akintom:

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.

Thanks for the complement. My head is swell!

akintom:

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).

I wasn't intending to extend any issue. It is just frustrating when the average Atheist on NL push the idea as real that Theists judge and arrive at ALL their conclusions only from revelation point of view and this is completely untrue.

As a summary

Atheist:
Real and True Belief System= Science + Logic
Theist:
Real and True Belief System= Science + Logic + Experience

The difference between us is Experience (which could be subjective). The wars start when someone says, "I saw a ghost, it spoke to me!" And the other says "you are hallucinating ghosts don't exist!"

Since ghosts cannot be measured, is there a proof of hallucination? Unless the sanity of the first party is doubted can the seconds conclusion be accepted as true and real. Otherwise, there is no evidence to judge either of them.

akintom:

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.

I've already made my point above. Atheists on NL disrespect what many Theists have experienced and they push us to a corner as if ALL we know are wrong unless we dump our Experience.

akintom:

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.

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?

From the first principle of Physics, you will note that
1. Time started from the Big Bang
2. The laws of Physics started from the Big Bang

Now, what existed before the BigBang and for how long?

It is an impossible Question! For every law you want to use has an origin at the big bang. Every instrument you want to use originated from the big bang

In other words, it is impossible to probe beyond the big bang.

The source of consciousness dates beyond the big bang. It is either, an empty void, a singleton, another consciousness etc. Since we have no Mechanics of knowing this, my claim of the word "know"!

Now,
Theists say that this unknown before the Big Bang is God
Atheist say that this unknown cannot be God BUT they would soon find out by Scientific experiments.
(I hope I haven't over generalized)

akintom:

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.

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?
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?

I believe my statement above has clarified this

akintom:

By Every means!
Logical, Experiential, Experimental, Scientific, and Psychological
?
You mean biblical claims, came about by all of the above?

The question was How theists come to their conclusions!
And I said,

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

Of course, you don't bring ALL of them out to arrive at any conclusion. In scientific studies (which both atheist and theist are involved in) you focus less on subjective experiences. When dealing with social life however a lot of subjective experience is permissible (Love, Forgiveness, Kindness, Gentleness, Self control etc). Part of subjective Experience is Spirituality and it is valid and Real even if you don't believe it.

Biblical claims are collections of Real Experiences and not Scientific Facts.

akintom:

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

No! It is impossible.
The best we can do is speculate.
We are still trying to solve the "Wave Equation" for elementary atoms like Lithium. Way too complex for something that microscopic!

Actually, Atheism on NL seems not to be a disbelief in the existence of God BUT Anti-God. You need to check the post of atheists objectively and you'll see that I speak the truth. Don't forget also that since there is no unified atheistic doctrine, several morphs exist (naturalists, agnostics, gnostics, satanists, spiritists etc) all who claim to be atheists. So, please forgive my generalization.


SORRY FOR THE DIGRESSIONS!
Back to the issue of allowing Incest as a way of life:

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.

Measurement of the rating of civilization is always relative. The current versus the other!

So, all hatchets buried! LOL
Stay blessed.

PastorAIO:



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?

Hmm . So bro , how does evolution explain embarrassment , shame and humiliation ?

CosmicSensation:
pre admites? More light please

The Pre-Adamic race refers to pre- modern humans or sub humans . Modern man as a spiritual being was Adam

shadeyinka:


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?

Thanks! I appreciate your maturity too. I am professionally, a Physicist.

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.

Yes, religion and culture share many commonalities. In particular, they both enshrine an assortment of rituals that are to be unquestionably observed by their adherents. The only difference being that religion compulsorily invokes the agency of some supernatural being(s) as the reason behind the observation of said rituals. Culture may or may not make such a reference! In fact, religion may be said to be a subset of culture (i.e. culture with an additional precondition)! The point I wished to make though, is that the ethnographer's account of the Trobriand tribe shows that incest may have cultural links devoid of religious underpinnings, for example the culturally frowned upon Father-daughter relationship which has no prescribed consequences; unlike the Clan-Clan or sister-brother categories.

