Ranchhoddas:
Are you now an authority on the English language?

See am? We don't mix. Spiritual things can't be explianed by everyone.

Anas09:

See am? We don't mix. Spiritual things can't be explianed by everyone.

On the contrary, spiritual things can be explained by everyone however they deem fit.

shadeyinka:
I appreciate that you looked for scientific research to back up some of your claims. Although, we must know that unless a conclusion is repeatable, its value as a scientific conclusion is low.

Fair enough

You will know that in most cultures incest was a taboo as you have said but based on theistic ideologies: "it is a sacrilege which pollutes the land, something the 'gods' frown at etc". Incest doesn't fall under social cultures like the culture of respect, cleanliness, etc. It falls under the guide of the gods and that is why no primitive society can say why inbreeding is wrong but somehow, they just class it as wrong ( because the gods say so).

Not necessarily. In his book, "Incest Avoidance and the Incest Taboos", A. P. Wolf does a brilliant job of reconciling the divergent schools of thought on the biological vs cultural/religious basis for aversion towards incest. You may find some of his arguments in the first chapter here. In it, he talks about an ethnographer's (Malinowski's) record of a near virgin tribe called "Trobriand". This tribe has four different categories of incestuous relationships
1) Brother-Sister relationships: Malinowski termed this the "ultimate taboo", in that it bore serious legal consequences: Any offender would be forced to commit suicide by jumping off a tall palm tree

2) Clan-Clan relationships: Here, a clan is defined broadly as a unit of related families. This type was also considered bad, and had many supernatural consequences attached to it. (You could say the gods frown upon such). Although, Malinowski observed that people freely engaged in this kind of incestuous relationship without feeling guilty.

3) Father-daughter relationships: Although, this type of relationship was considered bad, the culture and religion of the clan were both silent on consequences, so, while it was not as common as (2), it remained far less grievous than the former two. The reasoning behind this is that the children are seen as members of their mother's clan. So while a brother-sister or clan-clan relationship is grievous, the father isn't a member of the mother's clan to which the child belongs.

4) Nephew-Aunt: In this category, for the same reason as above, a man cannot have sex with his mother's sister because of clan rules. However, it was a encourages, Malinowski noted, to have virgin boys have sex with their father's sisters in order to help them to maturity.

We may draw two conclusions from the above:

1) Evidently, even if culture is a by-product of evolution, nothing precludes it from taking a life of its own.
2) Religion is not always pivotal to human aversion towards incest. Culture too plays a role. In this case, there are cultural categories of incest some of which are even socially acceptable.

"Inbreeding avoidance in animals" exist but not overwhelmingly the most common observation of sexuality in animals. I want to submit that among animals, the main cause of outbreeding is because of stronger sexual attraction based on "stronger smells" based on difference in family odors among animals (sorry, I am not a biologist so pardon my lack of use of proper technical words). i.e. animals from the same stock have familier scents and therefore not as sexually pungent as animals from other families.

However, in case of humans, its not just an aversion to inbreeding or preference for out breeding but a societal rejection usually based on the fact that it makes the gods angry.

Yes, for humans, it's different because we are the quintessential social animals. It shouldn't be surprising that social animals have social norms. Where we disagree is in the claim that this particular social norm of incest avoidance necessarily comes from the fear of some god's anger.

The argument of "Natural Selection" favouring outbreeding is weak and is just a speculation. Natural selection must present the evidence that cultures who practice inbreeding became weaker and died out. Hence, this evidence should have some historical basis why inbreeding is avoided by subsequent generations and cultures. However, apart from modern scientific studies, no ancient/primitive culture know the reason why inbreeding is not moral.

Natural selection as an explanation is intuitive enough, however, there is ample evidence that inbreeding has deleterious effects on populations read the article by Shawky, Elsayed et al. (2013) (see Shawky, R. M. [i]et al. (2013). "Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics." Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics 14(2): 157-164.[/i]), and many other reports on consanguineous marriages, where it is shown that such relationships significantly contribute to child mortality/morbidity and many other congenital disorders. Obviously, not everybody that practices inbreeding will have these disorders, however, they have significantly higher probabilities than exogamous relationships. As such, given enough time, such populations will diminish.

I just picked a narrow aspect of civilization which is about incestuous sexuality. That is why I removed "inbreeding" from the equation (since scientifically we know that it is adverse to a healthy population). The question then was that would incestious living promote or demote our sexual culture?

"Promotion/demotion" is a concept that inherently connotes good/bad. Like all other things, cultures evolve. This makes the ideas of promotion/demotion or good/bad relative and subjective. Our sexual culture has no inherent value attached to it other than its two main functions of carnal pleasure and reproduction. If you take away reproduction as you've done, then carnal pleasure becomes the sole function of sex (or its culture); in which case, there is nothing to be promoted or demoted by having incestuous affairs.

Thanks for being straight to the point. Logically speaking, that should be the position of rationalism. However, won't this make us as "uncultured" as brute animals?

