Happy Atheist Forum

If you are an atheist you don't have well defined rule about sex; what to do and what not to do

Can you have sex with your mother (and father)? maybe threesome with them as well  
 
I think atheist should favor such a behavior for many reasons
- Easier to communicate
- Social relations is stronger with family members
- Tolerance and forgiveness is common

Quite apart from, "Ewwwwwww!" I think you shouldn't have sex with your parents because incest has been understood for millennia (even at societal levels) to be a bad thing and is now understood why but also because just about everything you've posted here is demonstrably wrong or carries an unacceptable religious bias, so just about everything you say and think is wrong .. stupidly, pointlessly, idiotically wrong!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Quite apart from, "Ewwwwwww!" I think you shouldn't have sex with your parents because incest has been understood for millennia (even at societal levels) to be a bad thing and is now understood why but also because just about everything you've posted here is demonstrably wrong or carries an unacceptable religious bias, so just about everything you say and think is wrong

I understand your anger, you find that such question make Atheism contradicting even with atheists behavior themselves
You follow some religious moral values, but choose to ignore religion itself

It is ok to reject wrong/illogical beliefs but it is wrong to reject a logical one

Why you think that doing sex with your parents is bad? do you feel shy :devil: are you gay  :devil:

Quote from: "Messenger"I understand your anger, you find that such question make Atheism contradicting even with atheists behavior themselves
You follow some religious moral values, but choose to ignore religion itself

My anger? What anger? I follow no religious moral values at all!

Quote from: "Messenger"It is ok to reject wrong/illogical beliefs but it is wrong to reject a logical one

Nothing in my response was illogical.

Quote from: "Messenger"Why you think that doing sex with your parents is bad? do you feel shy. If your mother is very sexy and young, I don't find any reason why you don't have a crush on her

I have already answered your question ... try responding TO MY REMARKS!!!!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I have already answered your question ... try responding TO MY REMARKS!!!!

You just said that we found that it is bad, why?

Quote from: "Messenger"You just said that we found that it is bad, why?

Incest is bad in genetic terms, something that would have been observable even if not understood in ancient times.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"You just said that we found that it is bad, why?

Incest is bad in genetic terms, something that would have been observable even if not understood in ancient times.

So is God
Do you normally follow not understood, unproved things  

Quote from: "Messenger"If you are an atheist you don't have well defined rule about sex; what to do and what not to do

Can you have sex with your mother (and father)? maybe threesome with them as well  
 
I think atheist should favor such a behavior for many reasons
- Easier to communicate
- Social relations is stronger with family members
- Tolerance and forgiveness is common

Going by your 'logic' it is safe for me to assume that all vicars, reverands and holy people regularly have sex with their altar boys.

I normally don't do this sort of thing, but...

This is dumb.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"You just said that we found that it is bad, why?

Incest is bad in genetic terms, something that would have been observable even if not understood in ancient times.

So is God
Do you normally follow not understood, unproved things  

I said in ancient times you disingenuous #&%$!

Kyu

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I normally don't do this sort of thing, but... This is dumb.

I agree ...there is god genetic reason why incest is a bad thing and ... and ... and ... with my mother??? Ewwwwwww!

Kyu

I voted:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsp249.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg203%2Ftbone217%2FBorat-VeryNice.gif&hash=2d19c02ab6d0fde61c822b28eb04dbd7f0bd5d22)

Duh, it's "bad" because people don't like incest.

Quote

Quote

Quotewhat

the

hell

Okay. This now is the second "poll" you have drummed up in you religiously biased and may I say warped mind. Genetically speaking, as Kyu has already stated, incest is clearly understood and not beneficial in any way. And yes, Kyu, it is rather GROSS! So I second your Ewwww!

Apparently Messenger doesn't understand a code of humanity. We don't need your f*cking god in order to be moral human beings.

This is becoming a problem.

Messenger, making a statement that atheists would have no problem with an incestuous relationship with a parent is intentionally insulting. You're flame baiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait). It's time to shape up. This is an official warning.

Kyuuketsuki,

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I said in ancient times you disingenuous #&%$!

This is not appropriate. Please refer to the rules (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522).

Thank you, Will. You are on top of things, as always.

Messenger is probably nothing more than a troll, based on this and his other posts. I agree that he needs to shape up immediately. While you're at it, Messenger, how about responding directly to Kyu's excellent points? He took the time to respond properly to you and you ignored him to continue your little Flame Baiting exercise.

Please see the Trolling 101 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2332) thread. Methinks it's relevant.

Quote from: "McQ"Thank you, Will. You are on top of things, as always.

Messenger is probably nothing more than a troll, based on this and his other posts. I agree that he needs to shape up immediately. While you're at it, Messenger, how about responding directly to Kyu's excellent points? He took the time to respond properly to you and you ignored him to continue your little Flame Baiting exercise.

The funny thing is, if someone went to a christian forum and started being as obtuse as messenger, they'd be banned after their second post.

Goes to show how tolerant we all are.

Maybe we should turn this into a discussion about a pragmatic view of incest in general (to get some conversation out of it).

I know there are a lot of misconceptions about incest, one of which is the likelihood of an offspring from an incestuous relationship being disabled in some way as a result of the pairing of close relatives. It's my understanding that inbreeding simply increases homozygotes which may or may not lead to defects over time. Generally, one would not see a defect due to first generation inbreeding. It's only after generations that one would start to see defects emerge often. See the royal family.

For most animals, sex has one and only one reason: procreation. It's only in certain higher animals like humans and dolphins, that sex can also happen for pleasure. It's a sign that the innate desire to mate actually exceeds the necessity for procreation via higher brain function and reasoning, which I find fascinating. And it's in this function of sexuality in humans that the real question about incest comes forward: if it's consensual, and if they are using a prophylactic, is there an additional, intrinsic harm done? Certainly it's a taboo in virtually every culture dating back a millenia, but homosexuality has been inconsistently taboo as well and I suspect most people around these parts don't really have an issue with it. What separates incest with homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint? I don't mean to make any disparaging remarks about homosexuals, but I'm really not sure where to file consensual, safe incest.

Quote from: "Willravel"Maybe we should turn this into a discussion about a pragmatic view of incest in general (to get some conversation out of it).

I know there are a lot of misconceptions about incest, one of which is the likelihood of an offspring from an incestuous relationship being disabled in some way as a result of the pairing of close relatives. It's my understanding that inbreeding simply increases homozygotes which may or may not lead to defects over time. Generally, one would not see a defect due to first generation inbreeding. It's only after generations that one would start to see defects emerge often. See the royal family.

Bahaha, I was totally going to say that.