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..)

Your interpretation is purely speculative. In many cases, culture is known to ascribe harsher punishments to associated taboos than religions do to 'sins' of a similar nature. Take for example, honour killing that is widely practiced in many parts of the middle and far east. Recently, I read in the news that 5 girls were killed in Pakistan for dancing in a video that made it to YouTube. Now, the native religion practiced in this village is Islam; but what is striking about this case is that there is absolutely no basis in Islam for killing girls for dancing. They were basically killed because they brought dishonour to their society by engaging in a cultural taboo.

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.

Evolutionary adaptations do not require agency. Nature foists this change, whether the subjects recognises the science or not. This truism is easily demonstrable using the example of quarantine. Today, when a member of society is afflicted with a particularly deadly and contagious viral infection, we quarantine them because we know the biological implications of not doing so. By this act, self-preservation is the sole purpose. Well guess what? Even our distant ancestors quarantined afflicted members of the society. Of course, they did not call it quarantine, nor did they fully appreciate the biological interpretation of their actions. All they just did was banish any individual with an odd looking affliction to the forests of the gods for punishment/atonement; because by their estimation, that person had offended the gods, and his/her continued presence in the village would incur the wrath of the gods on the whole community. As agonising as this may have been for the victim, this was de facto quarantining with religious coloration. Again, irrespective of the interpretation they gave to it, the primary motivation was self-preservation. Their interpretations in no way negated the biological process behind their actions, nor did it provide clarity, but it was indubitably what saved many a tiny communities from extinction.

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.

Sorry, this is just a very tenuous argument!

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.

Like you say, you don't have the statistics. There is no point in making an argument from incomplete information.

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

Yes, and over time, nature takes it course, reducing the population of people with incestuous tendencies, while allowing the population with exogamous tendencies to prosper. The latter becomes majority, and the cultural genes, analogously referred to as "memes" of the latter group dominates, and may someday become a religious requirement (as in the case of the quarantine example I gave).

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.

As I mentioned earlier, evolutionary processes do not require any sort of agency from the subjects. My preceding paragraph demonstrates how it is possible for society to become averse to incest without any foreknowledge of its effect.

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?

I can bring your question down to a more local level. Now, I do have a personal aversion towards incest myself, so even if society accepts it, I'm not suddenly going to become incestuous. Does that make me superior/inferior to persons who have an affinity for incest? The effect on my self-assessment is inert because my set of values have nothing to do with sexual preferences. My value system is based mainly on intellectual capacity and one's contributions to the general good of society. A person's sexual preference tells me nothing about their intellect, nor does it tell me anything about what they've done to promote good in the society. In fact, sex usually occurs in the comfort of one's privacy, so I can't even be bothered if my colleague in the lab is an anti-incest heterosexual or an incestuous homosexual; as long as I continue to produce valuable research work with them, they are desirable in my kind of society. Thus, I can scale up this conclusion from an individual to a societal level, and it will remain the same!

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.

Well, you can start by not assuming all atheists are rationalists.

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?

Such arguments are faulty; and can easily be obliterated. You've done a good job of it yourself by observing that you've met atheists who believe in spirits and the supernatural. These concepts are by definition, irrational!

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.

Yes, atheism stands for only one thing: The lack of belief in a deity. This stance has its subcategories, but the only way to fairly engage all atheists is to engage them on the one thing that binds them all. If you wish to engage rational atheists on the subject of rationalism, then specify rationalist atheists. If you wish to engage all rationalists irrespective of religion (or lack of), then specify that you wish to engage rationalists. It is otherwise unfair to synonymise rationalism with atheism.

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

Thanks! Myself and donffd contribute to many similar threads on Nairaland, so I am already quite familiar with many of his wonderful contributions.