No, it will only make us animals with a new culture that is, perhaps, unfamiliar to you. Referring to an unfamiliar practice as "uncultured" or "brutish" is precisely the same destructive arrogance with which the Englishmen used to wipe out our ancestral civilasations.

A father wakes up to have himself and his son have a party on his 19 year old daughter. What then becomes of civilization

You ascribe so much importance to sexual practices in your definition of civilasation. In fact, I am now curious about how you define civilisation. Pray tell, what is civilisation?

Would this atheistically acceptable culture be organised? Or isn't this a chaos?

Would you say that this atheistically acceptable culture is a system of development?

Again, you're just throwing in words, I don't know what you mean by "organised" or "development". You aren't making any sensible point here, I have to say. Okay, granted incest is bad, this does not mean it cannot be practiced in an organised way. We here of organised crimes all the time, so however much you wish to reiterate your incestocalyptic view of an endogamy friendly civilisation, there is simply no point that can be made about the phantom correlation between social cohesion, or organised society and the rate of endogamy.

My postulate was that adverse for invest has strong theistic influence. Atheism has no aguement for morals. Atheism argues for rationality and freedom of expression. The combination of these two ultimately destroy the fabric of our social existence when pursued without briddle.

Again, I assert, atheism does not attempt to make any moralistic, logical or rational argument. Atheism does not care for freedom of expression or anything of the sort. The only definition of atheism is "Absence of belief in a god". There can be illogical atheists, atheists who subscribe to Abrahamic morals, atheist who don't agree with freedom of expression, atheists who couldn't care less about any thing. Stop imposing your expectations on atheists!

I think you are oversimplifying things here.
Atheism is adversed to speculations and subjective conclusions of which Theists are accused of. The position of incest is defined as immoral by theists but looking at it atheistically, it isn't immoral (it could even be an acceptable way of life as long as no one is hurt). The consequence of " no evidence for God" if you are agnostic or "there is no God" if you are gnostic atheist is what we are dealing with.

You conflate rationalism and atheism. These two concepts have very different meanings. Please consult a dictionary!

If everything was based on evidence and rationalism (a stance promoted by atheism), incestuous living is justifiable but, this will destroy cultured living and civilization. Theistically, everything is NOT based on evidence and rationalism hence, incestuous living is unjustifiable and civilization is left at status quo.

NO! Rationalsim is NOT a stance promoted by atheism, absence of belief in a god is a stance promoted by atheism. Rationalism is a stance with its own body of support, independent of any other concept. Rationalism is an ontological axiom; you don't have to be atheist to subscribe to it; and you sure as hell don't have to subscribe to it because you're atheist! And oh! There is not such thing as a "status quo" civilisation. Civilisations will always evolve.

MrMontella:

randomness does produce order..

Tornadoes and snowflakes...
Mineral crystals etc..

No!
The seeming order in snowflakes is as a result of the constant angle between H-O-H in molecles of Water.

akintom:

This ambiguously written.
Religion is just one of the ideologies that be in the world. Human experience and civilization would still have progressed in this manner and fashion, without religious ideology.

Incest is cultural behavior and a descriptive word for a sexual act (psychological).

While homosexuality is a physiological behavior.

So, no common logical basis between the two.

Homosexuality is a disorder!
Even though, that is not the point of talk today

akintom:

This why i keep saying that Christian apologists are either mischievous or are in deed ignorant and primitive in their thinking.

How do you define a system of beliefs, that insist that anything that is said to EXIST or TRUE, MUST be based on knowledge that is developed through OBSERVATION (atheistic beliefs) and not REVELATION (religious beliefs).

You have either deliberately or ignorantly assumed that Atheists are scientists.
Theists say that some natural events can be explained scientifically but others cannot.
Atheists say ALL natural events can be explained scientifically

It is missinformation to assume that theists arrive at ALL their conclusions from subjective or intuitive religious believes.

Anas09:

Pity is what i feel for them really. I pray for the shackles of bondage to be broken off them.

Unfortunately, they know so much they have become unteachable. Like brute force going towards destruction

KingEbukasBlog:


I've given you reasons why child marriages are not approved by God .

Christians are not allowed to put gay people to death . What is this one saying ?

If the society determines what's right or wrong that means bestiality is right for an atheist in Canada , Hungary and Finland

Which child marriage is not approved by God. Mary the mother of Jesus we are told by the Catholic enclyclopedia married Joseph when she was 12. The average age of marriage during the time of Jesus was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. They don't see any thing wrong in marrying kids.


https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/14/bible-child-marriage-in-ancient-israelite-times-paedophilia/amp/

Western civilization is what ended child marriage and pedophilia. There is no where any God was against child marriage . In fact Allah still isn't against child.marriage because his prophet marriage a child.

shadeyinka:

Homosexuality is a disorder!
Even though, that is not the point of talk today
.

The consensus among the neuropsychological scientists is that, homosexuality is a variant and not deviant sexual orientation.