Quote from: "Eddie Izzard"Queen Victoria became Empress of India - never even f*****g went there... She was one of our more frumpy Queens... they're all frumpy, aren't they? Because it's a bad idea when cousins marry! Bottom of the gene pool, y'know, just scraping the barrel there - 'Haven't got enough for you Royals there...' First rule of genetics - spread the genes apart, y'know... But the Royals are just obsessed with it; 'Are you a Royal family - are you a Royal member? Well you can marry me, because we're of the same gene pool, and our IQs will just go down the toilet.'

That's why there's no crazy Royals - they're all sort of (adopts a plummy royal voice) 'Hello, what do you do? You're a plumber? What on earth is that?'

Simple natural selection, yep! Species that tend to breed within the family (unless they're royals) have lower survival rates than those who don't. It's taboo because we humans have attached a moralistic attribute to a purely naturalistic aspect of breeding.

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"Apparently Messenger doesn't understand a code of humanity. We don't need your f*cking god in order to be moral human beings.

Just a reminder, there's no need to respond to flame bait harshly.

Please don't forget that you can report a post you feel is violating our rules. If you feel someone is behaving inappropriately, we (the staff) are here to help.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Simple natural selection, yep! Species that tend to breed within the family (unless they're royals) have lower survival rates than those who don't. It's taboo because we humans have attached a moralistic attribute to a purely naturalistic aspect of breeding.

That's basically my take, too.

Should we (reasonable people) support incestuous rights?

Quote from: "Willravel"That's basically my take, too.

Should we (reasonable people) support incestuous rights?

I doubt it. We know that voluntary participation will have long-term consequences against someone who did not voluntarily participate (incestuous unions by two consensual adults, given enough time and enough generations, result in a baby with serious complications). The child is the victim, and the risks are well established. Though, I suppose if we don't make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke and drink during pregnancy, there's no legal precedent. It's also not illegal to knowingly partner and get pregnant when both parents know, through testing, that their child will ~100% have some terrible birth defect.

It's interesting, when you put it that way. I hadn't really thought of it before.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"It's also not illegal to knowingly partner and get pregnant when both parents know, through testing, that their child will ~100% have some terrible birth defect.

That was going to be my next point, oddly enough. Great minds and all that jazz.

I was born with a coarctation of the aorta, which is a heart/circulatory defect. I've subsequently found out, through testing, that I have about a 5% chance of passing on such a defect to my offspring, depending on the mother. Still, I would love to have children some day and, while I'm certainly open to adoption, I'd love to have children that resulted from my genes. I'm not sure the odds of defect might be in an average incestuous relationship, but you're right in that we as a society do not actively prevent parenting of children when a defect is possible.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"It's interesting, when you put it that way. I hadn't really thought of it before.

Yes, quite frankly I'm not finding any logical reason to prevent incestuous relationships. It just seems to be a cultural taboo, and that to me isn't enough reason to disallow what amounts to a personal liberty.

So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  

Quote from: "BadPoison"So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  :eek: We're conditioned to think it's morally wrong, though, so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Bad phrase, sorry.

Think Flowers in the Attic.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"...so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcodebloo.net%2Fstuff%2Fpicard-headesk.jpg&hash=24992177fac3deb33a48c1decef585bf234a806d)

Someone just got super cool in my book.



Can't WAIT for the new Star Trek movie either....


Okay, back on topic.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "BadPoison"So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  :eek: We're conditioned to think it's morally wrong, though, so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Bad phrase, sorry.

Think Flowers in the Attic.

No, I really do agree, however there might be certain aspects the psychology of incest could have on those involved. The long term effect on one's mental health probably has not yet been explored. I'm sure we can all agree that a relationship with a 2nd cousin would be different than with an uncle, or even a parent.

What are you thinking? If your god suddenly disappeared, would you think, "Oh goody, now I can go fuck my mother, eat my best friend, and kill the clerk at the convenience store?"

Your view of us godless folk says more about you than it does about us.

I seem to recall a story from the bible where two girls get their father drunk in order to impregnate themselves....

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I seem to recall a story from the bible where two girls get their father drunk in order to impregnate themselves....

This calls for one of my sexy parties!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1230%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fstewie-vi.gif&hash=22155ce8794e69d4bf0c403e895cd2d3d17ec0dd)

...wait, what?

Quote from: "Wraitchel"What are you thinking? If your god suddenly disappeared, would you think, "Oh goody, now I can go fuck my mother, eat my best friend, and kill the clerk at the convenience store?"

Your view of us godless folk says more about you than it does about us.

It says a lot more about him. It says he is ignorant, and ignorant is one of the last things I would want to be called.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigtexasshootout.com%2Fimages%2Fretard.jpg&hash=b41132a26e474b7c043cd69c0982aa631a8fd94a)

I think you should:

1. Find a good hospital
2. Check into their Department of Mental Health
3. Get yourself a nice new jacket
4. Host a tea party with god and your other imaginary buddies in your new special room.


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.

I think there is some connection between taboo incest and the underlying psychological need for children to separate with their parents.Pyschologically speaking, it's never good to repress unwanted urges. Often infants have been shown, pyschologically, to want a symbolic union with their mother. But it is part of the process of growing up that infants usually lose this urge in favor of younger, hotter potential mates. Still, the lack of this developmental growth could imply a lack of emotional maturity.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"I think there is some connection between taboo incest and the underlying psychological need for children to separate with their parents.Pyschologically speaking, it's never good to repress unwanted urges. Often infants have been shown, pyschologically, to want a symbolic union with their mother. But it is part of the process of growing up that infants usually lose this urge in favor of younger, hotter potential mates. Still, the lack of this developmental growth could imply a lack of emotional maturity.

Dr. Freud? Dr. Freud? Please pick up line one. There's a call for you.

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"I think there is some connection between taboo incest and the underlying psychological need for children to separate with their parents.Pyschologically speaking, it's never good to repress unwanted urges. Often infants have been shown, pyschologically, to want a symbolic union with their mother. But it is part of the process of growing up that infants usually lose this urge in favor of younger, hotter potential mates. Still, the lack of this developmental growth could imply a lack of emotional maturity.

Dr. Freud? Dr. Freud? Please pick up line one. There's a call for you.

  :D

I registered just to weigh in on the absurdity of this topic.

I can suppose then, that if the bible were corrected ( new prophet, god spoke to you in a dream or somesuch), to allow incest, there would be nothing stopping you getting the log over on your mother?

As for incest in general, there has been some interesting research in the area post freud.

The westermarck effect is well documented, with its main outcome being to dissuade sibling intercourse. this effect is marked not only with biological siblings, but also adopted ones. Its absence can produce striking effects with regards to genetic sexual attraction( relations being inexplicabley attracted to each other due to similar facial features, shared personality traits etc ).

