akintom: This is obviously a normal trend of civilization. Just as we still have culture that neither criminalizes or victimizes incest -
Incest is sexual activity between family members or close relatives.
This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity , such as individuals of the same household , step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage , or members of the same clan or lineage .
You will do well to state this your "wonderful" logic.
You will do well to isolate yourself from bunch of NL mischievous and ignorant apologists who don't know the basic differences between religion and a mere belief system.
*an end of religion is an end of implicit and explicit idiocy and delusion, of the religious type.
*an end of religion, is an end to vicious hatred, victimization, segregation and terrorism.
*an end to religion, is an end to indoctrination of children against critical reasoning, creative thinking inhibitions, and rejection of inimical myths and superstitions.
*an end to religion, is an end to psychological traumatizing of children with horrific, monstrous and ubiquitous skydaddy, that poke nose around and will throw them to hell, if its nonsensical rules are not obeyed.
Another puerile and foolish vomit of a typical apologist, on atheistic position.
Atheists accept in the present, homosexuality as a variant and NOT deviant sexual orientation. Based on this knowledge, they shouldn't be subjected to harassment, victimization and criminalization, based on religious laws, that are in the first place not informed by any known sound or scientific reasoning.
That same logic? I have told you the definition of that "same" logic as nonsensical.
Wrong questions on wrong premises.
Non religious beliefs have advanced the world, to beautiful and beneficial level we are witnessing. As against the primitive and stone age that religion will prefer it remains.
This further confirm the disease of "over assumption in idiocy", that plagues most apologists. No one is as pathetic as a chronic case of religious delusion.
Surely if you have taken your time to observe this thread nobody has been rude or insulting to anyone here until you brought yourself into the mix. You would do well to simmer down a few notches and speak intelligently and respectfully. If you have inner problems which propelled you to speak in this manner then deal with them and do not transfer them to people who know nothing or have anything to do with your inner disputes.
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.
Yinka my friend i would have loved to stick around for long but this is one of those topics that Atheists would rather refuse giving direct answers to or they would shift the discussion to something else which has already been attempted on me. Do not expect anything from this thread. Shalom
PastorAIO: We all have a survival instinct. Yet there are people who commit suicide.
Just because you have a few people doing something doesn't mean that Evolution hasn't by and large favoured the opposite.
ps. have you any word on Abraham's incestuous relationship with Sarai, his wife? Or Jacob's with Leah and Rebekah?
I always try to stay on topic so try and do same please. I am too focused to be baited.
You are actually giving proof to what i am saying. Who determines where evolutionary involvement begins and when it ends when there are so many emotionally driven vices around. So why say incest was an evolutionary deselection when it most likely isnt.
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.
Is there proof that evolution deselected incest? If it did then why do people still either practice it or have cravings towards it? Why didnt evolution also deselect homosexuality or Hatred or bitterness as those are all emotionally driven same way incest is.
hopefulLandlord: You and I both know your account is new but the person behind it isn't new
you created this monicker when perhaps your other monickers were banned in the hardmirror thread 26th Nov 2016, your first posts were on that thread
I don't have time for useless back and forth over something trivial, login with your main monicker and I'll be glad to reply you IF you're not whom I'm strongly (evidence by post history) suspecting you are
I honestly do not want to think you have issues. If you wish not to answer my question then do not do so rather than saying i am some character i do not know about.
Ranchhoddas: People are naturally not attracted to members of their family, the same way we are naturally averse to suicide or mass murder. That is why he said that religion or culture are simply secondary regulators against such behaviour. We are evolutionarily primed to see them as wrong. That's his argument.
Who says people are not attracted to members of their family? There are those who would disagree which is why we have incest in the first place. There are those who know no other attraction besides an internal one. Why are they like that? Is it that evolution failed them or is there another reason why they are primed differently from others or grew to become like that?
