₦airaland Forum

1) The subject of this thread suggests that the conversation is to be predicated on logical reasoning.

2) When making logical arguments, definition of terms cannot be treated flippantly! It is absolutely unacceptable that logical arguments are constructed without rigorously addressing definitions.

3) Definitions must be independent of the whims of the logicist. They must therefore, be agreed-upon axioms, or logical derivatives of such axioms.

4) There is no need for lengthy sentences in logical discourse, since logic has its own precise words and language.

I shall use the foregoing premises to define atheism, highlight its subcategories, and show that agnosticism is an epistemologically distinct concept from "state of belief", under which atheism falls. Some participants have displayed profound misunderstanding of these concepts and; therefore make utterly stupid (and this is not said lightly) arguments that turn logic upside down.

Definition of terms:

Atheism: This word is NOT an axiom. It is a logical derivative of two Greek words: prefix "a-", which means "without" and "theos" which means god(s). Atheos is therefore without god(s). An atheist is therefore someone without god. Atheism describes the state of belief of people without god(s).

Let's attribute a logical operand, "A", to Atheism.

Agnosticism: This word, again, is NOT an axiom! It is derived from two Greek words:prefix "a-", which means "without" and "gnosis" which means "knowledge". "Agnosis" is therefore without knowledge. An agnostic is therefore someone without knowledge of something. Agnosticism describes the state of knowledge of people without knowledge (of something). As you see, this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with belief, and is a mutually exclusive epistemological concept. Let's attribute a logical operand, "B", to agnoticism

The next question then is; can we define subcategories of people without god? The answer is yes! Some categories include:

Apatheists: These are people without god because they are indifferent to the existence of one. Let's give this category the operand, "C"
Antitheists: These are people without god because they assert that one does NOT exist. Let's give this category the operand, " D "

Agnostic-Atheists: These are people without god because they have no knowledge of the existence of one.

Arguments from Logic:

From the preceding definitions, we can make the following true logical arguments:

C → A (I am an apatheist, therefore I am an atheist)
D → A (I am an antitheist, therefore I am an atheist)
A ∧ B → A (I am an agnostic-atheist, therefore I am an atheist)

Logic also has defined fallacies that violate logical rules. There are many, but I'll address the one that has been most abused here. It's a very basic formal fallacy known as Affirming the consequent. The statement of this fallacy goes thus:

If D, then A (If I am an antitheist, then I am an atheist)
A (I am an atheist)
therefore D (Therefore I am an antitheist)

To the discerning mind, the inaccuracy in the deduction above is glaringly obvious!

Conclusion:
With logical arguments, I have just shown that it is stupid to attribute logicality or illogicality to atheism. What can be questioned is specific categories of atheism. It follows, therefore, from logic, that the very question: "Show that atheism is not illogical" is patently stupid!

DoctorAlien:
This is what you said:

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

Never a more ferocious strain of cognitive bias than that which is expressed up there.

DoctorAlien:
I've told you, as long as you're gonna make that assertion, we have nothing to argue about.

All the "they" used in Matt. 28:1-9 apply not only to the two Marys.

Don't be moving round in a circle.

When a story mentions the names of two women, and shortly after, says "the women" nobody is in any doubt as to the identity of "the women" being referred to.

So, by all means, fabricate and obfuscate all you want, but Matthew is there for the discerning mind to read! Fabricate, obfuscate, then accuse others of being dishonest.

DoctorAlien:
Anybody that reads Matthew alone has no contradiction to point out. Contradictions are only pointed out when two or more accounts exist.

Thank GOD we have the four accounts. And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

Thank you.

What you fail, understandably, to admit, is that both Matthew and John explicitly mentioned Mary Magdalene; but in completely incongruent contexts!

In Matthew's account, Mary Mag and the other Mary left with Joy (knowing what had happened), In John, Mary Mag came back crying and confused as to the whereabouts of Jesus' body. If this isn't a clear cut contradiction of two accounts, then we might as well believe that the earth is spherically flat.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

If you refuse to accept that Matthew didn't mention all the women that went to the sepulchre, I think it's pointless quoting me.

