Atheist Professor Lawrence krauss rationalizes Incest

[NoMayo15]

As explained earlier, there is no logical or scientific reason for the banning of incest as the likelihood of closely related parents producing children with birth defects is only 1-2% higher than non-consanguineous parents.

Smoking has a higher chance of creating birth defects than incest.....but no one is banning that.​

By the way, link? This is something I've never heard.

 

[50CentStan]

from that point of view who made the creator :cheff:

You see my brother. Allah is all knowing, he is nothing like us, he doesnt need the things we need like water air, etc, he is eternal, the rules that apply to our existence do not apply to Allah, he has not wife, no parents, no sons, no daughters. Inshallah Allah will guide you on the true path.

Peace be with you.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Atheists cant rationalize anything as wrong accept believing in God. These cacs are pathetic but when you turn from God trash like this become your allies. Stop it, its disgusting!

Your entire religion is built upon incest. Kinda sounds demonic, if you ask me.

 

[upthere]

so what ur really saying is that you have no idea what youre talking about and youre hoping for the best :cheff:

Aside from those that fund + control the scientific and religious institutions, i dont believe people in general have an idea of what they're talking about. A lot of what we think we know comes from a limited amount of sources, and "they" decide how and what they want to share with the rest of us (via our family, church, school, media, etc).
So we can either take their "mainstream" info and apply it to our lives, or we can look to "alternate" sources as well. I think its important to take it ALL in, asses, travel (if possible), share ideas with people from different walks of life, and develop our own "theories".
And dont be offended if someone challenges your personal beliefs, you might learn something new, do some research and check its validity, then incorporate it with your own theory.
I dont think its a good idea to let any single view or ideology dictate what or how you think, especially if those ideologies have resulted in negative consequences that couldve been avoided.

I know you didn't ask for all that, so the simple answer is "kinda"

 

[MMS]

And dont be offended if someone challenges your personal beliefs, you might learn something new, do some research and check its validity, then incorporate it with your own theory.
I dont think its a good idea to let any single view or ideology dictate what or how you think

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

By the way, link? This is something I've never heard.

Forbidden Relatives challenges the belief - widely held in the United States - that legislation against marriage between first cousins is based on a biological risk to offspring. In fact, its author maintains, the U.S. prohibition against such unions originated largely because of the belief that it would promote more rapid assimilation of immigrants. A social anthropologist, Martin Ottenheimer questioned U.S. laws against cousin marriage because his research into marriage patterns around the world showed no European countries prohibit such unions. He examines the historical development of U.S. laws governing marriage, contrasts them with European laws, and analyzes the genetic implications of first cousin marriage. Modern genetic evidence, Ottenheimer says, doesn't support the concept that children of these unions are at any special risk.

I'll accept the scholarship of a Social Anthropologist on this topic over the uneducated opinion of an astrophysicist. Genetic counseling is needed, not an outright ban.
​

 

[killacal]

Googles Lawrence Krauss


Yup hes a jew

 

[Higher Tech]

I can understand if you don't believe in my Christian God but believe in some other God.

Being an Atheist is unacceptable in my opinion.

The idea that something came from nothing is outrageous.
Can't have creations without a creator.


Atheist have no moral checker

Atheists cant rationalize anything as wrong accept believing in God. These cacs are pathetic but when you turn from God trash like this become your allies. Stop it, its disgusting!

You nikkas are stupid.

 

[Swagnificent]

I may not be using my mind... so be cautious.

But evolution isn't solely about physically good results or evolutionary bad results from birth.

There is a reason men look the way they do and women think, behave, and rationalize the way they do. There are certain traits and behaviors that are most beneficial to social animals.

Considering human being are social animals, I would say these atheist are perverted fukks. There are "logical reasons to bar" two consenting adults who happen to be siblings from causing each others juices to flow. First off, your social instincts and sympathies naturally are drawn toward people of ur same community and culture... this is why we are successful. Community and Families is what evolution and human common sense has told us is most effective in keeping our species progressive. There are current liberal progressive ideas about these things that are biological and socially regressive.. but we attach labels of 'new age, and 'progressive' to them, so it verbally brainwashes us to go a way from the moral virtues that has made us successful. I seriously though u guys worshiped Darwin?.. he preached some of this shyt.