The intermarrying of cousins is also nothing new, Cousin marrying carries the effects of GSA, as well as being a convenient way to keep wealth within a family/clan structure. Consanguinity studies have shown the birth defect risk due to first cousins reproducing is similar to that penalty accrued by giving birth at a later stage of life. however over successive generations, this effect is much more marked.

how much asinine bullshit can you post in this forum before you get the boot? messenger, you have not contributed a single logical statement in any one of you posts. i know because i have read them all, and each one seems worse that the previous. in no way have you posed a question that i would even consider validating with an answer. what you have done is exponentially decreased the level of intelligence that once could have been expected from the average member of this forum. using the available smileys, this is the best way i can represent the way i feel when i come across one of your broken sentences:   if your god existed, he would materialize a wall such as this one to punish himself against in the eternal shame he would feel for the monumental failure of creating you. whenever i decode one of your cryptic posts, i hear the voice of jar-jar binks. this does not help your cause. you are either a spammer or ashton kutcher is "punking" me. the latter actually seems more and more viable as i read how the other intelligent people on this forum try to respect your questions and provide logical, well-written responses. this truly speaks volumes for the atheist's morality. an amoral person would take the opportunity to degrade you without giving it another thought. now, presently, i am doing just that, but does this speak more about my morality, or your utter stupidity? of course i am bias so i will refrain from answering this myself. i suggest that you quit spending time posting ludicrous hogwash, and use your apparent interest to study and learn about these subjects. i realize this is not nearly as easy as the path you have chosen for yourself, but i promise you, it is far more rewarding. now, just for giggles, let's hear your rebuttal.

Quote from: "brekfustuvluzerz"how much asinine bullshit can you post in this forum before you get the boot? messenger, you have not contributed a single logical statement in any one of you posts. i know because i have read them all, and each one seems worse that the previous. in no way have you posed a question that i would even consider validating with an answer. what you have done is exponentially decreased the level of intelligence that once could have been expected from the average member of this forum. using the available smileys, this is the best way i can represent the way i feel when i come across one of your broken sentences: :eek2:  you're scarying me...

Quote from: "brekfustuvluzerz"if your god existed, he would materialize a wall such as this one to punish himself against in the eternal shame he would feel for the monumental failure of creating you. whenever i decode one of your cryptic posts, i hear the voice of jar-jar binks. this does not help your cause. you are either a spammer or ashton kutcher is "punking" me.

This segment is GOLD!  :banna:  

Quote from: "SSY"I registered just to weigh in on the absurdity of this topic.

I can suppose then, that if the bible were corrected ( new prophet, god spoke to you in a dream or somesuch), to allow incest, there would be nothing stopping you getting the log over on your mother?

As for incest in general, there has been some interesting research in the area post freud.

The westermarck effect is well documented, with its main outcome being to dissuade sibling intercourse. this effect is marked not only with biological siblings, but also adopted ones. Its absence can produce striking effects with regards to genetic sexual attraction( relations being inexplicabley attracted to each other due to similar facial features, shared personality traits etc ).

The intermarrying of cousins is also nothing new, Cousin marrying carries the effects of GSA, as well as being a convenient way to keep wealth within a family/clan structure. Consanguinity studies have shown the birth defect risk due to first cousins reproducing is similar to that penalty accrued by giving birth at a later stage of life. however over successive generations, this effect is much more marked.

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

Quote you're scarying me...

haha why am i "scarying" you?

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "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  

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

Quote from: "Sophus"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!

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "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)

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.

Quote from: "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)

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

Quote from: "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.)

Think on this.
-BP

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.

Quote from: "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!

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).

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Messenger"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.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "Messenger"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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv1413%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6623378%2Fheathens-vi.jpg&hash=c804d7009e62ee62498aa7ef378979f08713c9fe)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv1413%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6623378%2Fheathens-vi.jpg&hash=c804d7009e62ee62498aa7ef378979f08713c9fe)

I'm not so sure. I've met some pretty ridiculous theists before.

But thank God for Messenger's logic. We have morals. God commands morals. Therefore god must exist! Why didn't I see it before?  :|

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv1413%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6623378%2Fheathens-vi.jpg&hash=c804d7009e62ee62498aa7ef378979f08713c9fe)

I must refer you to my post in Trolling 101 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2332&start=15).  It's an illness.  I've tried rehab but I keep falling off the wagon.

I don't want to have sex with my mother.

Quote from: "Sophus"Then he goes on to say he's not trying to prove god's existence only that atheism is wrong. Uhh... hello? The relationship is symbiotic - It's the same thing.

It is not the same thing
Even if God is not proven 100% (Till now because I'll prove it later) you should accept him as you accept things like morals

Quote from: "Messenger"Even if God is not proven 100% (Till now because I'll prove it later) you should accept him as you accept things like morals

Non Sequitur. Why? More to the point why don't you accept Allah? Zeus? Odin? Quetzalcoatl?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Even if God is not proven 100% (Till now because I'll prove it later) you should accept him as you accept things like morals

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages43.fotki.com%2Fv1325%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FDramatic_cat2-vi.gif&hash=9d21d748a6ce3afc3ac9fd02e9cd386269da0bad)

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why? More to the point why don't you accept Allah? Zeus? Odin? Quetzalcoatl?

Because I can disprove all others as well  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why? More to the point why don't you accept Allah? Zeus? Odin? Quetzalcoatl?

Because I can disprove all others as well  

Oh for fuck's sake will you STOP with these STUPID FUCKING statements that you can do this, you can do that ... you HAVE NOT done any of them so far so WHY THE HELL should we believe you have the slightest chance of doing any one of the bloody things now?

The fact is that you believe what you believe, you want to believe evolution is wrong but you CANNOT prove it so you WAFFLE, YOU LIE, YOU TWIST the facts in fact what you do is EXACTLY what every other religious f***wit does.

Go and learn some science!!!!!

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Sophus"Then he goes on to say he's not trying to prove god's existence only that atheism is wrong. Uhh... hello? The relationship is symbiotic - It's the same thing.

It is not the same thing
Even if God is not proven 100% (Till now because I'll prove it later) you should accept him as you accept things like morals

Hate to break it to you but the only way to prove atheism wrong is to prove there is a god.

No myth can be proven or disproven 100% so I guess you should believe in absolutely everything.

Really, is there any point in not banning Messenger? I fail to see what the forum gains from his presence.

He can not present a logical argument, he can not take on the arguments of others, he has this tantalising proof of god's existance that he refuses to tell anyone about. This leads me to beleive he is either a theist of the most insufferable kind, or a troll of imense skill.

