Perhaps you live in China? — Athena

If you insist????

Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". — Athena

Really! So no matter how educated or enlightened you become, you cannot escape the attempted indoctrinations fired at you from your local most prominent religion? So, if I claim that my concept of god is an emergent property of a future collectivisation (networking) of all sentient (probably by that time, transhuman) lifeforms, which may then have an ability to merge as a single centre of control (or single consciousness). This collective would then become a single node in a network of collectives created by other sentient species within our galaxy. This would then become a single node within an intergalactic collective which could merge into an entity which could qualify for the monotheistic god label. The individual galactic collectives could qualify as individual members of a pantheon of gods and satisfy the polytheistic concept. So god as a emergent pantheism. Is this merely a projection of some early christian indoctrination I am just unaware of? An all pervading influence that I cant defeat. Am I this victim of christian theism you describe? NO! and you are again just throwing out generalisations based solely on your own musings. In the same way I just did by projecting and conflating pantheism, panpsychism and computer networking. It's fun, but its no way to authenticate what is and is not TRUE.

I do not advocate for ignoring history, I simply suggest that we do not use ancient fables to act as a reference or a guide to human progression and future sociopolitical systems.

Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology — Athena

Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'?

I know what epistemology means and what it refers to.

Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do — Athena

Another false claim!
Where is your evidence that atheists refuse to engage (theorist? I assume you meant theists or theologist)?

Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas. — Athena

Uncultivated plain (the days of the hunter-gatherer),Adam (settlement on the plain) (early humans became agricultural and settled in small groups or tribes)
See, no need to inject god fables into your descriptions, you can tell the real story!

What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.

We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it — Athena

I accept that this is your interpretation of what is going on between us but it is certainly not mine.
I have been in dialogue mode with you but if you misrepresent atheism and atheists with misinterpreted generalisations then I will try to point such shortfalls out to you and give my reasons and examples.
I have no particularly christian concept of god, if you are going to state such generalisations then you must quote examples from my typings, and explain why my words display an EXCLUSIVELY Christian perspective. If you cant do that successfully then you are just making erroneous claims.

And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. — Athena

What? I have no idea what you are typing about here? Humans did invent every god story in history or are you suggesting that real gods communicated with the Greeks? If they didnt then the stories about mount Olympus and its pantheon of characters are fairy tales, yes?
Not stating the falsity of all god stories just encourages people to waste their time following other useless dead end paths such as the ancients were in fact communicating with aliens :lol:, which is why some people will actually buy utter nonsense such as 'Chariots of the gods' written by total con men such as Erich von Däniken.

Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. — Athena

Perhaps some thing like:

Might help you understand the atheist viewpoint in a more accurate manner.

My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy — Athena

Well, we have common cause in this but I think your ideas as to the foundation of democracy is flawed and I don't mind a few having authority over a majority as long as that few are democratically elected and are 100% answerable to that majority who have the power to remove and replace any member of that few if they fail to meet and maintain compliance with well established, powerful but fair, checks and balances.

an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. — Athena

So you advocate for imitating that which has never existed, instead of encouraging the human race to grow up, take full responsibility for all that has happened in the past and plan a better future for everyone, without attempts to scapegoat gods or employ the fairy stories made up about them as a guide to establishing better sociopolitical systems. We don't need god fables as a moral base for establishing better social or political systems. We need progressive human thinking not regressive.

The assumption by many seems to be 'politics is sober and serious, please don't have a life too.'
— Tom Storm

I wonder who else is covered under this assumption, doctors, lawyers, Sunday school teachers?
— Fooloso4

No, because those professionals tend to work in private institutions. They are paid by ownership fees or they are employed workers. — javi2541997

As a school teacher of 30+ years and before that, as a time served journeyman painter & decorator.
I can confirm that my employers, parents of pupils, and local authority representitives, took a much dimmer view of a drunk, singing and dancing secondary school teacher than the people in general took when they saw a drunk, singing and dancing painter and decorator.

