Athiesm and sex

[BadPoison]

Thanks for sharing this, SSY! It would make sense that there would be a different profile to any incestuous relationships. Do you have a background in psychology, or is it just one of your interests? Regardless, welcome to the forum - hope to continue to see you around.

-BP

No background in psychology, though I wouldent list incest as an interest of mine. . . .

Also, thanks for the welcome.

I meant psychology as an interest, not incest!
Of if this is your dry sense of humor  

[wazzz]

ُEwwwwwww !!!!!
i guesss that i won't think about such a thing  
even if she was a stepmother :crazy:  

[Messenger]

Yes Messenger, we atheists follow some morals. Some of which happen to be in the Christian faith. But guess what, some of your morals align with the teachings of the Koran. So why aren't you Muslim? Hitler thought the sky was blue too. Why aren't you a Nazi? I'm assuming it's because they have other principles you detest. Christianity is filled with these so called "morals" that run contrary to my moral fiber. The moral fiber your god programmed me with. So really, if I followed all of his teachings I would feel guilty for betraying my scruples. Just because you and I may share a few beliefs (such as incest being wrong) doesn't mean I should be a Christian anymore than it does proves God's existence.

This is not my point, I'm just wondering how do you decide your basis?
If you can follow some morals with no logical explanation, how you don't accept that there is a god even it is very obvious
I don't ask you to follow any religion that has contradictions or illogical teachings, just accepting that there is a God!

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is not my point, I'm just wondering how do you decide your basis?
If you can follow some morals with no logical explanation, how you don't accept that there is a god even it is very obvious
I don't ask you to follow any religion that has contradictions or illogical teachings, just accepting that there is a God!

Your entire POV on this is based on the assumption that there is an ultimate mortal arbiter where science assumes (with some good reason) that morality evolves naturally ... if you wish to base your arguments ion such an assumption you need to demonstrate the existence of this supposed arbiter. Until you do we DO NOT need to justify why we find the idea of incest distasteful.

Kyu

[Messenger]

This is not my point, I'm just wondering how do you decide your basis?
If you can follow some morals with no logical explanation, how you don't accept that there is a god even it is very obvious
I don't ask you to follow any religion that has contradictions or illogical teachings, just accepting that there is a God!

Your entire POV on this is based on the assumption that there is an ultimate mortal arbiter where science assumes (with some good reason) that morality evolves naturally ... if you wish to base your arguments ion such an assumption you need to demonstrate the existence of this supposed arbiter. Until you do we DO NOT need to justify why we find the idea of incest distasteful.

Kyu

you are wrong I don't assume any morality at all (if No God)
I think that God put most of the morals as instinct in ourselves, so even atheists follow it blindly, and don't dare to break it (even that some do)

[Whitney]

Messenger, if you were to browse your local library's philosophy section you'd notice that there are a ton of books on ethics, many of which look at morality without focusing on god(s).  Since no one gave humans a formula to follow for determining morality, cultures have been trying to figure that out.  

If you follow the history of mankind, and even modern examples, you'll find that sometimes what is wrong in one culture is perfectly acceptable in another.  That doesn't mean one culture is immoral an the other is not.  What it means is that we all have adapted different means of interacting with others in our society.  If a society adapts a moral which is harmful to that society either the moral or the society will eventually be weeded out.  Morality is a very relative term when you look at the big picture.

We all get our morality from those we interact with (society/culture).  If you think about it, that explains why those who are raised in bad areas are more likely to grow up to be thugs who contribute to the area being bad.  Of course, there are other factors at play since humans are not that simplistic.  If it weren't for our culture's desire to  cram others into out own view of how things should be, we wouldn't even be questioning if someone could be moral without having a specific belief.

As far as morality is concerned, my guideline is that if it hurts others it is bad and should be avoided.  It's very simple yet applies quite easily to a broad range of moral issues.  I have this view because I do not think a society can be sustainable if it were okay to do whatever you wanted without concern for the welfare of others.  I don't need to think a god exists in order to have this view.

[Kyuuketsuki]

you are wrong I don't assume any morality at all (if No God)
I think that God put most of the morals as instinct in ourselves, so even atheists follow it blindly, and don't dare to break it (even that some do)

Fine ... your argument is utterly invalid until such point as you can prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of your god.