The only possible downside is, if after his bannage, he, along with his troglodyte buddies, unleash a tirade of whinging and bitching across t'internet. Allow me to demonstrate

ZOMG!!!!111WTFLOL!!!!111ROFLMAOBBQ!!!!!!! 1 w3Rz B4Nn3d 4 Be4N a ChR15t1An!!!!!!!!111111oneoneoneone

Is it worth it? I think so

I don't normally sleep with people over five years older or younger than my own age.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Oh for fuck's sake will you STOP with these STUPID FUCKING statements that you can do this, you can do that ... you HAVE NOT done any of them so far so WHY THE HELL should we believe you have the slightest chance of doing any one of the bloody things now?

The fact is that you believe what you believe, you want to believe evolution is wrong but you CANNOT prove it so you WAFFLE, YOU LIE, YOU TWIST the facts in fact what you do is EXACTLY what every other religious f***wit does.

Go and learn some science!!!!!

Kyu

Eeeasy, Kyu, put down the knife...

...and the razor...

...Don't touch that stick of dynamite...

*gives an ice pack to*

 

Quote from: "Asmodean"I don't normally sleep with people over five years older or younger than my own age.

Just use the standard rule, youngest person allowable =  ((your age)/2)+7

use in the reverse to find if someone is too old for you

Ok the poll question was, CAN you?

Physically yes you could

But would you? Most people would not for different reasons.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I don't normally sleep with people over five years older or younger than my own age.

Just use the standard rule, youngest person allowable =  ((your age)/2)+7

use in the reverse to find if someone is too old for you

My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

Oh wow natural selection wins again, I didn't read the poll question and hit "Very nice" because I thought it was just general sex, not incest.

Yeah, its disgusting, almost as disgusting as religion, but not quite.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

No it's not especially as I don't think Kylyssa meant it literally as "a rule", in essence all she is saying is she has a set of personal standards ... you are just stupid enough to interpret it literally.

Do you actually know anything about adults?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

This is my personal rule of thumb which applies to me and me only.  I'll only date persons who have reached the age of their majority to avoid any legal entanglements.  Persons under 18 may have parents or guardians who have a say in their lives as well and I wouldn't want to mess up the home life of a minor just to get some nooky.  I'm going to be 39 this month and many parents or guardians would probably take exception to me dating their ward.

I'll only date or fool around with people who are reasonably emotionally mature.  If a male or female who was 17 years and 360 days old was unable to wait a week before getting it on, he or she wouldn't meet the minimal degree of maturity I require.  If you are wondering if I've faced that exact situation before - no, all perspective suitors both male and female have either been substantially under 18 or over 18 if only just over since I've been out of my teens myself.

Quote from: "Messenger"this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

Just so you know, 18 isn't an arbitrary number. There's a reason that the law separates a 17 year old from an 18 year old, and the roots are in several things.

First, there's psychology. Emotional development takes a certain amount of time in humans. Without these steps, decision-making is notably impaired. Generally when one is 18 enough emotional development has taken place that an individual's decision making is about at the level of an average adult. If you'd like, please read the link below for a bit more information:
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml

Second, there's physical ability. While adolescence doesn't really end until the late 20s for most people, the age where people generally reach a similar physical condition to an average adult is around 18.

Third, there's experience. Generally, an 18 year old is a high school senior or a college freshman age, when more adolescent innocence regarding truths of the world are being replaced by real life experience. Call it wisdom if you like.

When each of these three things come together, the line between child and adult can be drawn with reasonable correctness.

And btw, I don't agree with courts trying children as adults, mainly for the above reasons. I find it's more a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice to do that to someone who's still developing into an adult.

I agree with you, Willravel, but I wanted to respond to this paragraph.

Quote from: "Willravel"And btw, I don't agree with courts trying children as adults, mainly for the above reasons. I find it's more a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice to do that to someone who's still developing into an adult.

However, I don't believe it's just an emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice. The act of having a young offender tried as an adult in a Court of Law is the 'emotional loophole'. All of your points are good, but what determines whether a young offender is an 'adult' in the Court is decided more by the act itself rather than the number for age.

On the other hand, what happens to the young offender after they've been convicted as an adult is the real moral dilemma.

Quote from: "thirteen31"However, I don't believe it's just an emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice. The act of having a young offender tried as an adult in a Court of Law is the 'emotional loophole'. All of your points are good, but what determines whether a young offender is an 'adult' in the Court is decided more by the act itself rather than the number for age.

Oh, but the reaction to the severity of the crime is what I was eluding to. Say a 13 year old murders his parents. Premeditated multiple murder is one of the worst crimes one can commit (at least in the US justice system), but even if the crime is very horrible, the child's age and emotional development are not changed by the crime. They are a natural constant. So it would stand to reason to factor the reality of his incomplete emotional and moral development when trying the child. Why cast this aside? An emotional response. Murder carries with it a stigma that overrides reason with a lot of people, especially when the murder is done out of hatred. So strong is the stigma that an individual (say a judge or a member of the jury) can be swayed to ignore the reality of a child's natural development in favor of considering only the severity of the crime. That's not an objective reaction, imho.  

Quote from: "thirteen31"On the other hand, what happens to the young offender after they've been convicted as an adult is the real moral dilemma.

On this we certainly agree.

Quote from: "Messenger"this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

False? How can someone's personal rule for their life be false? You can agree with it or disagree with it but nothing more.

P.S. Interesting way to spell disgusting, by the way. I didn't notice that before.

Dear Messenger

Alright so you would like to know (if i am not mistaken) why having incestuous relations is wrong, bad, or taboo Right? Alright first off let me go back to one of the first retorts you made. Disgust at incest is not a religious value, for that mater neither is kindness or loving ones neighbor. The ten commandments to use an example that i am sure is close to your heart was hardly revolutionary. Just because someone does or thinks something that is in agreement with the bible does not make it a christian value or a religious value. If you want incest by the by snuggle up to your bible for there is plenty in there. Incest is although out the bible. Adam and Eve for example were alone then had kids and notice none of them were female Cain, Able, Seth. None of these were women so are we to guess that other were created or are we to jump to the logical conclusion that they had sex with eve?

To come at this from a purely logical stand point one should not have incestuous relations as it destroys the gene pool for the species. From a psychological point of view a person should not have incestuous relations as it damages boundaries and authority of the parents to correctly govern the child. From a societal view it is destructive and debase to the welfare of the people. From the standpoint of an atheist it is destructive as it leads to a distortion of human genetics and for all the other reasons put forth thus far. Only from the religious stand point has it ever been a OK. As I am an Atheist post Catholic apostate heretic who is about to graduate from a catholic college and will soon be free of such points of view, I will gladly abstain from any thing religious including incestuous relations. Thank you for your time.