I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. — Athena

We do understand cause and effect. We also understand infinite regress arguments as a tool theists use to claim that a first cause god is therefore proved. But this has already been convincingly debunked! The Kalam cosmological argument via William Lane Craig is almost at the 'dead' stage as a claim imo.
Give me an example of a 'universal truth,' without which we would be unable to know anything of importance!

but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization — Athena

I disagree. Humanism is the foundation of democracy, same with civilisation regardless of geographical direction. Democracy is anti-autocracy, it is an enemy of divine dictates, the divine rule of kings, devotion to messiah's, acceptance of aristocracies or theocracies. It does not even demand respect for so called 'superiors.' Democracy is born from a human demand for justice, fair treatment and equality of status for all. Nothing to do with fairy stories about gods. Gods came from human primal fears, end of story. Just a case of early humans looking around and concluding 'circle of heat and light in sky makes us warm and we can see our enemies.' 'circle moves across sky and goes away at night, it gets cold and we cant see our enemies as good.' 'we need the big heat and light, we must love it or it wont come back(primal fear)!'
The nefarious simply used this fear to control people and benefit themselves. Its time we dropped this BS in the dirt. I do not see most theists as bad people(although some certainly are!). I see theism as pernicious. I see theists as duped but I wish to convince them, not hurt them.

They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. — Athena

Again imo and with all due respect, gods and all stories associated with them are CREATED BY HUMANS! If you think that a story about ficticious characters such as Hades and Demeter exemplifies an issue of morality which relates to 'liberal education' or 'human laws,' then fine BUT! I see no value to the future of the human race in doing that. Why not use a story from the revolution of spartacus to illuminate the same concepts. Why use IRRATIONAL god fables?

As you found fault in what I said........, — Athena

I think you are being rather 'precious' about your need to protect or defend 'what you said,' we are debating with no malice aforethought, surely. we are in dialogue about each others position. We do not have to declare each other hostile because you are over-sensitive to some phrases I choose to use.
How would you survive a debate on a heated issue with such an approach? It would be like the start of the fabled battle of Camlann (Arthur/Excalibur legend). Somebody takes out their sword by mistake to kill a snake (garden of Eden reference) which causes both sides to attack each other. "War by mistake/misunderstanding." But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.

I know people who imo match your description and I try my best to nudge now and again to see if they are interested in talking about it. But yeah, its a serious judgement call as its possible you can do more harm than good in many situations that you do not have full information about.

Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted. — Athena

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.

Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life. — Athena

Thank you for your kind words. I am also enjoying exchanging viewpoints with you. I recently had covid too and it is a miserable experience. I still (two months later) have some residual weaknesses.

Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". — Athena

Most atheists will not state this without 'I believe,' or 'I am convinced that,' this is a rational statement as it simply refers to a conclusion based on the preponderance of available evidence.

boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible. — Athena

I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists.

I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. — Athena

Sure, if you tell someone they are preaching total BS then you might make them dig their trench even deeper but after calling the normal theistic evangelising BS and utter nonsense, the atheists will ask the theists question by question and take them step by step through their delusional thinking in an attempt to lift their fog. Have you watched any of the youtube offerings such as 'the atheist experience' with Matt Dillahunty? or the many athiest phone-in shows or the more academic offerings from offerings such as mythvision etc?

With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. — Athena

Unless the test is corrupted and you get a false positive!

So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? — Athena

It is not possible to PROVE gods do not exist but think how easy it would be for them to PROVE THEY DO. The fact they don't and imo never will is the best rational proof I am going to get that the have always been non-existent and all past god stories are fables.

What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe? — Athena

The burden of proof lies with gods and theists not me. Why would I have to personify that which I believe is non-existent. If god is as powerful as is suggested it should have no problem convincing me it exists.

The speed of light in a vacuum can always be made more accurate but we may never find its absolute value, but we can always asymptotically get closer to it.

What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions? — Athena

Any dimensions posited greater that 3 are dimensions of the very small. Have a look at a pipeline from above, it looks 2D, you don't see the 3rd curled dimension from that 'above' position. In our 3D perspective we don't see the other spatial dimensions which curve around every point in 3D space.

fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. — Athena

But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens — Athena

Consider the following from wiki:
Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.

Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."

I have heard about both the supposedly immortal cancer cells that continually grow and are used in medical research and about CRISPR. To be honest, I don't know much about them other than that they exist and may help in solving certain health issues and/or may help provide insights into how to extend human life. — dclements

To me, these are all just pieces of the jigsaw. I think it will take a while yet before we get the first transhuman who lives for 1000 years. You might however be interested in the following:
Copied from the site: https://transhumanity.net/becoming-the-first-transhuman-a-call-for-the-right-stuff/

Sometimes technological congestion in a given field can be cleared with decisive action. For example, the CEO of the gene therapy company BioViva, Liz Parrish, took action to help clear the way for lengthening the human lifespan sooner than would otherwise have occurred. She recognized that the only way to speed up human trials on lengthening telomeres (to enable the potential for longer lifespan and freedom from the diseases of old age) was to undergo gene therapy herself.

So, in September of 2015, Liz Parrish, under the supervision of the noted members of the BioViva Advisory Board, received human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene therapy by injection. The telomerase enzyme makes cancers potentially immortal, and mutations in the hTERT gene have been implicated in promoting certain types of cancer. But Liz Parrish will be regularly monitored for her gene therapy results, which will be made public. Mice given telomerase (Tert) therapy by injection did not have an increase in cancer.

As a result of her actions, Liz’ Parrish’s therapy is the first known telomerase lengthening human trial. In 2015, trials were conducted on human cells in culture, but Liz Parish’s experiment is the only in vivo progress of note in the field of telomerase research since 2012. In that year, Dr. María Blasco, of the Spanish National Cancer Research Center, injected mice with just one shot of telomerase each and achieved a 13% increase in longevity in elderly mice and a 24% increase in the younger adult mice. Blasco’s experiment represents the only in vivo progress of note since the 2010 Harvard Medical School experiment, led by Dr. Ronald DePinho, that resulted in dramatic signs of age reversal in elderly genetically-engineered mice: The mice were engineered to age prematurely, but were made clinically young when their telomeres were lengthened through drug intervention. It is hard to understand why no trial has since been set up to determine how long the lifespan of normal mice might be extended through the telomere therapy employed.

:clap: and there is the legacy you will leave behind which may affect nobody, somebody, a few people, many people, most people in the world!

so whala! — Athena

:rofl: What a brilliant new spelling and name for a supernatural god character in a fable for entertainment purposes only. WHALA! (VOILÀ !).

We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham. — Athena

From wiki:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He first derived "Hubble's law", now called the Hubble–Lemaître law by the IAU, and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later calling it "the beginning of the world".

MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. — Athena

I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.

Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? — Athena

Yes I have.

the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling "god" just for the sake of argument — Athena

I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational?
Atheists will consider the 'universal force' concept in its many varieties, from the type exemplified in sci-fi Star Wars movie presentations to the panpsychist or cosmopsychist posits and even to some of the posits which don't involve gods such as Buddhism or theosophical posits such as those of Aleister Crowley or Hubbards Scientology. I agree that most atheists I know will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo.

Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? — Athena

The effects of gravity are observable and measurable but gravity may not be a separate force which is quantisable and has gravitons as its 'messenger' particle. It may be an effect caused by the presence of mass/energy. So gravity may be caused by the presence of mass/energy and if you assign credence to posits such as the cyclical universe then there is no need for a first cause such as a god and if you insist there has to be a first cause then I personally satisfy my own thoughts by labelling such, a mindless spark, which no longer exists. As an atheist, my reason convinces me there is no god or gods. I cannot prove I am correct but my simple offer remains to any that do in fact exist. Show me and if it cant or wont then it does not exist.

what else in nature could be a universal truth? — Athena

There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.

Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings. — Athena

That may well be how you interpret it when you watch atheist debate theists or you read their on-line exchanges but it's not my interpretation. I find the atheist logic to be far more rational and compelling than the logic and woo woo employed by theists. But as I am an atheist, you will not find my viewpoint surprising.

Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists. — Athena

The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before and that's why we can see further but it is us who know the most or at least have access to more and more accurate data/information/knowledge that they ever did.
We don't need to keep scent marking new knowledge and new progress with the smells of the ancients.

I don't think there is a great deal of difference between our social or political viewpoints.
There have been many 'separators' that have been used to distinguish between people. Indicators such as level of cleanliness, what your job is, your gender, your age, your skin colour, your economic status are all poor ways to make distinctions between people. I don't think we would disagree on this.

The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS.

I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. — Athena

I exemplified the Hindu caste system as it seemed to me that you were claiming earlier that polytheism was less problematic than monotheism and I don't think that's true.

I think we differ in that I think you wish to progress from the position of finding value in theism and finding common ground with theists. I think this is honourable but Its not a position I prioritise but it may well be a wise route to take.

Good one! I also like 'out of little acorns, big oak trees grow.'

You have fully explained your intended emphasis with

an inability to let even an iota of reason or empathy take root in one's mind, — DA671

I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds — DA671

The small contributions I make are not and never will be enough but I do claim that I help more than I hurt and I just hope my claim is a valid one.

Ok, thanks for improving the clarity of your point. Overall, I will declare my bet safe and I will not have to cut down on all my favourites this month, due to having to donate a months pension to a charity of your choice.

:sweat: :fear: :up: :eyes:

The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think! — DA671

:lol: Did I win my bet?

How about ,"However, from what I think I understand about the madness of the betrayal of trust that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other."

:smile: And I will bet a years retirement pension that @DA671 will agree!

Then I hope you never gain any position of authority Javi.
I am glad Senna is a leader and you are not, but I hope one day you dance, dance, dance freely and all night, even if its just around your own coffee table cause your pissed!

Ok I see. I actually think the 'betrayal of trust' is more apt for you words:

However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. — DA671

They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true.

Are you typing that you would have fought for the Japanese in WWII? Or merely that you advocate for a society which promotes

military spirit, honor, self-sacrifice, and unwavering, unquestioning loyalty to the nation and to the emperor. — universeness

?

Bushido - new word for me. :up: — Tom Storm

Bushido has been misused as well, consider the statement below:

In the lead-up to World War II, and throughout the war, the Japanese government pushed an ideology called "imperial bushido" on the citizens of Japan. It emphasized Japanese military spirit, honor, self-sacrifice, and unwavering, unquestioning loyalty to the nation and to the emperor.

I only hope to have more decent and mature politicians. Simple. — javi2541997

Never forget how to dance Javi, that path leads towards the anti-life people.
Dancing freely (even if you are not great at it) should be a joyous act, a celebration of being alive.
Let the politicians dance, just insist they use their power for the good of those they represent.
Be suspicious of any system which discourages dancing!

One of the main problems with this is that people frequently have no idea who they are or what they want. The really tough part is working that out. — Tom Storm

Then finding such out should be the main priority of such people and until they do have a strong idea of who they are and what they want they must hope that those in power have their best interests at heart and those who are more self-assured must insist and enforce adequate checks and balances to make sure those in power behave appropriately and I don't think that needs to include making sure they don't dance (subjectively) provocatively at a party. If you are not self assured that you know who you are and you know what you want then you should not be leading a country. That is partly why I advocate that these two questions should be internally asked by all of us regularly.
1. Who are you?
2. What do you want?

I even include them in my thread Profundity

Completely. You are approaching to my point then — javi2541997

No, not even near it. Displaying honesty in who you are involves deciding to dance at a private party if you want to as a human right when you have judged that to do so does not reflect on your ability to be a good leader of a country as dancing is an expression of personal joy. In this past it has only been suffocating religious dogma that has tried to restrict the joy of dancing. Do you wish to impose upon politicians that which is imposed by such horrors as Sharia law, which also restricts woman in such ridiculous ways based on theistic nonsense.

According to your thoughts, how is to "act human"? — javi2541997

To be true to your own nature, to be who you are, to be honest.