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 .

What dyu mean by 'pre-adamites'?

Tell me you're joking

Bros, You won't believe that some yeye moderator banned me for calling a buffoon a buffoon. O ma se o! and to even create another username to continue is so stressful. I swear e go easy pass to enter Fort Knox than to start a Nairaland account.

shadeyinka:


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.

Morality cannot be separated from scientific fact. If it became a scientific fact tomorrow that slapping your wife thrice in succession will cause her bank account to expand by millions then such an act will become very commendable.

So you cannot separate the outcome of an act from the moral appraisal of it.

Morality covers everything and encompasses everything so there is no such thing as a purely moral point of view. Although I can understand that a xtian would look at morality as just something that God requires rather than make a personal appraisal of what he believes is the value of an action based on the action itself.

Your definitions of civilisation are so blatantly and unabashedly self contradictory. You say not all civilisations are good, but you are asking about whether an act is Good for a civilisation. If the civilisation is evil nko? and the act destroys the civilisation, would that make the act a good act.

And you're right, a lot of the terms you use, like productive, are relative.

What do you mean when you say that theist reject incest on moral grounds? Are you saying that they don't actually see what is wrong with it, but only reject it because the bible told them to reject it?

There would be my problem, and a problem that many atheists accuse religious people of. The fact that religion seems to require you to suspend any personal independent moral thought of your own and just follow the religion. It is like a child that has used calculator all his life and can no longer do simple 22 divided by 7. What to most others would be as simple as pie.

By absolving it's followers of moral thought xtianity actually makes them become morally decrepit. We see the evidence for this in Nigeria.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hmm . So bro , how does evolution explain embarrassment , shame and humiliation ?

I'll come back for this tomorrow morning. I was going to answer tonight but I've spent the last hour trying to log in to nl and my time is used up.

shadeyinka:


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.

Lets look at it this way, is there a name reserved for "Non-football fans"?, is there a set of beliefs holding them together?, the simple answer is No, its either you are a football fan or not, and if you are not. its not like you must qualify some set of qualities to be a "Non-football fan".

Just the same way works with "Non-theism", its just too controversial that a word was created for it but in practical reality, the only opinion you should have as an atheist is to reject the belief of supernatural gods.

Now, many atheists use logic and science in their explanation, that's why you might think that its a pre-requisite of atheism but there are still people who are not as logically and scientifically inclined but still reject the belief in gods.

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.

I agree with most of what you have said here, theistic culture is no doubt a big influence in our lives even as atheists but we should make a clear distinction between what is wrong(or should i say offense) in the society and what is wrong in the eyes of God.

A Sin doesn't necessarily mean its an offense for example:

A man cheats on his wife, in the eyes of God, that's a sin but to the society its not, he wont be jailed because he did not cause any harm to anyone, although he broke a contract with his wife which would mean he would lose a lot in the divorce settlements but that's just a quarrel between two parties and it has nothing to do with the society at large.

Homosexuality is another sin to God but it is not an offense(or should not be an offense) to the society because it is not causing harm to anyone.

So differentiating the sin and the offense is crucial and we presently live in an integrated world, a world of democracy and free thought, freedom of religion and irreligion. Using what is a sin(to God) to pass laws would be a very big mistake in our present civilization i am sure you would agree.

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.

Yes, there is nothing wrong inherently with it as long as it is between two consenting adults, and yes, it being disgusting is my own subjective view of it, but when we want to pass laws as a society, we have to use logic and reason and most certainly not faith.

Allowing sex between family members should be looked at from a societal and long term effect point of view, we have to debate and reason out what would be the right solution to deal with it and pretending that its a black or white question and should just have a straight-forward answer would be a grave mistake.

In Nature it happens, and it most likely was the reason why we humans didnt go extinct some 200,000 years ago, yes, Inbreeding but we live in a more technologically advanced world now and so it would be a lot complicated but the best way to go about it would be to debate about it and use logic and reason to make informed choices that would help the civilization and not base our choice on some old ancient text and its idea of sacrilege.