Quote from: "Willravel"Just so you know, 18 isn't an arbitrary number. There's a reason that the law separates a 17 year old from an 18 year old, and the roots are in several things.

First, there's psychology. Emotional development takes a certain amount of time in humans. Without these steps, decision-making is notably impaired. Generally when one is 18 enough emotional development has taken place that an individual's decision making is about at the level of an average adult. If you'd like, please read the link below for a bit more information:
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml

Second, there's physical ability. While adolescence doesn't really end until the late 20s for most people, the age where people generally reach a similar physical condition to an average adult is around 18.

Third, there's experience. Generally, an 18 year old is a high school senior or a college freshman age, when more adolescent innocence regarding truths of the world are being replaced by real life experience. Call it wisdom if you like.

Those things follow something called Normal distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9f%2FNormal_approximation_to_binomial.svg%2F325px-Normal_approximation_to_binomial.svg.png&hash=8b9da0def8ad6a485d3cda5e533ac90d13a29de4)
So if we assume that 18 is the average age (which is not true and it varies for each subject)
Then you have 1/2 of the people still children above 18 and almost another half became adults before 18 (at 15,16,17, etc.)

for example if we look into legal marriage age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age) we see that it varies from 14 to 20
but amazingly California does not have a fixed age (They require Judge and parents approval ) ---> I think this is the best solution

For   Age_of_consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) it varies from 12

For The age of criminal responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility) it is obviously different than marriage and ability to make sex, they developed different legal system for them

So the system should tolerate exceptions (which are very large)

Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"If you want incest by the by snuggle up to your bible for there is plenty in there. Incest is although out the bible. Adam and Eve for example were alone then had kids and notice none of them were female Cain, Able, Seth. None of these were women so are we to guess that other were created or are we to jump to the logical conclusion that they had sex with eve?

Let's postpone discussion about the bible now, but Adam and Eve had girls and each son had a twin sister, each son marry his other sister

QuoteTo come at this from a purely logical stand point one should not have incestuous relations as it destroys the gene pool for the species. From a psychological point of view a person should not have incestuous relations as it damages boundaries and authority of the parents to correctly govern the child.

Use Condoms  :devil:
We can invite girl friends and boy friends from time to time as well

Quote from: "Messenger"If all the family like each other, we can make group sex all together, Mother, Father, sisters, brothers

It may be that I don't like my family, but I find the idea... Unappealing.  

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I'll only date or fool around with people who are reasonably emotionally mature.  If a male or female who was 17 years and 360 days old was unable to wait a week before getting it on, he or she wouldn't meet the minimal degree of maturity I require.  If you are wondering if I've faced that exact situation before - no, all perspective suitors both male and female have either been substantially under 18 or over 18 if only just over since I've been out of my teens myself.

Regarding sex, it is a bit different
Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work
They will do it, regardless of any legal, religious boundaries see many statistics
Teen Sex and pregnancy (http://www.soundvision.com/Info/teens/stat.asp)
25% of female, and 30% of males had sex before 15

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guttmacher.org%2Fgraphics%2Ffb_ATSRH%2Fchart1.gif&hash=deee55bbcd4977fe4696052dd283da4d7541ace4) (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html)

The best solution is what California applied, there should be no minimal age for marriage
A Judge can decide if the couple is old and mature enough to be married or not + Parent approval

Quote from: "Messenger"Regarding sex, it is a bit different
Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work

The legal system doesn't forbid minors from having sex simply because they chose arbitrary ages. The legal system has chosen those ages because children 10-14 are not (regardless of how much they may claim the opposite) mentally and emotionally mature enough, on the whole, to make responsible decisions about sex and the aftermath that may accompany it. When hormones are cascading over an adolescent's system during puberty, rational decision making and forethought are suppressed. The legal system is working in loco parentis by imposing rules upon those that may harm themselves otherwise. Granted, as was said, many ignore it. This is why communication and education are so important.

Quote from: "Messenger"If you are an atheist you don't have well defined rule about sex; what to do and what not to do

That makes no sense, what does being an atheist have to do with having rules against or for certain sexual behavior?

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Messenger"If you are an atheist you don't have well defined rule about sex; what to do and what not to do

That makes no sense, what does being an atheist have to do with having rules against or for certain sexual behavior?

He's trroooollllliiinnnggggggg.

 

Quote from: "Messenger"Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work

On those grounds we should legalise murder and rape as well, because people ignore those rules?

QuoteAdam and Eve had girls and each son had a twin sister, each son marry his other sister

I would love to see where this is in genesis. I have never heard of it before while reading the bible. Spoken tradition yes but not in Genesis. At any rate this does not disprove my point at all does it.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Messenger"Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work

On those grounds we should legalise murder and rape as well, because people ignore those rules?

Irrelevant
As sex is an agreed desire, we should make a way for them to satisfy it (i.e. marriage)
Plus
There is no punishment for under-age people who make sex, so it is very contradicting situation

Which one do you prefer
Your 14 years daughter to sleep with her boyfriend and get pregnant
or to allow her to marry (with some extra conditions)

Quote from: "Messenger"Which one do you prefer
Your 14 years daughter to sleep with her boyfriend and get pregnant
or to allow her to marry (with some extra conditions)

It's always black and white with you fundies.  There are plenty of other possibilities.    

How about educating her about the pitfalls of early teen sex so she can make responsible decisions instead?  How about nurturing her self-esteem?  How about teaching her about masturbation?  How about teaching her about the spread of disease and the dangers of pregnancy then teaching her how to have safer sex?  If yours are the only two options why aren't all teenage girls pregnant?

I'd actually prefer my teenage daughter to get pregnant with her boyfriend than to enter into a commitment she's too young to be ready for.  The statistics on divorce after teen marriages are staggering.  Why would I want to put my teenage daughter through both pregnancy and a crappy, poorly thought out relationship?  If she were married to another teenager chances are that they'd slip into horrible poverty trying to live on the wage of a teenage boy without a high school diploma.  Both children could ruin their possibilities of a future as happy, productive adults.

Teen pregnancy rates drop with education and the average age of the loss of sexual virginity increases with more education.

Unless you are just looking for a loophole to live out your ephebephile fantasies just like in the Bible.

Quote from: "Messenger"sex is an agreed desire

No it isn't. Not only among those who have sex drives is it not always a desire given the situation but there are those who identifiy as asexual.

Quote from: "Messenger"Which one do you prefer
Your 14 years daughter to sleep with her boyfriend and get pregnant
or to allow her to marry (with some extra conditions)

If those were my choices, I would rather my theoretical 14 year old daughter have safe sex with her boyfriend then be asked to make a life long commitment at such a young age.   Ideally, I would have educated my 14 year old daughter well enough that she understands it would be in her best interests to wait till she is at a more mature age.

