Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Well, so long as we're on the topic of Omar Khayyam:"
1 hour ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"None of Khayyam's poetry wasn't published in his lifetime because much of his work would…"
1 hour ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"What a shame, Stephen.  I'm not certain, but I think there is a copy of the Rubaiyat in…"
2 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Yes, he does."
2 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Loren I was once given a beautifully bound copy of the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyám. I…"
4 hours ago
Loren Miller left a comment for Guilin HBM Health
"Greets and welcome to Atheist Universe!  Please enjoy your time here."
8 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the…"
9 hours ago
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Klinger
""Happy Birthday!""
14 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"How much more of the mosque, of prayer and fasting? Better go drunk and begging round the taverns.…"
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Yes, I do that regularly.....VERY regularly. Fingers seem to have their own mind."
yesterday
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Yes, Mrs B. A slip of the fingers."
yesterday
Mrs.B left a comment for Guilin HBM Health
"Good to see you here."
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Do you mean ''desanctify''?"
yesterday
Terence Meaden left a comment for Guilin HBM Health
"Welcome welcome. Among other possibilities, do join the active Loren Miller's group with its…"
yesterday
Stephen Brodie commented on Doone's group World History
"The REAL Israelite Religion: Interview with Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou Interesting discussion on…"
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Guilin HBM Health
"Welcome Guilin HBM Health AU"
yesterday
Guilin HBM Health is now a member of Atheist Universe
yesterday
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Words that first appeared in Webster's dictionary in my birth year, 1956. I like that…"
yesterday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Nadine Gary
"Hello Nadine! I take it by the formation of your group that your a member of the Raelian movement…"
yesterday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Anya Galasso
""Happy Birthday!""
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

After that debate between Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss that was overshadowed by the disgraceful anti-egalitarian exhibition of Muslim misogyny, iERA is now trying a new tactic: they’re releasing tiny snippets of the debate that they believe they can spin into anti-Krauss sentiment. Here’s a perfect example, Krauss’s reply to a question about the morality of incest.

The audience gasped when Krauss said it’s not clear to him that incest is wrong, and then he went on to argue that there are biological and societal reasons why incest is not a good idea, but that he’d be willing to listen to rational arguments for sexual and emotional interactions between siblings, for instance…not that he’d encourage such behavior. It’s a nuanced and complicated reply in too short a time, but otherwise, he’s not wrong.

But you know what Tzortzis is thinking: this is a perfect clip to play to the dogmatic mob, his people, who don’t do complicated and nuanced, and don’t care about rational arguments, only absolute dictates.

I’d add two other arguments that might sink in.

One is that religions also rationalize incest. Here’s the Protestant Christian example:

Since Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs [Genesis 2:21-22], she would have been a clone of Adam and, had there been any genetic mutation in Adam, this would have been reproduced in Eve and expressed in their offspring. However, we may reasonably conclude that there were no mutations, and the very first commandment given to them was “to be fruitful and multiply” [Genesis 1:28]. However, the business at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil took place long before there were any children.

The account then continues where God confronted the guilty pair at the tree, but they did not confess their guilt or plead for forgiveness [Genesis 3:1-13]. God then cursed the serpent, imposed reproductive difficulties upon Eve and “cursed the ground for [Adam's] sake” [Genesis 3:17]. From that moment, everything that Adam – and mankind since – ate had grown in the cursed ground. Cell by living cell, Adam began to very slowly change from his initial state of eternal perfection to mortal imperfection, and he finally died at the age of 930 years [Genesis 5:5]. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve’s immediate offspring would have been very close to physical perfection while brother-sister marriages were the only unions possible! Further, according to the genealogies given in Scripture, pre-flood longevity was about the same as that for Adam, so families were very large compared to those of today. Brother-sister unions were not only unavoidable, but they undoubtedly became traditional and expected.

Catholics make a similar argument.

Incest was not a problem for the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve. It became a problem when the deterioration of the gene pool meant that there was an increased likelihood that the offspring of the unions of near relatives would inherit physical or mental problems. Adam’s immediate descendants inherited perfect or nearly perfect genes, so the unions of near relatives were not a problem. Besides, near relatives were the only people who existed.

Read more here

Views: 497

Replies to This Discussion

Krauss made a mistake by thinking he was dealing with honest people!

Which is why honest communication doesn't happen anymore. Twisting someone's words or taking them out of context is more fun I guess.

I take my hat off to Krauss for not giving a simple answer to a complex moral question. Most questions about morality are complex. It is no surprise that they took this opportunity to cherry pick what he said to make him look bad. As Neal said, it's impossible to hold an honest conversation with interlocutors who are not honest themselves. 

This could be an explanation:

Hahahaha!

Hahaha!

Excellent. =)

I think Krauss could have won the debate without even saying a word.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service