An authoritative reference for your assertion, might help your position.

shadeyinka:

You have either deliberately or ignorantly assumed that Theists are scientists.
.

No such assumption can ever emanate, from my basic thinking.

shadeyinka:

Theists say that some natural events can be explained scientifically but others cannot.
.

And they immediately assume that it must be god.

shadeyinka:

Atheists say ALL natural events can be explained scientifically.

And those that can't be explained in the present, has future chances of explanation.

shadeyinka:

It is missinformation to assume that theists arrive at ALL their conclusions from subjective or intuitive religious believes
.

By what other means do theist arrive at their conclusions?

Kindly be circumspective in your use of the word "assume", when referring to my assertions about Christian apologists.

I speak of them, based on facts of their beliefs system and its implications.

LightandDarkness:


I have already answered the question, and the issue is not on the definition of incest.

I'm not changing the topic, I used a reply I have used before and gave a rebuttal question which you can attempt to answer or ignore? Although it seems like you're saying religion and religious texts are a complete moral source. I would like to know where exactly the bible condemned pedophilia and slavery, I haven't seen it, and yet you (hopefully) believe both are immoral. Ever wonder why or how you knew this?

Pedophilia:
Can you show that the Bible support pedophilia? If not, you don't have a case! Pedophilia falls under the expression of lust of course a sin.
Like the fact that the bible didnt talk about cocaine or heroin doesn't imply justification.

Slavery:
The concept of slavery in Israel is different. It is more of servanthood

Leviticus 25:10- “And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man (slave) unto his family.”

Exodus21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Exodus 21:
20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.

Exodus 21:16
“Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.

The Bible reports events without taken sides: The children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria. They had served Rome during the time of Jesus. They asked Jesus the question, "...should we pay tax to Caesar? ". Jesus said, " give unto Caecar what belongs to Caesar!".

In summary, as a slave, serve your master faithfully as unto God. This world isn't worth the struggle: store your treasures where moth and rust cannot destroy.

Jesus concludes, my kingdom is not of this world...

In the context of the Bible, Morality of slavery is a function of how a slave is treated.

Exodus21:5-6
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Its like the concept of a Houseboy or House girl in Nigeria. I know one cattle fulani housegirl who is a lawyer now. She was called to the bar nearly 3 years ago because her master treated her well. She was treatedbas a family rather than a slave.

NOW,
Answer My Questions Plainly:
Atheism see nothing wrong with Incest (which is what we were discussing before you tried tobchange the topic) as long as it is by consenting adults and they are not harming anyone.


[size=18pt]

If civilization is living above the animal instinct of man and havingvan organized set of moral, social and civil rules, would the acceptance of Incest promote or demote our current civilization?
[/size]

shadeyinka:


Unfortunately, they know so much they have become unteachable. Like brute force going towards destruction

They are a disaster going somewhere to happen.

Ranchhoddas:
On the contrary, spiritual things can be explained by everyone however they deem fit.

However they deem fit? Okay then, i rest my case.

donnffd:

Lol, Front page, that was really quick...
Nice question and very mind-buggling...

Now, lets get one thing straight, Atheism is not a religion,Atheism doesnt have an opinion on anything because it is not an organization or a set of beliefs, infact the word should not even exist but sadly it does, that doesnt change the fact that it cannot describe anything other than someone who lack the belief in a supernatural creator.

Hi Friend


Of course atheism isnt a religion that is why I put the word religion in quotes. The word religion was used as a replacement for the theistic position of religion which is adverse to theistic believes.
Atheism does have opinions and it is easy to see
1. It must be logical
2. It must be provable scientifically
3. It must be devoid of subjective information (God in particular)

Using this three rules, one can arrive at atheistic conclusion about anything. Agreed, atheism is complex, so complex that we can not use the logic of atheism to govern the world because we have the gnostic, agnostic, spiritists, satanists(philosophical) etc.

donnffd:

With that being said, individual atheists can have their opinions on matters like this and if we were in a world where there are no religions, what would be the fate of incest?. Just like every other topic, it would be debated and voted upon by people who would use science and reason to form their opinion.

I have tried to use atheistic kind of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion to which I believe I'm correct. The problem was simplified by saying "pregnancy/inbreeding" is not involved.

So we have a 21 year old son and his 47 year old mum decide to have sex with each other consensually (they are using Goldcircle, Roughrider condom) so, no std ,no pregnancy.

Theists will say NO!:
Based on Moral and Spiritual argument . It is a sin! (subjective isn't it). Apart from biological reasons which has been knocked out, "no major reason"

Atheists will say YES!:
1. They are both adults
2. They had sex consensually
3. They practiced safe sex.

The concept of SIN doesn't exist in atheism. So, can anyone argue against the atheistic argument?