Forcing kids to get married in order to fufill their instinctual desires will only lead to an increased divorce rate as they grow older and realize it was just a passing infactuation.  Plus, getting married does not automatically mean they are mentally ready for sex, let alone children.

If we taught kids that it is okay to masturbate instead of pretending like it's a terrible thing, maybe they'd be able to blow off their sexual steam without a partner.  I'd say that would make everyone happy; expect that many theists have decided to blindly label anything pleasureable as sin even if their holy book doesn't say anything about it.  I guess it's pretty easy to control people if you can control one of their main drives.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"If those were my choices, I would rather my theoretical 14 year old daughter have safe sex with her boyfriend then be asked to make a life long commitment at such a young age.   Ideally, I would have educated my 14 year old daughter well enough that she understands it would be in her best interests to wait till she is at a more mature age.

Marriage does not have to be a life long commitment
If they don't have children, they can decide at later age, if they want to continue or not
Plus you assume here that Adultery is ok

QuoteForcing kids to get married in order to fufill their instinctual desires will only lead to an increased divorce rate as they grow older and realize it was just a passing infactuation.  Plus, getting married does not automatically mean they are mentally ready for sex, let alone children.

Who talked about forcing them! they have the choice
People are ready to make sex from 10 years old!

QuoteIf we taught kids that it is okay to masturbate instead of pretending like it's a terrible thing, maybe they'd be able to blow off their sexual steam without a partner.  I'd say that would make everyone happy; expect that many theists have decided to blindly label anything pleasureable as sin even if their holy book doesn't say anything about it.  I guess it's pretty easy to control people if you can control one of their main drives.

Masturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

Quote from: "Messenger"Masturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

Care to scientifically substantiate this?

A quick google turns up the opposite.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Masturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

Care to scientifically substantiate this?

A quick google turns up the opposite.

I think there are different opinions
and personal experiences as well

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/psychology/T3F17QBBS48MU1GB2/p7

Quote from: "Messenger"I think there are different opinions
and personal experiences as well

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/psychology/T3F17QBBS48MU1GB2/p7

It's like eating then? It's basically healthy, but eating too much is bad for you.

Quote from: "bowmore"It's like eating then? It's basically healthy, but eating too much is bad for you.

Maybe, I'm not sure from the Medical point of view

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Masturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

Care to scientifically substantiate this?

A quick google turns up the opposite.

I think there are different opinions
and personal experiences as well

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/psychology/T3F17QBBS48MU1GB2/p7

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 1950s!

 

Quote from: "Messenger"http://www.topix.com/forum/science/psychology/T3F17QBBS48MU1GB2/p7

ROFLMAO!!!  Seriously, go to that site.  I'm literally laughing so hard I'm crying.  I read a few entries aloud to my roommates and I'm betting the neighbors heard the laughing.  Extremely funny stuff there.  Sad stuff like kids believing air gets into your penis and goes into your brain when you masturbate and that masturbation ages you prematurely, but extremely funny stuff as well.

If we're going to talk about anecdotes being "proof" I can tell you I found two different vibrators and a number of other sex toys in my grandma's bed drawers after she passed away.  She died at 104 years old and was in her own home and able to care for herself up until three weeks before her death.

Quote from: "Messenger"Masturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

From a psychological stand point: you're wrong. From a physical view: You're definitely wrong.

It's like an itch that builds up and needs to be relieved. Without it, we find very unhealthy behavior emerge out of this frustration. Crack open a few psychology books.  

Out of curiosity, if you think sexual relations are okay in marriage why would it be any more harmful for one to masturbate as often as the married individual has sex? It's craziness.

Quote from: "Sophus"Out of curiosity, if you think sexual relations are okay in marriage why would it be any more harmful for one to masturbate as often as the married individual has sex? It's craziness.

Is this craziness? Nah...

Is it madness? No...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg267.imageshack.us%2Fimg267%2F2531%2Fdrrsyku0.jpg&hash=a4d338c03e038a69302c7325b7c8e48e9e03365a)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"It's like eating then? It's basically healthy, but eating too much is bad for you.

Maybe, I'm not sure from the Medical point of view

wtf is with you? too much is bad for you. how can you argue against that?

it is all about knowing your limits and your needs.

if you can not see your feet, you are eating too much
if your torso looks like a xylophone try eating more hamburgers
if you kick your dog, try some alone time
if it fell off, you did it too much

Quote from: "Sophus"Out of curiosity, if you think sexual relations are okay in marriage why would it be any more harmful for one to masturbate as often as the married individual has sex? It's craziness.

Because he's a fundie and believes masturbation is a sin, onanism.

Quote from: "Messenger"Marriage does not have to be a life long commitment
If they don't have children, they can decide at later age, if they want to continue or not
Plus you assume here that Adultery is ok

What!?  I would thnk that someone who believes in the Bible would be the most likely to say marriage should be a life long commitment.  

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adultery (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adultery)

Quotea·dul·ter·y (-dlt-r, -tr)
n. pl. a·dul·ter·ies
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

You are the one assuming that adultry is okay by saying the marriage can be ended (according to your bible marriage is for life so you can't end it and be with another person).  I am defending the importance of marital commitments by saying marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly.

QuoteWho talked about forcing them! they have the choice
People are ready to make sex from 10 years old!

You are only willing to give them a choice between not have any sex or get married.  Obviously you are going to be forcing them to do something they'd rather not do.  I might add that trying to force teens to do anything has proven to be very unsuccessful...that's why we have so many teen mothers.

Some 10 year olds might be "ready" (in the sense that they can manage to do it) but they aren't mentally ready.  Females aren't physically ready at that age to have kids either...they can have them, it's just really hard on their bodies.  I don't think I even liked boys yet when I was 10...they were icky and had cooties.

QuoteMasturbating is not healthy mentally and physically

You really need to quit believing everything your mom told you when you were little.

QuoteHere are the study on benefits of masturbation,

1) Research has shown that masturbation may protect against cancer of the prostate. The more a man ejaculates between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely he was to develop cancer of the prostate.

2) It can help with people that have insomnia, helping their bodies to relax after wards

3) It can help to stimulate the immune system to help build up resistance to common infections.

4) It can relieve intensive stress

According to BBC Health News, in an Australian Research, out of 2,250 respondents, who had developed prostrate cancer and had not about their sexual habit, found - out that those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer.

Who masterbate?
The consensus of those doing a statistical analysis of who masturbates is that around 90% of the total male population and 65% of the total female population masturbate from time to time.