So yes, if the world was atheistic and we used Logic and scientific reason in a democratic way to enact laws and policies, our civilization would take a giant leap forward into progress and prosperity.

shadeyinka:

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.

Come to think about it, if Genesis was true and we are all descendants of Adam and eve, then God had planned from the beginning to populate the world through incest...what do you have to say about that?

I concur.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hmm . So bro , how does evolution explain embarrassment , shame and humiliation ?

So Evolution has many gimmicks for favouring the species that it wants to favour. It makes some run fast. It gives some strength. It gives some wings to fly. etc etc etc.

Another one of these gimmicks that it gives some species is Society. Some species are social animals. Their evolutionary advantage comes from their ability to form and organise as societies. Wolf packs that hunt together have a better chance of success than a lone wolf.

Homo sapiens sapiens is probably the most successful at using sociability to advance. Almost Everything that gives humans an advantage over other species comes from our abilities to form and organise societies. Social organisation is probably our foremost advantage. Within these societies we accumulate knowledge and information and pass it on as a society from one generation to another.

Now how do Societies work? Obviously we are all independent individuals so what is it that compels us to band together in societies? Evolution has developed in us a need for social contact and those that are better at managing and maintaining social interactions are rewarded.

What are the inclinations that help our social interactions? We need to have a good sense for social norms, and also social status. Embarassment Shame and Humiliation (all social phenomena) are emotions that we try to avoid by conforming to social mores. If we didn't feel Shame our Social instinct would be diminished and as a species we wouldn't be as successful.

[quot

shadeyinka:


The question was How theists come to their conclusions!
And I said,

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


So, all hatchets buried! LOL
Stay blessed.

Though my rebuttals may have been vitriolic, as perceived by few apologists here, but i harbour no grudge or bitterness against the very god idea or its children.

Just that the crass overreaching of these folks, needed to be contained, therefore the shocking vibes.

I shall like to engage you one on one.

Topic: Shadeyinka Vs Akintom: the process of Christian Religion conclusions.

I assert that the process by which Christian religion, arrived at its conclusions on god idea is by REVELATION, and no other means.

*How did god idea ever entered human experience?

*was it god that introduced itself to man?

*was it man that found god?

*How did the contact happen?

If it's okay by you, do let me know.

Gracias

KingEbukasBlog:


The Pre-Adamic race refers to pre- modern humans or sub humans . Modern man as a spiritual being was Adam

It's amazing how you can say things you have no shred of proof for with so much confidence.

akintom:


Though my rebuttals may have been vitriolic, as perceived my few apologists here, but Harbour no grudge or bitterness against the very god idea or its children.

Just that the crass overreaching of these folks, needed to be contained, therefore the shocking vibes.

I shall like to engage you one on one.

Topic: Shadeyinka Vs Akintom: the process of Christian Religion conclusions.

I assert that the process by which Christian religion, arrived at its conclusions on god idea is by REVELATION, and no other means.

*How did god idea ever entered human experience?

*was it god that introduced itself to man?

*was it man that found god?

*How did the contact happen?

If it's okay by you, do let me know.

Gracias

Shadeyinka pick the gauntlet.

RevAIO:


So Evolution has many gimmicks for favouring the species that it wants to favour. It makes some run fast. It gives some strength. It gives some wings to fly. etc etc etc.

Another one of these gimmicks that it gives some species is Society. Some species are social animals. Their evolutionary advantage comes from their ability to form and organise as societies. Wolf packs that hunt together have a better chance of success than a lone wolf.

Homo sapiens sapiens is probably the most successful at using sociability to advance. Almost Everything that gives humans an advantage over other species comes from our abilities to form and organise societies. Social organisation is probably our foremost advantage. Within these societies we accumulate knowledge and information and pass it on as a society from one generation to another.