There is a complication however, Most atheists were not raised as Atheists in the earlier part of their lives. They had imbibed some theistic culture of right/wrong, moral/immoral and this prejudice them to sometimes act contrary to the silent rules which helped them to conclude on their stance of the lack the belief in a supernatural creator.

donnffd:

So whats my personal opinion on the matter?, well generally speaking, there is nothing inherently wrong about incest(apart that its very disguisting), but should it be allowed in the society?, and my answer would be NO, why?, well i get my cue from biology, when siblings mate and produce offsprings, those offsprings are far more likely to acquire a high number of mutations because the gene diversity is pretty much low, thereby causing such child a very painful existence.

I believe everyone should do what they want to do as long as it doesnt harm or intrude on others and in the case of incest, we clearly see that it can have a very big effect on someone else other than the parties involved so in that case i would vote against it.

So you see that I am right.
-Your conclusion: There is nothing inherently wrong with icest (that is it is right).
-But it is disgusting (is that not a carryover of past theistic culturing?)
Why should it be disgusting? Your answer can only be subjective!


Now, my question was that suppose the whole world became atheist and the society accepts (using the full doctrine [I meant the unwritten principle] of atheism) would our civilization improve or diminish?

My postulate is that Most Civilization see incest as a sacrilage against the gods or the spirit of the land. It is a different class of crime which in those days would lead either to banishment or execution. That is incest is a theistic crime.

How do you know that it's not you who has become unteachable?

shadeyinka:


Unfortunately, they know so much they have become unteachable. Like brute force going towards destruction

AgentOfAllah:

Fair enough

Not necessarily. In his book, "Incest Avoidance and the Incest Taboos", A. P. Wolf does a brilliant job of reconciling the divergent schools of thought on the biological vs cultural/religious basis for aversion towards incest. You may find some of his arguments in the first chapter here. In it, he talks about an ethnographer's (Malinowski's) record of a near virgin tribe called "Trobriand". This tribe has four different categories of incestuous relationships
1) Brother-Sister relationships: Malinowski termed this the "ultimate taboo", in that it bore serious legal consequences: Any offender would be forced to commit suicide by jumping off a tall palm tree

2) Clan-Clan relationships: Here, a clan is defined broadly as a unit of related families. This type was also considered bad, and had many supernatural consequences attached to it. (You could say the gods frown upon such). Although, Malinowski observed that people freely engaged in this kind of incestuous relationship without feeling guilty.

3) Father-daughter relationships: Although, this type of relationship was considered bad, the culture and religion of the clan were both silent on consequences, so, while it was not as common as (2), it remained far less grievous than the former two. The reasoning behind this is that the children are seen as members of their mother's clan. So while a brother-sister or clan-clan relationship is grievous, the father isn't a member of the mother's clan to which the child belongs.

4) Nephew-Aunt: In this category, for the same reason as above, a man cannot have sex with his mother's sister because of clan rules. However, it was a encourages, Malinowski noted, to have virgin boys have sex with their father's sisters in order to help them to maturity.

We may draw two conclusions from the above:

1) Evidently, even if culture is a by-product of evolution, nothing precludes it from taking a life of its own.
2) Religion is not always pivotal to human aversion towards incest. Culture too plays a role. In this case, there are cultural categories of incest some of which are even socially acceptable.
.

I honestly appreciate your writeup. You write just like my friend donffd only that you seem to major in humanities unlike him who is a hard core physicist. Pray you, what's your discipline?

I liked the Malinowski' record presented even though, I arrived at a different conclusion.

First, religion may be inseparable from culture and vise versa and even in Islam, religion is inseparable from governance. So your second point may not really hold.

The Trobriand interpretation of incest may be complex and elaborate but the fact that it warrants death penalty for the case of brother-sister relationship has a tell-tale sign of cleansing the land of evil. This points to a form of religious activity rather than just cultural. The punishment seems too grievous for just sex between brothers and sisters. The offence needed the ultimate punishment because the effect was to be on the whole community. It was better for the offender to die than for the whole community to perish.(Famine, Drought, Pestilence, War..)

My argument had been, was it possible that this primitive culture know the scientific disadvantages of inbreeding? If they did, they would do something about the offspring rather than the offender.

Secondly, it may be easy to form a link between theistic believes and incest because just like over 95% of the primitive societies of the world have one form of theistic believes or the other it shouldn't be strange if about 95% of these same culture have laws and taboos against incest.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes, for humans, it's different because we are the quintessential social animals. It shouldn't be surprising that social animals have social norms. Where we disagree is in the claim that this particular social norm of incest avoidance necessarily comes from the fear of some god's anger.
.

I may not have statistics to support it but from what I know about African traditional religion, incest is frowned upon from theistic point of view. The scope of what is regarded as incest may vary so also is the gravity of the offence but except in extreme minority of cases like the Akambas of Kenya( where "promiscuity" is encouraged) its like a general consensus of incest being a theistic affair.

AgentOfAllah:

Natural selection as an explanation is intuitive enough, however, there is ample evidence that inbreeding has deleterious effects on populations read the article by Shawky, Elsayed et al. (2013) (see Shawky, R. M. [i]et al. (2013). "Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics." Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics 14(2): 157-164.[/i]), and many other reports on consanguineous marriages, where it is shown that such relationships significantly contribute to child mortality/morbidity and many other congenital disorders. Obviously, not everybody that practices inbreeding will have these disorders, however, they have significantly higher probabilities than exogamous relationships. As such, given enough time, such populations will diminish.
.