John wrote that if all that Jesus did were to be recorded, the Bible would be too big. The gospel writes did their best to summarize a host of events their own way. Comparing the 4 accounts gives a more complete picture of Jesus' life.

Thank you.

Yes, I admitted before that it is possible that Matthew didn't mention all the women, but this is not the only possibility. The other possibility is that Matthew's author believed only these two women were present. I understand why it is important to you that the first possibility is elevated to fact, but unless you can you show where Matthew indicated that not all the women were mentioned, your preference for the former possibility is based only on your own fabrications.

You see though, whether or not Matthew mentioned all the women is irrelevant to his story, the key point is that he mentioned the two that were central to the story (or shall we say legend?) he told. The conclusion we can draw from that story, therefore, is that both Marys left the tomb in a joyful state; and this is inconsistent with the account in John, where Mary (came back a second time according to Felixomor and) was crying that the body of Jesus was missing.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Matthew summarized the events from the resurrection morning to the ascension(40 days later) in just one chapter.

This is not an excuse to give a misleading/inaccurate account

That chapter spans all the appearances of Jesus to all the different people, and their different meetings with themselves. Matthew obviously didn't go into details. The news of Jesus' resurrection must have caused serious frenzied movements and cross-movements in Jerusalem and its environs that Sunday. Matthew summarized the events like that because the schedule of movements on that resurrection morning isn't really all that important to the Christian's Salvation.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous excuse of a response! Not going into detail is not the same as providing misleading detail. The facts in Matthew are as follows:

1) Matthew mentioned only two women, "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary".

2) Matthew never indicated that they had company, which could only mean two things: either they didn't have company, or they had, but the company wasn't in any way relevant to Matthew's version of events.

3) Matthew went on to say "the women" encountered angels who gave them some form of good news that made them joyful.

In your excuse, it is as if you completely ignore the meaning of the word "the". "The" is a definite article that is used as a placeholder for a particular member of group or class or something uniquely specified (as was the case here).

To state that this misleading omission which failed to mention the presence of other women, let alone distinguish between the woman (Magdalene) who wasn't an eye-witness to the angels and the women who were, is due to some frenetic summarisation effort is utterly ridiculous, and a fine demonstration of disingenuity!

By your excuse, you are inadvertently admitting that the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did a terrible job of recording the events accurately due to frenzy; and now, the resurrection accounts - even after a body of fabrications long enough to form a separate chapter in the Bible - are irredeemably inconsistent.

alchemist13:
Sorry, the page is 404ed.

The link he's trying to share is HERE
______________________________________________________
UPDATE: I've figured out the reason the link isn't working. In the link, there is a sub-section /jesus-christ/ with small "j", but some nairaland developer has programmed every mention of 'Jesus' on Nairaland to return the first letter in upper case "J". The problem, of course, is that for URLs (and computers in general), there is a clear distinction between lower case and upper case symbols. so no URL with jesus spelled in small letter "j" will ever work on Nairaland, which is silly. I hope Seun rectifies this!

DoctorAlien:
Again, mental blindness did not allow you to notice that Matthew didn't even mention the whole women that went: he mentioned just two. His account is not comprehensive.

The four accounts shed more light on the same event. Read that piece again, this time slowly.

Mental blindness Ad hominems are signs of depleting counter-arguments...but what do I know? I'll just stick to the issue.

Okay, wonderful! While Matthew does not say only two women were there, Matthew mentioned only two women. In fact, If you read Matthew alone, there is no indication that there were other women, so even if these "other" women were there, they are obviously not relevant to the story according to Matthew. This means according to the account of Matthew, the women that were filled with joy are the same women mentioned at the start of Matthew 28. We have no reason to assume Matthew was referring to "other" women but the two Marys when it was said that the women "were filled with joy".
If I need John, Luke or Mark to understand that according to Matthew, the women filled with joy aren't the Marys mentioned at the beginning of Matthew 28, then we can say Matthew is inherently incongruent. If however, the author of Matthew presumed we should have read John, Luke or Mark, this would automatically belie the claim that the Gospels were written independently of each other; which would cast an additional aspersion relating to plagiarism on at least, Matthew's account.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Please google "four accounts, one reality" and stop asking those uninformed questions.