Culture existed from day one as culture is simply social behavior or human intellectual achievement. Both have always existed from day one so, nobody can claim that culture came afterwards. The moment man began to speak and act be they in grunts or however, culture had begun. The moment man began moving and picking up objects and knowing what to cook and what not to cook culture had begun so it came along with man. What we have today are modifications of culture but who can say what was modified or what was original if you were not told or if you were not present at the start?
Religion on the other hand began as beliefs. If i know i can eat some nuts and it can cure my stomach ache then thats a belief. If i know i can mash sosme leaves together and drink its juices and get relief then thats a belief. Religion as well has always existed. He cannot say one came later when they all coexisted.
hopefulLandlord: ^^ I've made it a point to ignore this monicker because I suspect it's someone that said I shouldn't quote him again that's using another monicker to eat his cake and have it
AgentOfAllah: Admittedly, religion, much like culture, promotes certain evolutionarily advantageous traits in terms of norms and taboos. Yet, you're wrong to attribute things you lack an understanding of to theism. Many old religions are silent on endogamy, yet incest has always been a social taboo in societies where these archaic religions were practiced. This makes it clear that religion and culture are merely secondary reinforcers of our aversion to incestuous relationships. In fact, this aversion isn't just human, there is insurmountable evidence that it is panmammalian (see Pusey, A. and M. Wolf (1996). "Inbreeding avoidance in animals." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(5): 201-206.).
Clearly, the underlying common denominator here is that incest avoidance is patently a consequence of natural selection. Murray R.D. has addressed this exhaustively in his peer reviewed article (see Murray, R. D. (1980). "The evolution and functional significance of incest avoidance." Journal of Human Evolution 9(3): 173-178.). In his conclusion, he suggests that: "...the primary function of incest avoidance is rooted in the origins of biparental reproduction in that it serves to maximize genetic variability necessary for adaptation. In accord, the human incest taboo is likely an extension of this biological predisposition, which does not exclude its incorporation in a multitude of additional social functions that have been addressed previously by several authors (Levi Strauss, 1970; Slater, 1959)." Obviously, from a natural selection viewpoint, pregnancy (that is, reproductive viability) is the natural factor from which the morality of mammalian aversion to inbreeding is derived, not any culture/religion. So you can't just whimsically assume it is ruled out and then proceed to debunk a hypothetical argument.
That said, having consensual sex with your family members will not cause any kind of far reaching damage to society, nor will it destroy civilisation (except your definition of civilisation has got something to do with sexual practices).
To answer your 3-pronged questions on incest (supposing pregnancy is ruled out, like you say): 1) It is an acceptable way of life. 2) It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged. 3) It was implicit in my explanation above, that morality is a by-product of evolution. Incest is no more (im)moral than exogamy.
While you're apt to contemplate the moral dilemmas of incest, be mindful that it is not a topic to be brushed over with partial reflectiveness. For one, it doesn't help to oversimplify complex human behaviours into religion/culture/morality; and it sure as hell helps to understand the role of cognitive bias in your musings and thought processes.
Finally, atheism has no stance on incest! You may find many atheists opposed to it, as you may find ones favourable towards it. The only stance of atheism (and all atheists) is that there is no evidence for god. The clue is in the definition of the word "Atheist".
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.
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?
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.
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?
Deicide: 4everGod commot 4 here abeg your Thread have Already been destroyed on The first page i wonder why u using this moniker here and not the other one...
excuse me? What is this one yapping about now? what thread?
Otem2016: Happy to hear that you have finally accepted that Yahweh has a father and the father of Yahweh is one whom I appreciate daily. You and Gboyee4fun have finally accepted that Yahweh isn't almighty God but his father is.
I do not think you have any ability to reason well. what i bolded shows you are not worth anyones time. You actually felt i was giving you support? What a bozo
Otem2016: Jehovah himself knows that he isn't the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE and he has a father. Glory Glory Glory Glory Glory to the FATHER OF JEHOVAH, ATUM, RA, OLORUN, ESHU, OGHENE, CHUKWU and other little gods. You are the UNIVERSE we see. You are OMNIPRESENT O FATHER OF ALL gods.