Now how do Societies work? Obviously we are all independent individuals so what is it that compels us to band together in societies? Evolution has developed in us a need for social contact and those that are better at managing and maintaining social interactions are rewarded.

What are the inclinations that help our social interactions? We need to have a good sense for social norms, and also social status. Embarassment Shame and Humiliation (all social phenomena) are emotions that we try to avoid by conforming to social mores. If we didn't feel Shame our Social instinct would be diminished and as a species we wouldn't be as successful.

Is it possible for us to lose our emotions ? Are there some emotions that were lost possibly in the past ? You lose and gain features over aeons right ?

Ranchhoddas:
Shadeyinka pick the gauntlet.

I answered those questions with urreligion . The deists also figured out God's existence through natural theology and backed it up with science and reason . And urreligion has been said to have divine origin .

Ranchhoddas:
It's amazing how you can say things you have no shred of proof for with so much confidence.

Since you became an atheist , you started asking dumb questions and making dumb statements .

Bia , take time oo .

I am a progressive creationist , fossils serve as evidence . Or haven't you heard of pre-modern man ever in your life

shadeyinka:
Civilization is defined as:
1. An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people;
2. A stage or system of social, political,or technical development.

Most of the cultural norms we have today have Theistic basis behind them. The concept of Morality is mostly theistic in origin.

Today, we have a culture that forbids incest almost throughout the world. I would want us to focus only on this vis-à-vis: The Wonderful Logics of Atheism and INCEST!

How you ever wondered how the world would be when Atheism becomes the worlds only "religion"?

Let's look at a typical Atheist logic about a theme as homosexuality. Most atheists are heterosexual BUT they see nothing wrong with Homosexuality because as far as they are concerned, as long as

1. The act of homosexuality is consensual
2. The Homosexuality is between Adults
3. The sexual act is hurting no one
Then, it should be respected as a NORMAL and VALID way of life and sexual expression.

Today, let's use the same logic for incest.
Fathers, Mothers, Children (adults) having consensual sex with each other as acceptable sexual orientation.

Now, to Atheists on Nairaland,(assuming pregnancy is ruled out)
Would incest be acceptable way of life?
Should this be encouraged ?
Would this be immoral?

Or (as a single question)

What is the stance of Atheism on Incest?

The answer you give will show us whether civilization will Collapse under the rule of Atheism or Advance.

I am sure that few atheists will respond to this: it is like giving them a rope to hang themselves.

Cc:
winner01 , kingebukasblog , scholar8200 , Muafrika2 Dejideji1 , MrPresident1, OLAADEGBU, Hardmirror, Raphiemontella, Donffd, KingEbukasBlog, anas09, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, analice107, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, lalasticlala, seun, Farmerforlife, 4evergod2, naijadeyhia

It will be like a Blindman leading the Blindman

KingEbukasBlog:


Since you became an atheist , you started asking dumb questions and making dumb statements .

Bia , take time oo .

I am a progressive creationist , fossils serve as evidence . Or haven't you had of pre-modern man ever in your life

Progressive creationist? Very soon you'll be a dimensional creationist from there you'll advance and become a portal creationist.

dalaman:


Progressive creationist? Very soon your be a dimensional creationist from there you'll advance and become a portal creationist.

At least I belong somewhere. You have been dithering on which theory to support since I knew you 2 years ago

KingEbukasBlog:




At least I belong somewhere. You have been dithering on which theory to support since I knew you 2 years ago

I can easily make things up and also claim I belong somewhere too.

dalaman:


I can easily make things up and also claim I belong somewhere too.

Well atheism was made up 2,500 years ago and now you are an atheist

Funny enough during the early times , atheism started with principles of hedonism . The atheists averred that man's purpose in life was to pursue pleasure and avoid pain . They rejected gods, souls anything that exceeded the material world because it restrains such untrammeled life . Their arguments were poor and reeked of ignorance and suppositions .