Until then I shall assume there is no such being and feel no compunction at all to justify it.

Kyu

[BadPoison]

you are wrong I don't assume any morality at all (if No God)
I think that God put most of the morals as instinct in ourselves, so even atheists follow it blindly, and don't dare to break it (even that some do)

Let me state your argument better:

1. All morals came from outside us. God. (Premise)
2. Morals exist.
3. Therefore God must exist.

The conjecture that "All morals come from god" is not obvious, and it is infinitely debatable. It has been debated much more intelligently than you have put forward here in this forum. The if/then statement you continue to spill: "If god exists then we have morals. If morals exist then we have god." This is a silly closed statement with hidden premises that is not debatable. To really continue this argument, you need to accept the possibility that there may be other sources of morality (as many in this thread have pointed out. You've ignored all of them.)

Think on this.
-BP

[Kylyssa]

Incest is bad for observably reasons not dependent upon religion.

Incest is psychologically damaging to the child.
Incest can result in offspring which may present with pairs of detrimental recessive genes.
Reproduction in gene pools without sufficient diversity will create an increased likelihood of the expression or duplication of dangerous recessive genes.

These things are observable even by the untrained.  Children who have experienced incest exhibit emotional problems.  Gene pools which have become too limited produce more offspring with deformities or heritable illnesses, also more miscarriages occur in such gene pools.  People will eventually make the connection between incest and the problems it causes.  Without empirical reasoning on their side, they might imagine that the bad results of incest were punishments from a God for committing incest.

It doesn't take a religious background to realize that high rates of emotional illness, physical illness, miscarriages, and birth defects is a bad thing.  These things all cause suffering and even a newborn infant realizes that suffering (their own) is a bad thing and in short order small children and many mammals begin to feel empathy which causes them to generalize that if their suffering is bad, the suffering of others is bad, too.

It doesn't take a God to program in empathy.  It is a racial (the human race) survival behavior.  Empathy causes individuals to look out for others and that allows more of that species to reach adulthood and reproduce than otherwise would.  Humans are physically inefficient at producing offspring.  We have one, maybe two at a time and usually there are often years between pregnancies.  Also, the process of reproduction is very dangerous.  In the animal world, creatures such as fish produce sometimes millions of offspring in a short time, insuring the next generation by sheer numbers - only a few may survive but if only one survives to reproduce, it is enough.  With only one or two or a half dozen hard earned offspring, mammals, birds, and other slow, low-volume reproducers had to make up the number gap by ensuring that a high percentage of their offspring survived.  Without a physical characteristic to ensure this the only other characteristics would have to be behavioral.

Low volume reproducers' genetic lines don't survive without empathy and concern for family of some degree.  This leads to paternal and maternal instincts such as protection of offspring.  In a more mentally developed species such as humans, the paternal and maternal protective and nurturing urges extend to protecting their children emotionally as well as physically due to empathy.

So if we can see that incest causes suffering and we feel empathy and parents feel the need to protect their children the majority of a society will have no problem figuring out that incest is not a good survival strategy.

[Sophus]

This is not my point, I'm just wondering how do you decide your basis?
If you can follow some morals with no logical explanation, how you don't accept that there is a god even it is very obvious
I don't ask you to follow any religion that has contradictions or illogical teachings, just accepting that there is a God!

I follow morals for logical reasons (incest is wrong for the factors it will have on the child) whereas you follow them because daddy says so. Morals are not proof of God.

Actually I wouldn't even call what I follow "morals" exactly. It's rather a accumulation of personal judgments for what makes more sense in achieving what I want to achieve from life. I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in good and bad intentions (as well as stupidity and intelligence in terms of carrying out those intentions).

[Messenger]

you are wrong I don't assume any morality at all (if No God)
I think that God put most of the morals as instinct in ourselves, so even atheists follow it blindly, and don't dare to break it (even that some do)

Let me state your argument better:

1. All morals came from outside us. God. (Premise)
2. Morals exist.
3. Therefore God must exist.

The conjecture that "All morals come from god" is not obvious, and it is infinitely debatable. It has been debated much more intelligently than you have put forward here in this forum. The if/then statement you continue to spill: "If god exists then we have morals. If morals exist then we have god." This is a silly closed statement with hidden premises that is not debatable. To really continue this argument, you need to accept the possibility that there may be other sources of morality (as many in this thread have pointed out. You've ignored all of them.)

