come up with.

from the big bang. what caused the big bang or what happened before is beyond me and other people at the moment but it would be an argument of ignorance to say a deity.

I knew you would get there pooh, well done. We can finally agree that those unique clouds have shared our miraculous journey.

Deity, mmm, it would depend on what description you are attaching to that word perhaps. A supernatural type of energy is the best we've come up with. These are just words defined by man and they will change as we understand more.
The agreed scientific theory points to a type of 'fairy in the sky' completely beyond mans thinking, beyond our science, beyond our religious teachings,beyond any words or definitions. Science has led us to the gateway of a miraculous supernatural beginning just as faith has done for thousands of years.

I'm sure I said this earlier in the thread, but there are a few different hypotheses for what pre-Big Bang. None of the scientific ones involves a god.

Great quote wotsit, very surprised you like that one though..

It's one of the best quotes against the empty and desperately badly-formulated "explanation" such as yours, of a god, that I've come across.

They seem to be pretty similar to me!

Attributing it to a god then describing said god as 'ineffable' is about the same as saying 'it's queerer than we can know'.

The agreed scientific theory points to a type of 'fairy in the sky' completely beyond mans thinking, beyond our science

The agreed scientific theory points to a fairy in the sky being nonsense. No scientist worth his salt has ever said god is beyond our thinking and our science.

I knew you would get there pooh, well done

I'm assuming you mean me here. What did you get me on? I don't have an answer to what came before the big bang. I'm not going to make up some shit just to give you an answer.

supernatural energies are rather difficult to explain, ask quantum physicists

that's because there is no such thing as supernatural energies lol

which part of quantum mechanics is hard to explain for a quantum physicist.

The agreed [s]scientific[/s] [b]religious[/b] theory points to a type of 'fairy in the sky' completely beyond mans thinking, beyond our science, beyond our religious teachings,beyond any words or definitions.

FTFY.

Still waiting to hear your explanation as to where god came from, BTW.

No scientist worth his salt has ever said god is beyond our thinking and our science.

Except Stephen Jay Gould

Attributing it to a god then describing said god as 'ineffable' is about the same as saying 'it's queerer than we can know'.

Not at all and you are selectively misquoting, trollgrips.

The phrase is not "queerer than we can know", as you conveniently twist it. It's "not only queerer than we [i]think[/i], but queerer than we [i]can[/i] think".

The idea that there is a god is a thought, ergo it's inadequate.

What's left is scientific enquiry.

Simples.

CharlieMungus - Member

No scientist worth his salt has ever said god is beyond our thinking and our science.

Except Stephen Jay Gould

link to the quote

What's left is scientific enquiry.

Simples.

Scientific enquiry is how people understand the natural world. God don't come into that so it cannot be reasonably applied..

not so simples

Everything is open to enquiry, including human-generated suppositions.

Everything is open to enquiry, including human-generated suppositions

Sure, but not all to scientific enquiry

The phrase is not "queerer than we can know", as you conveniently twist it. It's "not only queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think".

The idea that there is a god is a thought, ergo it's inadequate.

What's left is scientific enquiry.

Don't understand. God and science are orthogonal concepts, not opposing. Science seeks to explain how the universe works. Believing it was created by God does not stop you tryign to figure out how it works, does it?

Creationism and evolution - they are opposing concepts, for sure.

No scientist worth his salt has ever said god is beyond our thinking and our science.

Except Stephen Jay Gould

link to the quote

Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it

Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it

nothing on his page hence my request.

Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it

nothing on his page hence my request.

Whoosh?

There is no conflict between science and religion. Creationism is only a local movement, prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that read the Bible as an inerrant, literally true document. Creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism, for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth. The lack of conflict arises from a lack of overlap between the respective domains of professional expertise of science and religion. No conflict should exist because the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap. According to the principle of NOMA — “nonoverlapping magisteria” — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value. This principle was obeyed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. They both saw no conflict between Catholic faith and a theory of evolution. However, there is one important difference between their positions. Pius XII admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis, but at the same time he proclaimed that the theory of evolution had not been proven and might well be wrong. On the other hand, John Paul II stated that evolution can no longer be doubted. Now, he stated, evolution must be accepted not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. This fact is no threat to religion if one accepts the principle of NOMA. As a consequence of this principle, religion can no longer dictate the factual conclusions that belong to the magisterium of science, nor may scientists decide on moral truths.

while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value.

take point with this, my moral and ethical values are not religion derived

also there is nothing in that paragraph that says god is beyond our thinking and our science. it also only discusses one god, what about others.

take point with this, my moral and ethical values are not religion derived

also there is nothing in that paragraph that says god is beyond our thinking and our science.

it also only discusses one god, what about others.

But you know what? You asked for where he said this. Sure, he didn't use exactly the words you used but you really would have to be quite pedantic and churlish to say this is not an example of a scientist 'worth his salt' saying 'god is beyond our thinking and our science'. You asked for an example, you have one. It would behove you to accept this gracefully. You are in danger of refusing to change your view despite the evidence.

you can disagree with the points he makes

totally, religion is the last place you should look for your moral compass unless sexism, homophobia and discrimination is what you are looking for.

So did you, was i supposed to guess which God you meant?

any god not just the Christian/Jewish one. you've got over 3000 that you can discuss.

Well, there is really

well there isn't, he is discussing the separate nature of science and religion, not that god is beyond our thinking and our science.

religion is the last place you should look for your moral compass unless sexism, homophobia and discrimination is what you are looking for

Really not generally true, at least in this country.

any god not just the Christian/Jewish one

erm... It was 'any' God

well there isn't, he is discussing the separate nature of science and religion, not that god is beyond our thinking and our science.

I think most people, not looking to score points, would recognise that he was making the point that religion lay outside of the scientific domain and this is broadly the point you asked for evidence of.

It's not really worth discussing further, if you don't think it amounts to the same thing, then nothing else will convince you unless of course SJG at some point chose to use exactly the same words you did, which i think would be quite unlikely.

Really not generally true, at least in this country.

So sayeth the resident virtue-signaller...

But Islam has a problem with homophobia :

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/proof-islam-has-problem-with-homophobia-maajid/

The stats for this country aren't great either but I cannot find the ones he has quoted on his radio show.

Obviously stats for other religions/countries are available, but I was just aware of that link because I listen to his excellent show.

https://theboar.org/2017/02/lgbt-muslims-uk-peter-tatchell/

[url= https://medium.com/@tommauchline/15-things-i-learnt-about-islam-and-british-values-being-a-gay-boy-living-opposite-a-mosque-ebd385eb3113 ]Not all of Islam.[/url]