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake. — L'éléphant

How about this one from Norwegian politicians:


This compilation made in America:


Or this effort from UK's prime minister Teresa May?


I think Sanna wins the dance off.
I don't care if a politician enjoys themselves human style at a party, I care about what they do politically.
I would care if they are shooting up heroin in the corner and getting involved in devient behaviour but not having a wee drink, splif and dance. I prefer my politicians to act human and not some fake archetype of virtuosity.

Famous scientists can be sophomoric just like amateur philosophers on TPF. — jgill

Are you suggesting that famous philosophers or academic philosophers on TPF are never sophomoric/pretentious/juvenile/totally wrong?
I think we get a lot more utter nonsense from philosophers of all ability levels than we ever get from scientists.

English is indeed my second language. — DA671

:clap: :clap: English (with scots dialect) is my first language and your vocabulary range seems wider than mine, well done!
When I looked up 'Commingling' its meaning was reported as 'breach of trust,' does this match your use of it in.

However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. — DA671

?

We need to get the balance correct. Let politicians act like everyday humans who dance when they are happy without having to be in a formal ballroom setting. We do also have to monitor people in powerful positions of authority to make sure they are not complete nasties such as Don Trump or Bo Jo.

Further info on HeLa cells is that they are basically telomeres.

The text below is from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Telomere:
A telomere is a region of repetitive DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome. Telomeres protect the ends of chromosomes from becoming frayed or tangled. Each time a cell divides, the telomeres become slightly shorter. Eventually, they become so short that the cell can no longer divide successfully, and the cell dies.
Telomere. Along the chromosomes, which are long pieces of DNA...when you look at them as a picture, they look like lines. Well, the hard part is how to protect the ends of this line. Because you could imagine that if you didn't protect them they would become ragged, and maybe there'd be little parts of them that would be lost. So the telomeres are special DNA that sit at the end of the chromosome that have repetitive sequences that are recognized as the end of the chromosome, but they keep the chromosome from becoming frazzled or damaged. And every time the cell divides, the telomeres also divide. But sometimes they can become shorter. And as they become shorter, that's a clock that the cell is counting to know how old it is, and that will limit how many times the cell can divide without losing some of the important DNA on the chromosome. And one of the interesting features that's understood now about telomeres is that in cancer cells, which have a more infinite capacity for self-division, one of the important changes that they make is that they keep their telomeres long, so that molecular clock goes away and those cells can keep dividing, even though they should get to the end of their lifespan. And that's one of the ways in which the cancer cells basically trick the human body into thinking that they should still keep replicating.

Thank you.

A line of research currently being looked at is HeLa Cells.

From Wiki:
HeLa is an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is the oldest and most commonly used human cell line. The line is derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951,[named after Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year-old African-American mother of five, who died of cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific, which allows it to be used extensively in scientific study.

The cells from Lacks's cancerous cervical tumor were taken without her knowledge or consent, which was common practice in the United States at the time. Cell biologist George Otto Gey found that they could be kept alive, and developed a cell line. Previously, cells cultured from other human cells would only survive for a few days. Cells from Lacks's tumor behaved differently.

The (horrible imo) Elon Musk is making some progress with neuralink.
CRISPR tech is very interesting.
The most interesting claim coming from the scientists involved in current transhuman technologies is that the first person to live to between 135 and 175 years is alive today but many such scientific claims in the past have proved unfounded.

It was suggested when the forum first started that we notify users each time a discussion or comment is moderated — Michael

Well, I was not suggesting that as I can see how that would be a lot of work but how often do threads get moved to the lounge? Surely the member could be informed and told why then or even better could be told beforehand by PM and a quick exchange could occur. If there was impasse then surely an administrator could be the final arbiter. Would this honestly add too much burden on individual moderator workload?

I have been told in the past that there is no forum policy and it is left to the moderator making the change to decide whether to notify. — T Clark

I moved it because it didn’t seem to be philosophy. Not sure what it is. — Michael

Is this a shard of light peeking through to indicate that in the future, as a courtesy, a member will be informed if their post gets moved to the lounge and the reason given? Or is this just you being independently courteous