I did not say that this thread about proving God (this will come later)
I'm just showing that atheism is illogical, if you choose to follow some rules without clear justifications
and God has many at the least, why don't you accept that there is a God?

[Kylyssa]

I did not say that this thread about proving God (this will come later)
I'm just showing that atheism is illogical, if you choose to follow some rules without clear justifications
and God has many at the least, why don't you accept that there is a God?

Why don't you read all of the logical justifications as to why incest is not a good idea in the responses to your thread?  There is clear justification as to why I follow the rules I follow.  Too bad you have no sense of empathy or the reasons behind not doing harm to others would make sense to you.  I respect that sociopaths and pyschopaths should follow rules they can only logically but not emotionally understand.  Even those folks don't need religion to give them rules, they can look to cause and effect in their society - i.e. if they ever leave their house, or read a newspaper, or look on the Internet, or turn on the television they will inevitably see that certain actions have negative consequences.  While people with empathy will have feelings about certain actions which involve others the sociopaths and psychopaths will see the laws and behaviors set down by those with empathy and follow as much of them as they feel they need to for self protection.  That is how most people follow the Bible, they cherry-pick the parts that are in their self-interest to follow and ignore the rest.  Perhaps this is the religious commit crimes more frequently than the non-religious - they feel free to pick and choose among the laws of the land and the laws of their own religion which laws are beneficial to their own self-interest to follow.

The rules in the Bible are direct cribs from Hammurabi's Code.  That is, aside for the rules pertaining to believing only in the Abrahamic God and not worshiping other Gods.  All of the rules pertaining to socially acceptable behaviors come from Hammurabi's Code or other such legal documents.  Hammurabi's Code and the laws which preceded it predate the Bible substantially.  Those laws were created by the lawmakers of the ruling class to make law and punishment throughout the realm uniform and clear as presiding over disagreements and trials was something the ruling class had to do.

[wheels5894]

you are wrong I don't assume any morality at all (if No God)
I think that God put most of the morals as instinct in ourselves, so even atheists follow it blindly, and don't dare to break it (even that some do)

Let me state your argument better:

1. All morals came from outside us. God. (Premise)
2. Morals exist.
3. Therefore God must exist.

The conjecture that "All morals come from god" is not obvious, and it is infinitely debatable. It has been debated much more intelligently than you have put forward here in this forum. The if/then statement you continue to spill: "If god exists then we have morals. If morals exist then we have god." This is a silly closed statement with hidden premises that is not debatable. To really continue this argument, you need to accept the possibility that there may be other sources of morality (as many in this thread have pointed out. You've ignored all of them.)

I did not say that this thread about proving God (this will come later)
I'm just showing that atheism is illogical, if you choose to follow some rules without clear justifications
and God has many at the least, why don't you accept that there is a God?

Look, Messenger, there is a need for you to supply your proof of the existence of god and your procrastinating on this topic and others is just pointless. Clearly those atheists here are moral people and follow a moral code that can be derived from such as 'not harming others' or even 'not doing to someone else what one would not want done to oneself'. Philosophers have worked on these idea for a very long time and a god is clearly not involved. So, now is the; -

time to prove your deity or shut up about these various topics.

Until you come up with a proof I will not waste timeon your threads.

[Sophus]

I did not say that this thread about proving God (this will come later)
I'm just showing that atheism is illogical, if you choose to follow some rules without clear justifications
and God has many at the least, why don't you accept that there is a God?

Rewards for living excellently come in this life. What is so illogical about that? It makes more sense to follow "morals" when you have a reason for them other than "Oh well, my god says I shouldn't.... I don't really know why but I trust his wisdom."

Examples: Don't break the law and you won't get thrown in jail. Treat others well and the reward is friendship.

If morals equal god then how do you explain the sociopath? Also, what god is it that you want us to accept? There are many, whose values differ.

[curiosityandthecat]