Mary went with the company of women, but as they neared the sepulchre, she saw the stone rolled away and she left the rest and ran to inform Peter and John who were probably in nearby Jerusalem.

I've read the link you refer me to in "Answersingenesis"; and neither it nor your deliberately bamboozling recap above - even if I'm to believe that it is not a total fabrication - addresses my tailored question which you patronisingly tagged "uninformed". (Argumentum ad hominem?)

If you recall, Felixomor said the account in John 20 chronicles the second arrival of Mary at the tomb, while the account in Luke was the first; so we can say my question is in fact informed by the trail of this very conversation we're having. Again, I ask: Why is it that in Luke, Mary remembered what she had been told before she left the tomb (and was even filled with joy according to Matthew); but then comes the second visitation, which chronologically succeeds Luke (and I assume Matthew); and suddenly, she relapses to the thought that the body had been stolen?

felixomor:
Please quote the line verbatim.

Moreso,
Jesus appeared to her in John 20.
Thats already the distinguishing factor.

In Luke 24:5-8, we are told:

5...but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

In Matthew 28:5-8, we are told:

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you." 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Note: They were filled with joy

Then, in John 20:11-13, presumably at the second visitation of Mary, as you mentioned, we are told:

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”

The question to you is: How does Mary leave the tomb, after remembering what the lord told her in Luke, even filled with joy in Matthew, only to return a second time in John, now crying that they have stolen the body of the Jesus? Or is the account in Matthew the third visitation?

HARDDON:
N @ agentofallah

For dump comments like these suicide bombers in form of human demons should be barred from commenting on christian threads!

U create a section for them to frollick n talk about their wack ways, no christian bothers them, but when its a christian thread they come deficating on it like fulani herdsmen n their cattles. Yet mods keep mum!


@ op, better we obey God n avoid all these extra baggage

When I'm done Bomparding you with my "dump" comments, you'll become incapable of contracting sexually transmitted demons because your name will transmogrify to SOFTTON.

Lady39:
Lol...u broke all of my sentences down to address each one..u have to have the last word don't u??

To be fair, you asked many questions. I was only being polite by answering them. If your last words are "Praise AgentOfAllah", I can let you have the last word.

Lol..I'm used to being a very competitive person...but with u I humbly give in.
U win!! R u happy now?? U win!! Lol!

Good! I'm happy...now kneel and bow to greatness, and I'll put in a good word for you with Allah. You might even get 72 male virgins for your next life

Lady39:
Okay..but it was your intention to quote my particular words...and that other guy's. I wrote that several days ago. Why is it being brought back up?

Perks of online fora and internet memory

Do u folks just lurk like a lion in the bushes waiting for prey to attack?

Actually, the fact that I brought it up several days after you posted it suggests I don't "just lurk like a lion in the bushes waiting for prey to attack". I've got a job, you know?

Do u get a "high" from attacking, ridiculing, and mocking folks in the Religion room?

Yeah, I do sometimes; but most times, folks in the religion room, such as yourself, are well capable of ridiculing and making a mockery of themselves with little input from me. In such cases, I can only express amusement at your self-ridiculing contributions.

U know that's kinda mentally sick & gross...with all due respect.

Well, no, I don't. But I'd appreciate your recommendation of any peer reviewed papers of repute that have addressed this kind of sickness. I'm asking for a friend

Lovely use of words that I bolded...sir or madam...it's really not that deep. You mustn't get so worked up! Have a good day.

Thanks! I try to be lovely with my words

felixomor:
U r welcome.