I agree with you. Scientific research show that inbreeding increases the chance of negative recessive genes of propergating within a society and becoming dominant.

AgentOfAllah:

"Promotion/demotion" is a concept that inherently connotes good/bad. Like all other things, cultures evolve. This makes the ideas of promotion/demotion or good/bad relative and subjective. Our sexual culture has no inherent value attached to it other than its two main functions of carnal pleasure and reproduction. If you take away reproduction as you've done, then carnal pleasure becomes the sole function of sex (or its culture); in which case, there is nothing to be promoted or demoted by having incestuous affairs.
.

Culture sure evolve and it is possible to say why a certain culture migrated towards a certain equilibrium position. A certain culture is adopted because it favours the social or economic life of the community. However, in the case of incest, there is no evidence that the primitive culture understood the negative consequence this make it difficult for anyone to conclude that the culture of adversity towards incest evolved over time.

AgentOfAllah:

No, it will only make us animals with a new culture that is, perhaps, unfamiliar to you. Referring to an unfamiliar practice as "uncultured" or "brutish" is precisely the same destructive arrogance with which the Englishmen used to wipe out our ancestral civilasations.

You ascribe so much importance to sexual practices in your definition of civilasation. In fact, I am now curious about how you define civilisation. Pray tell, what is civilisation?

Again, you're just throwing in words, I don't know what you mean by "organised" or "development". You aren't making any sensible point here, I have to say. Okay, granted incest is bad, this does not mean it cannot be practiced in an organised way. We here of organised crimes all the time, so however much you wish to reiterate your incestocalyptic view of an endogamy friendly civilisation, there is simply no point that can be made about the phantom correlation between social cohesion, or organised society and the rate of endogamy.
.

Culture is just about rules followed by a community which guides their behaviours towards each other and the external. There could be positive or negative culture exhibited by a society. What usually determines whether a culture is positive or negative is a comparison of such culture with what is held as a norm by the one doing the comparison. Like, looking at western culture from the point of view of Yoruba or Igbo culture with respect of a younger person calling an older person by name is not acceptable. The western man may look at the Yoruba or Igbo culture as repressive with respect to the younger not allowed to call the older by name.

Of course, it is possible to appreciate another mans culture relative to your own and so, relatively, we can say whether a culture is better than ours within a certain context/area.

Haven layed the background, the question rephrased:
Relative to the culture we have now, if incest is promoted as a norm (because it is agreeable to a new value) would the new culture be desirable/superior?

AgentOfAllah:

Again, I assert, atheism does not attempt to make any moralistic, logical or rational argument. Atheism does not care for freedom of expression or anything of the sort. The only definition of atheism is "Absence of belief in a god". There can be illogical atheists, atheists who subscribe to Abrahamic morals, atheist who don't agree with freedom of expression, atheists who couldn't care less about any thing. Stop imposing your expectations on atheists!

You conflate rationalism and atheism. These two concepts have very different meanings. Please consult a dictionary!

NO! Rationalsim is NOT a stance promoted by atheism, absence of belief in a god is a stance promoted by atheism. Rationalism is a stance with its own body of support, independent of any other concept. Rationalism is an ontological axiom; you don't have to be atheist to subscribe to it; and you sure as hell don't have to subscribe to it because you're atheist! And oh! There is not such thing as a "status quo" civilisation. Civilisations will always evolve.

I wish this is actually how atheism is promoted in NL. However, Atheism in truth in NL has gone beyond the absence of a believe in God to hatered for God, disdain and disrespect for theists and all that is related to especially Christianity.

Arguments are usually based on "Atheists are Rational, Objective and Scientific" while "Theists are Irrational, Subjective and Unscientific". I have met here atheist who don't believe in spirits, I have met those who believe in spirits, I have met atheist who believe in the supernatural, I have met atheists who are satanists etc. Confusing isn't it?

You said:
"Stop imposing your expectations on atheists!"
Unfortunately, you used "atheists" in s general sense. How do you know when you are speaking with a gnostic atheist or an agnostic or a freethinker or s naturalist etc. All of these come under one umbrella "atheists". Its impossible to converse without having a unified general object which their attendant attributes.

You will agree with me that the unruly and unorganized doctrinal position of many atheists on NL can sometimes bring out the worst in a kind and loving theist.

I salute you. I appreciate the matured conversation devoid of insults and ridicules. You should link up with donffd, you could be friends.

Ranchhoddas:
How do you know that it's not you who has become unteachable?

I'm always learning even from atheists. I have respect for two of them on NL, its not about brawling about its about facts and conviction and presenting them in a cultured civil manner

akintom:

The consensus among the neuropsychological scientists is that, homosexuality is a variant and not deviant sexual orientation.

An authoritative reference for your assertion, might help your position.