The same thing happening now . The best way to deal with a problem is to locate its roots and deal severely with it . Then it will all come crashing down

KingEbukasBlog:


Is it possible for us to lose our emotions ? Are there some emotions that were lost possibly in the past ? You lose and gain features over aeons right ?

It is possible for a person to momentarily lose an emotional state, yes.

When you talk about emotions you have to be very careful because there are some quite different things that get lumped together and conflated as emotions.

For example some people conflate Basic Urges with secondary emotions.
I'll explain. I may feel an irresistible urge to talk to my sister. This drives me to pick up the phone and call her number. However there are 2 possible emotional outcomes from this. Either I talk to her and the Urge is gratified leaving me feeling happy and satisfied.
Or I miss her and can't talk leaving me feeling frustrated and angry.

Anger, Happiness, Satisfaction etc are emotional states that are products of the gratification or frustration of more Basic urges.

Many people see the urges as an emotion, and the final result as an emotion too. But they are two very different though interacting things.

Urges come and go. And depending on whether we can gratify them or frustrate them the secondary emotions come and go too.

KingEbukasBlog:


Is it possible for us to lose our emotions ? Are there some emotions that were lost possibly in the past ? You lose and gain features over aeons right ?

I'm not even sure if the above is the answer to the question you were asking or not. I don't think I fully understood your question.

KingEbukasBlog:


Well atheism was made up 2,500 years ago and now you are an atheist

Funny enough during the early times , atheism started with principles of hedonism . The atheists averred that man's purpose in life was to pursue pleasure and avoid pain . They rejected gods, souls anything that exceeded the material world because it restrains such untrammeled life . Their arguments were poor and reeked of ignorance and suppositions .

The same thing happening now . The best way to deal with a problem is to locate its roots and deal severely with it . Then it will all come crashing down

Pack of lies.

RevAIO:


It is possible for a person to momentarily lose an emotional state, yes.

When you talk about emotions you have to be very careful because there are some quite different things that get lumped together and conflated as emotions.

For example some people conflate Basic Urges with secondary emotions.
I'll explain. I may feel an irresistible urge to talk to my sister. This drives me to pick up the phone and call her number. However there are 2 possible emotional outcomes from this. Either I talk to her and the Urge is gratified leaving me feeling happy and satisfied.
Or I miss her and can't talk leaving me feeling frustrated and angry.

Anger, Happiness, Satisfaction etc are emotional states that are products of the gratification or frustration of more Basic urges.

Many people see the urges as an emotion, and the final result as an emotion too. But they are two very different though interacting things.

Urges come and go. And depending on whether we can gratify them or frustrate them the secondary emotions come and go too.

I get what you mean bro but this didn't address the question .

I mean looking at the timeline of human evolution , we did gain emotions - anger , love , hatred , joy etc . So the question is : Did we lose some emotions , or are we expected to lose emotions as time goes on . The same way some features like tails , large forehead , large teeth were lost . Or are they important evolutionary needs for our survival . You dig ?

dalaman:


Pack of lies.

Hahaha ... Atheists criticize Christians by claiming that we don't know how Christianity came about but most of them like you don't know how atheism developed from 5 BCE in different areas of the world . Someone needs to do some studying

KingEbukasBlog:


Since you became an atheist , you started asking dumb questions and making dumb statements .

Bia , take time oo .

I am a progressive creationist , fossils serve as evidence . Or haven't you heard of pre-modern man ever in your life

They existed before Adam? According to your 'fossils', how many thousand years ago did they exist?

Ranchhoddas:
It's amazing how you can say things you have no shred of proof for with so much confidence.

na today you de know the guy

Ranchhoddas:
They existed before Adam? According to your 'fossils', how many thousand years ago did they exist?

I think you should read about progressive creationism first

MrMontella:

na today you de know the guy

shut up