Otem2016: This isn't a miracle in the first place. It is a case of motivating a toddler to stand up and walk instead of crawling.
Who is this guy please?
I actually watched that video like 3 times and i saw a little girl who could not even sit down on her own. Who could not bear to be separated from her mom. Yet when the mom was asked to leave her alone and she walked away the baby (if she could crawl or walk) could not do either so she could go to where her mom was. All the baby could do was sprawl on the ground until prayers began ad she began trying to crawl but kept on falling face first to the floor. Even the mom said she could not crawl!
My verdict! This is a Miracle! Anyone saying otherwise is simply being cunning and a trickster.
Otem2016: May the father of your god in his manifold wonders reveal the mystery of the world and the Universe to you in OTEM'S NAME I PRAY.
Cease worshipping satan(yahweh) you won't listen.
Listen to what and from whom? You? Worse mentally deranged people roam the streets. You probably among those roaming the street or an escapee of some mental institution somewhere. An online faceless forum is nowhere to offer advice or expect anyone to accept one.
Just watched the video again and all i can say is Hosanna in the highest! Glory glory glory glory Jehovah Rophe. I bless your holy name.
Make a point? How does one make a point in the face of myriads of insane people masturbating over a thread? I have said my piece. Glory to God in the highest for this hand of mercy and lifting offered this woman and her child. If you do not like my comment then delete it if you can
Otem2016: This is so pathetic! Pastors in Africa have used basically everything to convince us that there is power in the name of Faulkin(Jesus of the Neanderthal period). It is a thing of shame that they didn't stop at anything to see that we believe their pranks by all means.
Please here is a video posted by Gullible 4evergod: Please watch it first. After watching it, please observe it very well and try watching out for any new toddler in your society. You can even try this kind of so-called miracle with your own new 'toddler child' especially with a little lazy toddler who wouldn't want to walk even after he has begun taken few steps since yesterday. That's all you need to make that miracle.
As for the name you will call before the child walks, you can call BISCUIT, STONE, YOUR OWN NAME, JESUS, IFA, OGUN, MY NAME or any name at all. All are the same because the trick involved isn't about calling a name but about motivating your little lazy toddler to rise up and take a step as he or she did yesterday. Please if you have a toddler at the moment who became a toddler just yesterday, try to perform this experiment and thank me later.
Last bullet: NEW TODDLERS DON'T WALK ALL THE TIME. THEY PREFER CRAWLING SO THAT THEY WON'T FALL LIKE THEY DID YESTERDAY. IT WILL TAKE MUCH MOTIVATION LIKE THE PASTOR AND THE FAKE MOTHER DID TO GET THEM UP TO THEIR FEET. YAHWEH REMAINS A DECEIVER.
The bolded shows you are an illiterate! and a cheapskate who seeks attention. WTF! New toddlers? Well i have watched the video and i thank God for the miracle and mercy shown that family. Glory Glory Glory to God in the highest. Yahweh indeed is for us.
So christians actually know how to use google and highlight references from Wikipedia?
Ask them to use the same google/wikipedia to get a reference for "Contradictions in the buybull" or "Evidences for Evolution", and na dat time the epilepsy of the hand, gonorrhea of the eye and tuberculosis of the mouth go start!!!
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures , and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature [nephesh] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
If we go with the arrangement for Creation we would realize that there was actually no need for the light to be revealed on the earth until life was first placed on it.
The Sun was part of creation in Genesis 1 as it was included in the Heavens but it was not revealed or introduced to the earth until every living thing that needed it was first made so according to Job God covered the earth in darkness with a thick cloud and when ready allowed the light of the sun to shine on the earth as that would only be when the purpose of the sun would be revealed to all creatures.
I suggest you read from the beginning of my submission to understand how simple it is as before you can talk about Genesis you have to find out if that was the only place creation was described in the scriptures.
If you wish to still argue then feel free. I just gave you elementary creation.