This , I have treated before on NL with a basic question:
If homosexuality is a form of sexual orientation, what about Bestiality and Pedophiles? The white scientist in the name of liberality is pushing an agenda: I refuse to be part of it.

akintom:

No such assumption can ever emanate, from my basic thinking.

Sorry I made a typo error: I meant you assume that Atheism is synonymous with science while theism is speculative. That is wrong. Very wrong.

akintom:

And they immediately assume that it must be god.
And those that can't be explained in the present, has future chances of explanation.

There is a void/gap in knowledge of man and theists say
Not every thing has a physical explanation. Not every of such is about God eg LOVE!

Is Love real?, Is it quantifiable?, Is it imaginary?
You know the answer to this however, atheist are so polarised against God that they throw away the baby with the bath water. And they hide their hatered under a futuristic solution. Any solution is acceptable as long as God isn't involved (some atheist even believe in aliens!)

Since knowledge isn't perfect, it is arrogance to conclude you know all. An example is the origin of the universe. Theists know that the source of consciousness cannot be probed to know how He came about. Atheists on the other hand feel that consciousness evolved out of nothing. Can't you see that either way, there is a blind spot however, theist know that such answer is beyond any mortal. And their the pride of atheist lock in. They feel that in the future, they will know the origin of the source of consciousness. Think about it.

akintom:

By what other means do theist arrive at their conclusions?

By Every means!
Logical, Experiential, Experimental, Scientific, and Psychological

akintom:

Kindly be circumspective in your use of the word "assume", when referring to my assertions about Christian apologists.
I speak of them, based on facts of their beliefs system and its implications.

Ok!?
But think of this:
Do you think it is possible to unravel the genesis of atoms and consciousness?

KingEbukasBlog:
Religion has always existed . Even the Pre-Adamites were religious , as far as 300,000 thousand years ago, they practiced what is called urreligion .A from of natural religion or natural theology the type the deists practice . Even the Pre-Adamites with their low intelligence did understand that nature had a creator . Urreligion was said to be of divine origin , it was monotheistic in nature though arguable . It then progressed into animism then organized religion which came with polytheism and used as a tool for exploitation and mass control purposes .

pre admites? More light please

shadeyinka:

I guess you should clearly separate social evolution from biological evolution.

Use goats for example, they have been doing inbreeding forbso long that by your theory of evolution, they should be wiped out by now.

Social evolution is a cause-effect thing hence, we must be able to show historical facts of how peoples behaviours were modified over time to the new social born.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I mentioned Darwin's theory of evolution, usually that is taken to mean biological evolution. I don't see what difference making a distinction with Social evolution would make.

The Goats thing? I don't understand what you are saying. Humans do inbreeding too. Plants can pollinate themselves. etc etc. There is nowhere where you can quote me for saying that inbreeding species will be wiped out. I really don't know where you pulled that one out of.

Human beings are hardwired with a Survival Instinct, a will to live. That doesn't mean that people cannot and do not commit suicide everyday.
Does the fact of suicide mean that Survival Instinct doesn't exist?

Anas09:

I have explained that you in another post.

Who was Laban? A Syrian or a Jew?

Who was Abram? A Mesopotemian or Jew?

Abram was a Mesopotemian married according to their custom, Abraham was a Hebrew a Friend of Yahweh.

At the time of ignorance(Before the law was given), the Lord Winked at...

This before the Law after the Law shizzle has no traction with me.

Humans have always had Morality. It is part of what makes us human. Meaning that we have always known what is right from wrong. Law of moses or Not.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5

I wonder how these people in genesis were judged to be evil since there was no Law, and if you follow the story to the end it is obvious that god was not just content to wink at them. Nay, he flooded the whole earth on account of their wickedness.

So abeg if you wanna use a lousy excuse like that find someone else that is more gullible than me.

KingEbukasBlog:


All are assumptions . Anything about emotions in evolution is based on assumptions .

What about embarrassment , shame and feeling humiliated , they didn't make the cut ?

Sorry o. Yes, Embarrassment, shame and humiliation can also be explained using evolution theory.

Does that suffice or are there anymore emotions that you think I may have missed?

Anas09:

You mean Jacob committed incest with his wives?

Sarai was not Abram's mother's daughter. Good try at grapping straws.

Grapping (sic) straws, bwahahahahahahaha!! So in your dictionary incest is only when it's your mother's daughter. Sharing the same father doesn't count. Inside me and you who is really grapping straws?

Please next time you want me to answer your post you go park well. It is hard enough unravelling your convoluted lack of understanding but to then have to start copy and pasting to reformat is too annoying.

availableisme:

hmmm...

Darwin's TOE is still the go to model for seeking explanations for Everything. Literally everything. The fact that the theory is still undergoing development doesn't change that. In fact, everything in science can be developed or reviewed at any point.


Arguing into the future is not a healthy way to state facts. Evolution theory is still in its infancy and can only account for less than 10% of any form of knowledge so why use it as an authority when its still in the works. If something isnt conclusive then its not a go to model for anything YET!




Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order


Again order cannot emerge from chaos. Statistics refutes this. We can statistically attempt this and show the probability of its oocurence going by the acclaimed age of the earth and if we arrive at a figure like 1 in a quadrillion would you still think it would be possible for order to emerge from chaos especially when the said order from chaos had to repeat itself in millions of ways. Can anyone be that lucky?



Groups of human beings, left free to each regulate themselves, tend to produce spontaneous order, rather than the meaningless chaos often feared. This has been observed in society at least since Chuang Tzu in ancient China. A classic traffic roundabout is a good example, with cars moving in and out with such effective organization that some modern cities have begun replacing stoplights at problem intersections with traffic circles [4], and getting better results. Open-source software and Wiki projects form an even more compelling illustration. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Spontaneous_order



You are talking about evolution and now you shift to humans. Was evolution intelligent or random? Choose one please?

Anger, hatred, and bitterness can be easily explained by Evolution Theory. They serve to further an individuals success in the intense competition called life.


So love does not further ones intense competition in the evolutionary process? Is incest not love based?

PastorAIO:

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I mentioned Darwin's theory of evolution, usually that is taken to mean biological evolution. I don't see what difference making a distinction with Social evolution would make.

The Goats thing? I don't understand what you are saying. Humans do inbreeding too. Plants can pollinate themselves. etc etc. There is nowhere where you can quote me for saying that inbreeding species will be wiped out. I really don't know where you pulled that one out of.

Human beings are hardwired with a Survival Instinct, a will to live. That doesn't mean that people cannot and do not commit suicide everyday.
Does the fact of suicide mean that Survival Instinct doesn't exist?

The quote that lead to my reply is presented:

PastorAIO:

And further to that I also got an insight. That at no time did he ever espouse Amorality. In fact I don't know any atheists that do so. Atheists are just as moral as christians or moslems.
The point he was making was on the SOURCE of the morality. Agentofallah explains the moral impulse in Evolutionary terms. The christians just say 'God did it'.

According to Darwin Evolution would naturally select AGAINST incest. That revulsion that we naturally have for incest may later be attributed to a God by superficial persons but the fact that it has it's origins in evolutionary factors remain unchanged.

-AgentofAllah described both biological and social evolution and he concentrated on social evolution as the cause of aversion towards incest. Hence the reason I made the difference. Social evolution needs a proof, there are usually reasons why the culture of a community change over time and they can be traced. If incest came as a result of social evolution, what are the evidences?

Its just a scientific fact. When inbreeding is sufficiently done, the organism loose out and most likely will become extinct. Its a known fact.

In every norm, there would be aberrations and that is why we are human. We can choose whatever we want for ourselves whether nature agrees with it or not. So, if our society (because we are now wiser and the god factor is now known to be a fable) agrees to allow incest, would it make our civilization better?

PastorAIO:
Please next time you want me to answer your post you go park well. It is hard enough unravelling your convoluted lack of understanding but to then have to start copy and pasting to reformat is too annoying.

So all you did was copy and paste while I answered your obvious ignorantly assembled copy and paste easily with my knowledge of what its all about which you obviously did not based on your copy and paste lifestyle.

Next time you wish to make a contribution do so from your understanding and not copy and paste material. Show some intelligence.

thank you.

Edenoscar:


Can you please demonstrate how incest will lead to the end of civilization, where did you carry out your observations, how did you test your hypothesis

I believe that I asked you a question! Please answer it. Its not a crime to say, I don't know.

Interestingly, the question didn't talk about "end of civilization"

PastorAIO:


This before the Law after the Law shizzle has no traction with me.

Humans have always had Morality. It is part of what makes us human. Meaning that we have always known what is right from wrong. Law of moses or Not.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5

I wonder how these people in genesis were judged to be evil since there was no Law, and if you follow the story to the end it is obvious that god was not just content to wink at them. Nay, he flooded the whole earth on account of their wickedness.

So abeg if you wanna use a lousy excuse like that find someone else that is more gullible than me.

Move along then.

I cannot speak for Agent of Allah. I cannot only say how I understand him. Can you present the post where he discussed both social and biological evolution and then concentrated on social, so that we can discuss it?


I agree with almost everything else that you say except when you ask if incest could improve our civilisation. I just think that is not a valid question. That is like asking if interracial breeding would improve civilisation. or the breeding of tall people with short people.

First, we have to know what we mean by improvement of civilisation. Second, as we know that culture is contributed to by individuals, we have to ask if there is any special quality that individual inbred children will have that will either advance or hinder civilisation. Is there any type of breeding that will improve the qualities in individuals necessary for the advancement of a civilisation? etc

shadeyinka:


The quote that lead to my reply is presented:


-AgentofAllah described both biological and social evolution and he concentrated on social evolution as the cause of aversion towards incest. Hence the reason I made the difference. Social evolution needs a proof, there are usually reasons why the culture of a community change over time and they can be traced. If incest came as a result of social evolution, what are the evidences?