Sue Johanson, sex educator and counselor, 2000: “99 percent of men of all ages masturbate regularly and the other one percent are liars.”Source: Salon.com Cory Silverberg

- http://thehealth2u.com/health-benefits-of-masterbation (http://thehealth2u.com/health-benefits-of-masterbation)  (emphasis mine)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Messenger"Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work

On those grounds we should legalise murder and rape as well, because people ignore those rules?

Irrelevant
As sex is an agreed desire, we should make a way for them to satisfy it (i.e. marriage)
Plus
There is no punishment for under-age people who make sex, so it is very contradicting situation

Which one do you prefer
Your 14 years daughter to sleep with her boyfriend and get pregnant
or to allow her to marry (with some extra conditions)

Your question at the end is puzzling, if my daughter is pregnant, how will marrying someone help anything? At all? What conditions are you talking about?

Edit, also, I read that link you posted, it was the funniest thing I have read all week, if that was your idea of scientifically verifying something, no wonder you don't understand evolution . The guy who claimed to be stupid and impotent, then blamed it all on masturbation was my favorite, sort of like someone losing their hair and then blaming it on getting a job, " I was fine before getting a job!"

Quote from: "SSY"Edit, also, I read that link you posted, it was the funniest thing I have read all week, if that was your idea of scientifically verifying something, no wonder you don't understand evolution . The guy who claimed to be stupid and impotent, then blamed it all on masturbation was my favorite, sort of like someone losing their hair and then blaming it on getting a job, " I was fine before getting a job!"

Yeah, that entry was the one that made me "absolutely bark with laughter" as my partner put it.

Quote from: "SSY"Your question at the end is puzzling, if my daughter is pregnant, how will marrying someone help anything? At all? What conditions are you talking about?

Which is better, to marry your girl to someone you agree on, so you can make sure about many things financial, social, etc.
Or to let her by her own, where she may get diseases, pregnant and no care about the child, etc.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"You are the one assuming that adultry is okay by saying the marriage can be ended (according to your bible marriage is for life so you can't end it and be with another person).  I am defending the importance of marital commitments by saying marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly.

Not every thing in the Bible is true
Marriage can subject to many issues, and if they became old and decide to separate, it is their decision

QuoteYou are only willing to give them a choice between not have any sex or get married.  Obviously you are going to be forcing them to do something they'd rather not do.  I might add that trying to force teens to do anything has proven to be very unsuccessful...that's why we have so many teen mothers.

Yes, because usually children from unmarried couples experience bad life

QuoteSome 10 year olds might be "ready" (in the sense that they can manage to do it) but they aren't mentally ready.  Females aren't physically ready at that age to have kids either...they can have them, it's just really hard on their bodies.  I don't think I even liked boys yet when I was 10...they were icky and had cooties.

So a controlled sex (by marriage approved by parents) is better than uncontrolled one

Quote from: "Messenger"Not every thing in the Bible is true

That made me smile. Thank you.

QuoteYes, because usually children from unmarried couples experience bad life

That statement is so irretrievably, mind-numblingly ridiculous that I'm really hoping your troll-meter went off the scale on that one. Wow.

QuoteSo a controlled sex (by marriage approved by parents) is better than uncontrolled one

And another one. Wow. "Controlled sex" /= "marriage approved by parents". Sorry. Parents should not control the sex lives on their children; they should educate them and prepare them to make good decisions, offering counseling and advice when needed.

Just, wow, man. Aren't you getting bored here, yet? Don't you think the AFI forum could use a little bit of the blessing you've brought here?  

After a rather quiet afternoon in the office, i've read this entire thread and have found myself laughing more than i have in the past few weeks combined. If fundies are good for anything, it is the simplicity of incredulous laughter.

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, because usually children from unmarried couples experience bad life

Children need caring, loving, nurturing parents - whether or not those people are legally married has nothing to do with the experiences the child has.  Love is not contingent upon a piece of paper stating two people are legally bound to each other.  To attempt to link the variables together that you have is just plain silly.  I would challenge you to produce evidence supporting this contention.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "SSY"Your question at the end is puzzling, if my daughter is pregnant, how will marrying someone help anything? At all? What conditions are you talking about?

Which is better, to marry your girl to someone you agree on, so you can make sure about many things financial, social, etc.
Or to let her by her own, where she may get diseases, pregnant and no care about the child, etc.

You make so little sense. You can't just conjure up two insane choices and then expect people to choose one or the other. Real people have the ability to decide what is best from a wide range of options.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "SSY"Your question at the end is puzzling, if my daughter is pregnant, how will marrying someone help anything? At all? What conditions are you talking about?

Which is better, to marry your girl to someone you agree on, so you can make sure about many things financial, social, etc.
Or to let her by her own, where she may get diseases, pregnant and no care about the child, etc.

You make so little sense. You can't just conjure up two insane choices and then expect people to choose one or the other. Real people have the ability to decide what is best from a wide range of options.

What are the other options?

Quote from: "Messenger"What are the other options?

Why, of course, the options everyone listed here such as educating your children about sex, building their self-esteem, loving them and supporting them through their triumphs and their hard times, teaching them to enjoy their bodies safely through masturbation and safer sex education, and giving them the information to make good decisions.  Try talking to your children and developing a good relationship with them, placing them first in your life rather than God.  These things work marvelously in the families and countries that use them.

I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

i would never have sex with members of my own immediate family, even if there was no social stigma attached to it.

Quote from: "jduster"i would never have sex with members of my own immediate family, even if there was no social stigma attached to it.

Neither would I (none of them are hot enough (just kidding, of course)), but I can see no logical reason why it is bad if it doesn't produce offspring and it doesn't involve children.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Quote from: "teifuani"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Thanks for the input!

I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

Now that I'm an atheist, I'm attempting to cleanse myself of all irrational beliefs, so this is why I am curious whether there are any good objects to "harmless" incest being harmless.

EDIT: I think I'm the oddball of the group, because I don't think I would object to having sex with one of my relatives (a first cousin), as long as I used a condom.

Quote from: "teifuani"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Well put, and I agree. It's probably because that "incest is wrong" is the "common knowledge" people are afraid to say that it would ever not be immoral.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "teifuani"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I know I'm bringing a really old thread back to life with this post, but I have a question for my fellow atheists: why is incest wrong if it doesn't include or lead to kids? Say, for example, two sisters in their thirties started having sex together -- why is this a bad thing, in a logical perspective? The reason I'm asking this is because, after reading the entire thread, the only two arguments against incest I've seen are that it leads to bad genes and that it has a harming psychological effect on children.

