₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
Say me well to raphiemontella.

Your question need no answer because itsba diversionary technique. You can easily open up a thread and invite me to comment.

Prohibition of incest is onebof the brickwall holding our civilization (else, we will be like goats and dogs who sleep withbeachbother indiscriminately).

The source of non-incestious relationship is theistic from evidence on ground in many cultures (crime against the gods)

Atheism difines things by rationalization and hence, if some conditions asbstated are met, there is no problem.

Now, if atheism becomes the norm, and part of the consequence is that incest is allowed, would it build our civilization?

MrMontella:
[url=www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=484
]In buddhism,,incest is wrong[/url]
and buddhism does not have a theistic background..so in cultures where buddhism is practised..incest is wrong..and no ''god idea'' had a part in it..




Not all Gods frowned at incest..
Some were the products of incest themselves,,,some committed incest..





The downfall and extinction of these royal bloodlines were due to Incest

The Hasburgs

www.medicalbag.com/grey-matter/impact-of-royal-inbreeding-part-iii/article/472635/

journals on incest and natural selection are documentiona on natural selection favouring outbreeding.

felixomor:
That u need sleep? Where was that thrashed?

availableisme:
Did enoch commit incest?

availableisme:
I know about evolution and it does not explain everything contrary to what you might think. Its still a hypothesis in the works. Statistically randomness cannot produce order so lets not go there.

If Natural selection is true then why did it not also deal with anger and hatred and bitterness since they are all emotional driven same way incest, homosexuality and sodomy are?

felixomor:
U r the one who needs sleep my dear. This is religious section.

4kings:
This is now your default moniker, right?

I need you to educate me on, polydeism.

dalaman:
He still hasn't usd his superior knowledge of the bible to tell is why it isn't the people living at that time the author was referring to.

felixomor:
Why will i waste time on someone who doesnt even know what the bible is except when he is on Nairaland?

God forbid

availableisme:
You can look at it in two ways and that is as

a. His father’s sister, That is, kinswoman, as the Hebrew word frequently means. Amminadab or a prince of the tribe of Judah. If you look at it this way then we can say that the Levites might marry into any tribe, there being no danger of confusion or loss of inheritance thereby.

b. .If you can tell me when the Law was given or when it began then you can deduce your answer for yourself. Did Genesis 17: 16 come before Leviticus 18:12?

availableisme:
You can look at it in two ways and that is as

a. His father’s sister, That is, kinswoman, as the Hebrew word frequently means. Amminadab or a prince of the tribe of Judah. If you look at it this way then we can say that the Levites might marry into any tribe, there being no danger of confusion or loss of inheritance thereby.

b. .If you can tell me when the Law was given or when it began then you can deduce your answer for yourself. Did Genesis 17: 16 come before Leviticus 18:12?

shadeyinka:
You truely sound like Squealer of Animal Farm!
So, agentofallah has become your Napoleon? SMH!

Atheists who have live in the shadows of popular votes with no mind of their own. The major question still is "If we are all atheists in the world, then there shall be nothing wrong with incestuously living: would this promote civilization?"

LightandDarkness:
Wow I didn't know that. Guess if a great man like moses could be a product of incest how could it possibly be wrong!

Ranchhoddas:
My eyes have seen my ears. David was not only a king, he was also a prophet. Cc: MrMontella

4kings:
This is NOT my belief.
Interaction does not make any sense, that's not deistic.
I know you might try to bring examples of those that claim there are deist and subscribe to this "interaction", but that's another belief(theism) entirely.
Aristotle is a good example.

For God's sake how can a deist interact with God, and still holds his stance of "non interventionist".

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.



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).

"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.

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.

Ranchhoddas:
So who was David talking about in Psalm 14:1?

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".

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,/MrMontella Donffd, KingEbukasBlog, anas09, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, analice107, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, lalasticlala, seun, Farmerforlife, 4evergod2, naijadeyhia

And yet indeed, she [Sarah] is my [Abraham's]
sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the
daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. Genesis 20:12

And I will bless her [Sarah], and give thee a son also
of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a
mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Genesis 17:16

And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to
wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses. Exodus 6:20

felixomor:
Quiet, the Ethiopian bible and the KJV are the most complete earliest versions. None has Edom there.
Take a seat mehn.

dalaman:
He was the first Greek man in recorded history to deny the existence of the Greek Gods. During their time denying the Gods was a capital offence. Most people could not write and so most people could not accurately record history. The Greeks were not the only people that libed and had Gods. I told you that some Indians were also atheist and denied the existence of the Indian God during the Vedic period according to the link I provided in the other thread.

KingEbukasBlog:
Why was he then called the first atheist in history

dalaman:
Christianity started and was formed by men. Islam was also stared and formed by men, it is expected to pass christianity in the future, it is the fastest growing religion. That means Allah is the only true God and the Koran is real.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is a man made idea started by Diagoras of Melos

Wilgrea7:
they have causes bro... they didn't come from nothing

no... i don't mean that events don't exist.. if you agree that time is a measure of events, then you'll agree that my statement will simply mean that the all surpreme creator is not bound by events.. if you agree that time is a measure of events, then for a supreme creator to exist out of time doesn't mean the events don't exist, it only means his existence is not an event....the existence of humans is an event... cuz it had a start.. but the existence of a creator is not an event because it doesn't have a start, hence, the existence of the creator is outside of time... meaning its not an event

Kondomatic:
God is just a name Christians give the creator. You can it him anything you like; energy or whatever. It doesn't matter to us.

conclusion when you said that none of us has heard from God.

Kondomatic:
How do you know that the force is gravity? Any evidence to prove that it actually a gravitational force that pulls me down?

Kendzyma:
Wtf,"sleeping and waking up"?..that's a miracle?...so hungry children that are sleeping and waking up is also a miracle?.. U Christians needs ur brain checked if that's all u v got to be called miracle.

DonEffiong:
well for me, yes i have seen and experience it several times and it all happen when i was a kid i was stung by a centipede in the middle of the night and my whole head swell up, i couldn't sleep or do anything meanwhile i couldn't shout or tell anyone because i was unable to speak and again everybody where fast asleep, while still struggling in serious pain i slept off, then deep down in my dream i saw a man he looks just like my father he walked to me as i was sleeping and asked me Son what is wrong why is your head swelling as i couldn't speak i was speaking with my heart, then he ask me not to worry that he will solve the issue meanwhile i was praying heavily in my heart because have been hearing of stories of what happen to those that insect stings, so i the man was speaking He pick up the lantern that was use to light the room open the kerosene tank pick a little with his fore finger rob it on same spot that i was stung then he ask me to go back to bed that i will be fine....and surely when i woke up in the morning all i could see was just a little painless scratch on the spot i was stung within a week the scratch was gone and i was as good as new..and many more

how about you?

Wilgrea7:
example please...

ok.. point taken.. I'm not a deist tho.. I'm a Christian.. but i agree with the deistic view sometimes

yes, i can agree with you that time is a frame of events.. but how does a creator existing outside of time insist that time or the events never occur? i posted something about the time-frame of events stuff somewhere on this thread.. and it answered your third question..

felixomor:
Bring ur Wikipedia na.

felixomor:
Ur definition is incomplete. Ur wikipedia is not working today? What happened?