Its just a scientific fact. When inbreeding is sufficiently done, the organism loose out and most likely will become extinct. Its a known fact.

In every norm, there would be aberrations and that is why we are human. We can choose whatever we want for ourselves whether nature agrees with it or not. So, if our society (because we are now wiser and the god factor is now known to be a fable) agrees to allow incest, would it make our civilization better?

Anas09:

Move along then.

Ah, this must be xtian-ese for 'I've got no answer to your points'.

I must admit this to your credit. You at this moment, happen to be the only Christian apologists (i assume so) on NL, that pleasantly impress me, with your manner of engagement. I sincerely commend you.
?[/quote]

shadeyinka:

Sorry I made a typo error: I meant you assume that Atheism is synonymous with science while theism is speculative. That is wrong. Very wrong.
?

I sometimes seriously get worried, if you do take time to think through some of your responses. Or is it a deliberate attempt to drag issues?

For instance, this issue of what forms the basis of atheists belief system, has been told you on this thread.

I asked you then, what will you call a belief system that says that all that can be said to be REAL and TRUE, must be known through knowledge that is developed by OBSERVATION and not by REVELATION (the source of theistic beliefs).

shadeyinka:

There is a void/gap in knowledge of man and theists say
Not every thing has a physical explanation. Not every of such is about God eg LOVE!

Is Love real?, Is it quantifiable?, Is it imaginary?
You know the answer to this however, atheist are so polarised against God that they throw away the baby with the bath water. And they hide their hatered under a futuristic solution. Any solution is acceptable as long as God isn't involved (some atheist even believe in aliens!)
?

I will not be drawn in different directions, when engaging anyone this time and henceforth.

Your thread is about incest and how you attempt to premise it wrongly on the position of atheism.

It will serve a general good, if we stay focused on that.

shadeyinka:


Since knowledge isn't perfect, it is arrogance to conclude you know all. ?

You're certainly referring to Christian apologists, who claimed that god is the source of all that is known, and that will ever be known.

You folks went on to say that, this completely completeness of god as the all knowable, can't be questioned or investigated.

Just obedience to the revealed fraction, will earn you folks the rewards of eternal bliss.

This line of thoughts from you, is what informed my calling your consciousness of what you write, to question earlier.

shadeyinka:

An example is the origin of the universe. Theists know that the source of consciousness cannot be probed to know how He came about. ?

You seem not to know the gravity of the word "know" in relation to putting forward "a claim". A "know" is not arrived at by assumption or by arbitrariness.

How did you "know" that the source of consciousness can't be probed?

shadeyinka:

Atheists on the other hand feel that consciousness evolved out of nothing. ?

You sure know that there exist different theories, that attempt to explain the source of life. And if you know the scientific meaning of theory, you wouldn't say this.

shadeyinka:

Can't you see that either way, there is a blind spot however, theist know that such answer is beyond any mortal.?

The question again is - how did you folks know?

shadeyinka:

And their the pride of atheist lock in. They feel that in the future, they will know the origin of the source of consciousness. Think about it.?

Remember the conclusion of some scientists few years ago, who claimed that metal will never defy law of gravity, but was rejected by some other scientists, who said there's future chances. Now metal can fly over 500 folks against gravity.

How does the rejection of the conclusion, by the later scientists amount to PRIDE?

shadeyinka:

By Every means!
Logical, Experiential, Experimental, Scientific, and Psychological
?

You mean biblical claims, came about by all of the above?

shadeyinka:

But think of this:
Do you think it is possible to unravel the genesis of atoms and consciousness?

Yes it is possible.

PastorAIO:


Ah, this must be xtian-ese for 'I've got no answer to your points'.

PastorAIO:
I cannot speak for Agent of Allah. I cannot only say how I understand him. Can you present the post where he discussed both social and biological evolution and then concentrated on social, so that we can discuss it?


I agree with almost everything else that you say except when you ask if incest could improve our civilisation. I just think that is not a valid question. That is like asking if interracial breeding would improve civilisation. or the breeding of tall people with short people.

First, we have to know what we mean by improvement of civilisation. Second, as we know that culture is contributed to by individuals, we have to ask if there is any special quality that individual inbred children will have that will either advance or hinder civilisation. Is there any type of breeding that will improve the qualities in individuals necessary for the advancement of a civilisation? etc

Hi My Friend
Deliberately, I removed the effect of inbreeding from my presentation because it is a scientific fact that inbreeding destroys the vigour and strength of a biological being.

I wanted to look at it purely from moral point of view.

If civilization has to do with living a reasonable, productive social life and conduct agreed as binding to a community. (Note that not all civilizations are good AND the term reasonable, productive are relative).

Relative to our current civilization, would inclusion of incest as part of societal norm improve our current civilization or destroy it?

The question follows the fact that
1. The average Theist reject totally incest on moral ground
2. The average Atheist (may not approve of incest) but sees nothing immoral/evil about it except it violates the right of others or hurts others.