NTM it isn't all about birth defects retards. A limited gene pool is something that every organism on earth stays away from if they can help it. Our brains and bodies have changed so much in the last 20K years... and that's because most men aren't fukking their mothers or sisters - U sick fukks.

Also, If you're atheist you should be the main people saying the opposite of what these perverts are stating. If one can conclude that religion was just a perfect way to help men rationalize with the world and deal with his own mortality... then one can make parallel assumptions about why we've Globally developed sexual rules and customs that tell us that sex with siblings is wrong.

adam and eve's children didn't have sex with one another.. humans were around way before that, btw.

stop writing long ass repetitive shyt

I don't care about what other consenting adults do sexually. If incest doesn't produce any tangible harm on society, then what siblings do should be none of our business. Simply thinking its disgusting isn't enough. Unless you can make an argument that society is harmed, then it isn't a strong argument. Its simply trying to force your preference onto others.

Once again, what I deem right or wrong depends on reason, logic, and evidence NOT some book written by bronze age peasants.

 

[Swagnificent]

As explained earlier, there is no logical or scientific reason for the banning of incest as the likelihood of closely related parents producing children with birth defects is only 1-2% higher than non-consanguineous parents.

Smoking has a higher chance of creating birth defects than incest.....but no one is banning that.​

Now considering how disgusting incest is to almost all of us, I'm thinking there are good evolutionary reasons for it. Even if disease isn't a big factor, genetic diversity would be more beneficial for our species than siblings intermarrying. I've already read articles that people of different races produce more fit off-spring than those of the same race. I'm sure this applies to an even greater extent when it comes to siblings vs. non-siblings.

Once all those evolutionary reasons no longer apply. For example, if future technology makes it possible for siblings to produce off spring as genetically diverse and fit as non-siblings, then I see no reason to outlaw incest.

Once again, moral rules should be based on logic, reason, and evidence NOT the word of bronze age peasants. That is why atheist morality is superior to religious morality.

If we followed religious morality, gay people would still be getting executed for being who they are.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Now considering how disgusting incest is to almost all of us, I'm thinking there are good evolutionary reasons for it.

No, there aren't unless you have a pre-existing genetic disorder that you don't want to pass down to your progeny. Evolution doesn't explain morality since it isn't concerned with 'right' and 'wrong' in a moral sense. Incest is 'disgusting' to you because of societal conditioning and probably because your siblings are ugly. If you had a cousin that looked like this......

....you'd be trying to hit it like a H@LLOW thread.​

 

[Spanish Thought]

incest is one of the few things the bible and this nasty ba$tard have in common...

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Once again, what I deem right or wrong depends on reason, logic, and evidence NOT some book written by bronze age peasants.

No, it doesn't at all.

Example: Do you have a sibling? Are you naturally drawn to them in a sexual way? Why or why not? I'm gonna need "reason, logic, and evidence" backing up whatever your answer is, btw.

Aaaaaand, go.

Note: If you don't have a sibling, then use your mother as an example.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

No, it doesn't at all.

Example: Do you have a sibling? Are you naturally drawn to them in a sexual way? Why or why not? I'm gonna need "reason, logic, and evidence" backing up whatever your answer is, btw.

Aaaaaand, go.

Note: If you don't have a sibling, then use your mother as an example.

him recognizing the fact that hes been conditioned not to be sexually attracted to a family member doesnt change the fact that the reason he isnt is because of that conditioning

 

[BlvdBrawler]

him recognizing the fact that hes been conditioned not to be sexually attracted to a family member doesnt change the fact that the reason he isnt is because of that conditioning

Conditioning drives behavior, not impulses. Example: We've all been conditioned not to be attracted to underage chicks, but if I asked, "Are you disgusted by the sight of a stacked 16 year old." none of us would honestly answer "no". I didn't ask if he fukked his sister, I asked if he was naturally attracted to her.