This reminds me of a study in morality my psychology professor told me about in Intro. The group running the study told a story to people about Mark and Julie, a brother and sister who went to France on vacation and ended up having sex one night. Pretty much (if not) every person from every culture reacted the same way (negatively). When asked for reasons, they cited the inbreeding argument (the researchers countered that they used birth control), they'd be shunned by society (they kept it a secret), and it would have a negative impact on their relationship (when it brought them closer together). In the end it boiled down to the fact it was "just wrong." If I remember correctly (it's not here in my notes) I think he explained the reaction as some biological/evolutionary desire to find a mate whose genetic makeup was as diverse as possible from your own. Other than that, I'm really not sure why people are so repelled by it. Not that I would have sex with any of my relatives, but regardless.

Well put, and I agree. It's probably because that "incest is wrong" is the "common knowledge" people are afraid to say that it would ever not be immoral.

Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

ZOMG AND TWO POSTS FROM NOW HE'LL HAVE 2010 POSTS AND THE YEAR IS 2010 RIGHT NOW!!!


AAAH AND ALMOST ALL OF HIS RECENT POSTCOUNTS CORRESPOND TO A YEAR IN WHICH I HAD A BIRTHDAY!!!  COINCIDENCE!!!!!

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

ZOMG AND TWO POSTS FROM NOW HE'LL HAVE 2010 POSTS AND THE YEAR IS 2010 RIGHT NOW!!!


AAAH AND ALMOST ALL OF HIS RECENT POSTCOUNTS CORRESPOND TO A YEAR IN WHICH I HAD A BIRTHDAY!!!  COINCIDENCE!!!!!

If he suddenly stops posting from this site in a mysterious fashion when he has 2012 posts, I'll be a little more than suspicious. Suspicious of what, exactly, I don't know, but suspicious of SOMETHING.

Who are the three to vote "Very nice"?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

Quote from: "Sophus"And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

I beat you to that...


Uhh... I mean, Indeed! I may have to convert to some kind of religion to explain this phenomena.

Quote from: "Sophus"by Sophus » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:42 pm
Who are the three to vote "Very nice"?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not that this has any relevance on the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, at this moment, you have 2008 posts, and 2008 was the year you joined. Pretty cool coincidence.

And now I have 2010.... and the current year is 2010. Spooky....

This post has the time stamp 8:42, which is 7:42 standard time.
7 is god's number and 42 is the answer to life the universe and everything.
Destiny truly converges on us, I'm going to hide under my bed.

...Did I mock the banned troll at some point in this thread? Any one remember?  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

True (I would like to note that I have no objection to polygamy either).

And they try to claim that all morals come from the Bible. Heh.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

Or, for that matter, premarital sex. There is not one verse in the Bible that condemns it.

My sister is a beautiful woman.  Has a very fit figure, and all of my friends have tried to bang her at some point in my life.  I'm sure some have succeeded.  Anyway, although she is probably a 9 or 10 on most men's scales, I am not sexually attracted to her in the least.  I don't know if that is the programming of nature that some people above mentioned or what...I just don't get randy when I think about my sister.  Can't really explain it.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that there are any reasons for people being repelled by harmless incest other than how we evolved and society. I would say the Bible is almost pro-incest (unless it states that incest is wrong somewhere in the New Testament, which I doubt), so it can't be religion, at least in America.

American mainstream Christianity has adopted plenty of things that are not in the Bible.  For instance, the objectors to polygamy often claim that it is against God even though many of the Bible's main characters practiced polygamy and no objection was noted.

Or, for that matter, premarital sex. There is not one verse in the Bible that condemns it.

Really? Are you sure?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"Or, for that matter, premarital sex. There is not one verse in the Bible that condemns it.

Really? Are you sure?

Yup. It was completely acceptable (and practiced) until Saint Augustine came along. It was a political move at the time that has survived as a modern meme among most Christians.

Quote from: "DropLogic"My sister is a beautiful woman.  Has a very fit figure, and all of my friends have tried to bang her at some point in my life.  I'm sure some have succeeded.  Anyway, although she is probably a 9 or 10 on most men's scales, I am not sexually attracted to her in the least.  I don't know if that is the programming of nature that some people above mentioned or what...I just don't get randy when I think about my sister.  Can't really explain it.

So what's her phone #?

... this idiot has totally disproved the theory that religious people cannot be THAT stupid. this poll seems to be clear evidence that some of them, in fact, are THAT stupid.

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"the theory that religious people cannot be THAT stupid.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.icanhascheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2009%2F3%2F31%2F128829569281693068.jpg&hash=7b7ef928101b2d2750f882726c59b427a02d246f)

That there... Is an actual THEORY?!   I thought it was just something religious people told themselves every night before the wet dreams about Jesus... Or Muhammed... Or whatever it is the Jews have wet dreams about...

Personally, I like his misspelling of "discussting", for irony if nothing else; he certainly had no interest in discussing.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"the theory that religious people cannot be THAT stupid.

That there... Is an actual THEORY?!

Well ... it WAS a theory. Not anymore! It just got shot to shit ...

Quote from: "DropLogic"My sister is a beautiful woman.  Has a very fit figure, and all of my friends have tried to bang her at some point in my life.  I'm sure some have succeeded.  Anyway, although she is probably a 9 or 10 on most men's scales, I am not sexually attracted to her in the least.  I don't know if that is the programming of nature that some people above mentioned or what...I just don't get randy when I think about my sister.  Can't really explain it.

I used to get annoyed with the constant nagging from my friends on how hot they thought my sister was. I don't want to hear how hot my sister is because she is my sister and i don't see her that way. In that respect, i totally see where you are coming from. I feel bad for blokes with young hot mothers as well. It cannot be nice to have friends letching over your mother.

Quote from: "Sophus"Yup. It [premarital sex] was completely acceptable (and practiced) until Saint Augustine came along. It was a political move at the time that has survived as a modern meme among most Christians.

As always, the bible can be made to argue for any conclusion the thumper wants it to.  Sometimes, all that's required is semantic sleight of hand.  What does the word fornication mean?  Setting aside the fact that this word will be an English translation of either an Aramaic or a Greek word, depending on which portion of the bible we're reading, the English word is usually defined by thumpers as, "unlawful sex," which of course is a culturally contextual phrase, enabling thumpers to make it mean whatever they want it to mean - their favorite hobby.

Incidentally, my Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines fornication as, "voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other."  This would include two people who haven't yet wed, or would mean that for Americans today.  For Jews two thousand or three thousand years ago, two people were viewed as married for most intents and purposes from the moment they became betrothed to one another.  I ask the girl to marry me, and if she says yes, and if her father says yes, we're betrothed, and for most intents and purposes married, in particular with respect to sexual intercourse not being fornication.