Atheist Professor Lawrence krauss rationalizes Incest

[Blackking]

that is some of the stupidest shyt i've ever read

we have more technology now than 10,000 years ago.....are we not better off

technology frees us from the limitations of our biology

what makes us human is not these limitations but rather that we have the intelligence to overcome them

you sound like a moron romanticizing about the horror and pain of life without modern technology

So basically your point was idiotic so you chose to put words in my mouth.
I didn't say the limitations are what made us human or that we weren't better off in most ways. I made the case that we aren't better off in every way, especially if morality and ethics are substituted for technology.

Regardless, I made that post in the framework of irrelevant and imaginary gay ass scenario YOU created about how murder would be ok if we could simply download minds. 1. Your entire point was invalid because the definition of murder wouldn't be the same. 2. I stated correctly, in that situation were tech was that advance - society could spiral out of control; it's not a far fetched idea that our advancement could also lead to our demise. There is pretty much no intelligent person that feels otherwise.

You are all over this thread calling people names, like a child, because you are too weak to step back from your position that siblings should be able to fukk each other. It's not only due to religion. It's not only due to birth defects. You should study the reasons on y our societies evolved this way.

 

[vaudevillevillain]

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!

So demonic, friend :electpls:

 

[Swagnificent]

So basically your point was idiotic so you chose to put words in my mouth.
I didn't say the limitations are what made us human or that we weren't better off in most ways. I made the case that we aren't better off in every way, especially if morality and ethics are substituted for technology.

Regardless, I made that post in the framework of irrelevant and imaginary gay ass scenario YOU created about how murder would be ok if we could simply download minds. 1. Your entire point was invalid because the definition of murder wouldn't be the same. 2. I stated correctly, in that situation were tech was that advance - society could spiral out of control; it's not a far fetched idea that our advancement could also lead to our demise. There is pretty much no intelligent person that feels otherwise.

You are all over this thread calling people names, like a child, because you are too weak to step back from your position that siblings should be able to fukk each other. It's not only due to religion. It's not only due to birth defects. You should study the reasons on y our societies evolved this way.

Wow. Well if your only point was that technology is a double edged sword then why not break news to me about the sun being hot?

Ever since we discovered technology we've known that it can be both good and bad. Fire not only warmed our homes but could also burn it down. Nuclear energy can power our modern world but it can also destroy all life on earth. But the large trend has been that technology has helped our species greatly. Thus, there is no reason to believe that future technology will destroy our species. Sure its possible but its not likely. If it was, we would've died off long ago.

On the issue of murder, my point wasn't about changing the definition but rather saying that we might reach a point in the future where murder is IMPOSSIBLE. Thus, the question of whether murder is immoral would be irrelevant because it wouldn't exist anymore. That is my only point. What we consider moral or immoral is simply the result of the limitations of our biology. That may not be the case in the future. Thus, Professor Krauss was correct when he said that incest isn't immoral in some absolute objective sense but rather is only immoral because of the evolutionary and biological problems. If those issues no longer exist in the future then there is a chance its not considered immoral anymore.

 

[A.J.Soprano]

If a large group of american mothers wanted to marry their sons would u guys support it?

 

[88m3]

If a large group of american mothers wanted to marry their sons would u guys support it?

Would you?

 

[A.J.Soprano]

Would you?

If it means that I won't be labeled as a bigot then yes


depends on what the general consensus amongst the intellectual elite is tho

 

[88m3]

If it means that I won't be labeled as a bigot then yes


depends on what the general consensus amongst the intellectual elite is tho

mother/son seems like it could cause some issues genetically but I'm not an expert..


legally being able to consent