Bro, please dont follow what another person brought out from John 20.
Go into it by yourself.
Go to John 20, it tells how Mary wept for her son's missing body at the 2nd visit.
And that is very normal for women.

Coupled with the fact that John 20 eventually says, Jesus then appeared to comfort her.

Please quote verbatim, the single line of event in John 20 (bible text) that said "she forgot".
Please be specific.

In spite of what it might seem like, that was the question on my mind, dalaman, just beat me to it. Now, moving on, in Luke, she (they?) left to inform the disciples of her (their?) experience after remembering his words. However, it seemed she had forgotten those same words in John, when she thought someone had removed the body, instead of accepting his suggestion that he would rise. Did she remember his words but dismiss them or did she remember the words and then forget them shortly after?

(mind u, we have left the topic of number of angels or men)

Yes, since you claimed that the stories are chronologically distinct.

Lady39:
Hi,
So may I ask why u found it necessary to "mention" this to me? Why not think those things to yourself, and then go and create a thread where u can deconstruct my statement? I'm not gonna argue over this....i'm not...so u lost this one.

I have now edited my comment to reflect the fact that it wasn't my intention to mention you, but to highlight the uncertainty of purpose conveyed by your comment. I am not sure if it was a ridiculous parody of religious crap; or a genuine communication of religious crap.

felixomor:
My bro,
In John 20:12, the account given there is the 2nd time visit by the women and the disciples.

Luke 20:24 is the first time visit by the women before they went to call the disciples to come and see.

Okay, thanks (Although, I'll assume "Luke 20:24" above was a typo, since I referenced Luke 24:4, not 20:24). So by your account, Luke's story chronologically precedes John's, yet we are told in Luke 24:8 "They (the women) remembered his words (presumably Jesus' claim of his own resurrection)". Whereas, as dalaman said, they seemed to have forgotten all about his words again on their second arrival to the tomb (in John 20), and were convinced that the body had been removed by someone. This happened after the "they remembered his words". How do you reconcile this apparent inconsistency?

felixomor:
Yes. I agree.
All be it description from different camera views and chronologic perspective,
Yes.

Fair enough!

Now, tell me, are the two men in Luke 24:4 the same as the two angels in John 20:12? If so, are these two accounts referring to the same encounter or different encounters?

felixomor:
And i asked which event.
I am happy u now know the importance of specificity.

The women arriving at the gate is an event.
The women entering the tomb is another event.
The women bowing down is another event.
The women going away, another one.
The women seeing a man at the gate is another event
The women seeing another set of angels inside the tomb, anorher one.

Etc....

Be specific a little more. Please
I know u have tried.

But I specified! Okay put in other words, do you agree that the central event being described in all of those passages is about the discovery of an empty tomb? Also, do you agree that this event happened just once?

I can't simplify my question any further than this.

felixomor:
Ressurection took place before the women came to the tomb.
Should i define "resurrection" for you?

No sir, there is no need to embarrass an ignorant fellow like me with trivial definitions. What I really want to know, without being pedantic is: Are those three stories an account of the same event or not? The event being referred to here is the discovery of an empty tomb by one/more people.

felixomor:
Those chapters have hundreds of "events."

Which line exactly from each book cancels out another from the other book, as non coexistent?

Allow me to rephrase: Are those stories describing one singular event in history known as Christ's resurrection, or are they describing separate resurrection events?

felixomor:
"Event" or "Events"

One by one.
Be specific.

Read my question again, it's unequivocal.

Felixomor,
Are the stories Dalaman referred to from Mark, Matthew and John an account of the same event, or of mutually exclusive events?

I'v never heard of "sexually transmitted demon" before, but it may be that when one engages in pre-marital sex, one is allowing an open avenue for demonic possession. When a personn sins (be it through any avenue, he/she is inviting demonic spirits into his/her life...

Demons do transfer from one person to the other through sex

Some of the responses I've read leave me lingering between lol and wtf! These perfectly encapsulate the essence of Poe's law!