Wow! simply wow! I have never seen the creation description explained so understandably like this before. My respects to you sir. I am so proud to be a believer right now the way you rightly divided the word of truth. God bless you sir
GrizzlyBear: So you aren't trying to make any point? So what exactly are you doing?
The way you people use words though. If you don't know the meaning of a word, don't use it. How is my behavior representative of that of a sadist? Do you even know what sadism is?
What profile? So making philosophical arguments and thinking honestly about the nature of my world makes me a potential violent criminal? Empathy is one of the things that brought me to this position in the first place. Violent criminals do not possess empathy. Those who did have managed to suppress it. If there is anyone who doesn't possess empathy, it's people like you who don't see anything wrong with the world, despite the overwhelming level of suffering meted out on a daily basis to innocent people.
I am not proud of my current position, why would I be? Please address my thread's premise and stop making this about me. We are discussing ideas not ourselves.
since you fail to realize that your words are an extension of you, then we are done here. cheers
GrizzlyBear: Where did I say I was special or had unique experiences?
Great. So why did you decide to have kids?
No, actually you didn't try to converse with me. You were just asking me disjointed questions without making any salient point, and then went on to say that I was depressed.
I chose to have kids because I needed someone to transfer myself into in terms of knowledge, love, purpose! it wasnt due to procreation as that is simply a means to an end. The end is the effect all this would have in our world.
If everyone was barren do you think we would see beauty or increase in knowledge or any reason for anything?
GrizzlyBear: I didn't mean that as an insult. Sorry if you perceived it as such. I was just being honest. You didn't make any point. You were just asking me incoherent questions that although had valid answers were a bit disjointed.
How does the questions you asked refute the premise of my thread?
Do I sound like I am trying to make "a point"? Do you think I wish to refute anything?
I am seeing beyond your words hence my questions. in the USA you would have been taken in for an intervention for reasoning the way you do as its sadistic and nihilistic. People who have been Profiled by law enforcement and discovered to have commited violent crimes fit your profile.
You are in a downward spiral but it only takes someone who would say he knows this is not normal and he needs help who woul get it. I see you are still proud of your current position.
However you would do well to answer the questions I asked earlier. I may be a phychiatrist by profession, you never can tell can you?
GrizzlyBear: I don't see what you are driving at with these questions. And no offense, but your questions are a bit silly and disjointed. What's your point actually?
Since you feel my questions are silly its ok. Enjoy your life as bleak as it may look to you. cheers
You seem to have a wrong assumption that you are special and what you are experiencing is perculiar to you.
I am married with kids and was once on this road you are now and here I am trying to converse with you and open you up in ways you probably are afraid of and you just confirmed it by shooting me down as I got too close for comfort.
Do you wish to live and die alone? Do so but keep your personal diary to yourself since you do not wish to hear anyone elses opinion
GrizzlyBear: Well, basically, we evolved love to help us procreate.
I don't feel a need to be loved back. But it's no point deciding to get married to someone who doesn't love me. It would be a stressful and unsatisfying experience.
So where do compassion and sacrifice and care fit in if all we are Is just to procreate? Are we Rabbits? Even those care and have compassion.
What do you think makes a lioness go hunting for the sake of keeping her cubs alive? what do you think makes a bird leave its nest regularly to look for food for her chicks? what do you think makes a mother hen overly protective of her brood?
You know depression is a real issue and you just may be going through that phase. Would you watch a kid get run over by a car if you could save him? Would you stand by and watch someone poison another when you could avert it?
GrizzlyBear: If I find someone I love and who loves we equally, and who I am compatible with, which includes sharing my sentiments and philosophical ideologies, then yes I would marry her, but I'm definitely not having kids with her.
You do have a very high requirement for a wife. Any woman who would share your sentiments would never desire love. But you mentioned love.
What do you think is the purpose of love and why do we even feel a need to love and be loved back just like you mentioned?
Christianity Etc › Re: A World Without God And Death of Civilization! by availableisme: 10:21am On Dec 19, 2016