Spiritual EFCC is marking your body for confiscation. Are you a spiritual Dasuki?

On a serious note, the only facts here are that these markings are strange and unexplained. Your relapse into an implausible spiritual purpose behind them is a futile consequence of mental laziness. Harmless, almost invisible X markings on your butt cheek, chest and stomach is the lamest kind of spiritual introduction, even beneath the asininity of Nollywood story telling!

Give it some more thought, and I'm sure the reason is simpler than the tricks your mind is playing on you to avoid the hard task of thinking!

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheists never made prominent achievements from the inception of atheism 2500 years ago .

We explored the world of atheism on this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/3299993/what-prominent-achievements-made-atheists

You know what's ironical? That you typed that on a platform developed by an atheist...but nevermind...atheists are underachievers!

Anyway, congrats to you and other Christians who feel themselves entitled to claim the achievements of individuals who happened to make significant contributions to the development of mankind; simply because those individuals were also Christians. Enjoy the shattering orgasm you derive from their achievements.
As for me, I don't care what other atheists have/haven't achieved. I only worry about myself; and I've set a really low bar for my standard for self-appraisal: I mark as an achievement, each life I'm able to have a positive impact on, and I'm thoroughly pleased with my self so far, thanks!

As such, I don't feel inclined to join you in exploring the world of atheism.

4everGod:
CHRISTIANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD AND THE SALT OF THE EARTH AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO. THIS IS KNOWN ALL OVER THE WORLD AS TILL TODAY THE IMPACT OF CHRISTIANS IN SCIENCE IS WHAT BEGAN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE.

It was only this part that caught my attention because it reminded me of the famous Nigerian adage that says: "The child that has seen nothing but their father's farm will boast that their father's farm is the biggest of all farms".

I implore the OP to visit other farms. You might not just learn that bigger farms than your father's exist, you may learn new productive ways to cultivate produce from your farm. This brings me to another Nigerian adage: "It's only half a word's worth we give to a good child because once digested, it becomes whole".

Seun:
Could you try again?

It works now! Typed this response from my edge. Thank you for fixing it Seun.

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.

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.

availableisme:
First of all, we need to agree on something regarding atheism. Atheism is not by definition a disbelief in God or gods. That is the foundation of atheism and not a final position as there are atheists who disbelieve in God or gods but believe in spirits and reincarnation and...everything that God or gods are which is spirit.

Atheism is a foundation which other things are built on. If the foundation is that they lack belief in God or gods then what is permissible to be built on such a foundation which would still hold to their core belief yet make them comfortable which is why there are different kinds and classes of atheists in the world even here on nairaland.

If an atheist says homosexuality or incest is alright as long as both are adults and its based on mutual agreement then this is like a direct affront to the position of God whom they disbelieve. If they do not believe in God then they also by extension want to assert this by also seeing nothing wrong with those things God abhors otherwise that would mean they are okay with Gods idea of morality.

I am unable to understand what you're trying to say here.

However if you say that in some nations homosexuality is permitted or even bestiality or perhaps incest as the focus is simply for you to do what makes you happy but does that make it right?

I don't know! Define "right"

Anas09 painted a very vivid picture in her comment and a mind with a conscience and morals would either be repulsed at the thought of it or seriously think about it.

Yes, the picture is unmistakably the product of a perverse mind. Uninhibited sexual romp seems to be the cornerstone of this person's utopia. To me, it's just a befuddling straw man that merits no more than a contemptuous smirk.

Not everyone is aware of the problems inbreeding may cause and in fact it does not always cause problems as both parties can have perfectly healthy genes but does that make it right is the question? Is there nothing inherently wrong with it? can you tell me?

Natural selection deals with statistical significance, not individual cases. Every probabilistic value, p, has a probable (1-p) counterpart that will express itself, given enough time/event number.
Again define "right".

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.

Thanks! An apt summary of my intent.

LambanoPeace:
Is the absence of evidence the proof of absence?

Certainly not!