Morality and Incest

This is a recent 'hot topic' on twitter so I thought I would write a "brief" description of my thoughts. This is going to cover a wide array of topics so some expertise on the part of the reader is assumed, you might need to research some topics on your own (*gasp*) as I just don't have time to do a deeper dive at this time.

(1) Atheism is a position about ones disbelief in the deity conjecture. Period. Atheism says absolutely nothing more than that. There is NO 'atheist' position on incest nor on ice cream. So my position on this topic is exactly that, ONLY my position. Other atheists can and will give different opinions, at the end of the day what matters is the evidence supporting a given position. Pointing to some book and claiming it as an authority doesn't pass muster, it is NOT evidence, sorry. If you believe otherwise please come talk to me about it when you have a degree in epistemology, otherwise I'm not really interested in your uneducated rambling.

(2) the superiority of non-revealed (or 'secular') morality is that it assumes our ignorance on matters not established by facts. It is willing to admit error in the face of contradictory evidence. Meanwhile the Judaic/Christian/Islamic religious are left making poor excuses for why their God commands slavery or trying to justify old men raping young women on the poor justification that the girl had reached menses (never mind the well-established psychological damage this does, that's just too bad because god willed it so - or so they claim). So I am willing to admit I could be wrong, but I think my position is very conservative to allow for a margin of error.

(3) religious adherents are profoundly hypocritical in their demand for evidence against all other claims but are unable to produce the same for their own. Keep that in mind when responding based on an appeal to authority or other fallacies

When I look at the 'morality' of human interactions I try to be both universal and consistent. I try to avoid special cases unless they are unavoidable (most likely out of our ignorance). But on consideration of the matter I see no reason to special case 'incest', it seems to fit into universal patterns of human behavior. Let's look at a few facts related to incest:

• there is evidence for a natural aversion to close-kin relations, and inbreeding avoidance in animals
• There are well-established psychological dangers associated with close-kin relationships, most actual instances are abusive in nature
• The closer the relationship the greater chance of serious deformities, with first-cousins being about the same risk level as a 40 year old woman having children; but closer relationships have exponentially higher risks
• There is scientific evidence supporting modern age of consent laws, this is why younger children CANNOT give consent, they lack the capacity

Now let's look at some universals. In the human sphere, moral interactions have a common thread requiring all participants being Informed, Consenting, and Empowered. To be uninformed is to be exploited. To be nonconsenting is to be forced. To be unempowered is slavery.

• Informed (including but not limited to: STDs, pregnancy, intimacy, feelings, real risks, appropriateness, expectations during and after)
• Consenting (doesn't need to be forms signed in triplicate but it DOES need to be explicit and all parties have a burden to ensure the willing consent of all others, not just assume it, NOT force it, NOT put it under stress or pressure or to account for such stress and pressures where they do exist)
• Empowered (empowered to say NO, and have NO mean NO - and have it recognized and respected by the law)

If a relationship is between TRULY Informed, Consenting, and Empowered adults then I would say it should not be against the law, which does NOT mean it necessarily has to be the social standard either.

But if you look at just the known psychological implications I think a very close sexual relationship could almost never be described as truly consenting, so that would be deeply problematical for me. I would already like to see a much higher standard for Informed, Consenting, and Empowered than we have today - I don't see how you could reasonably establish it for close-kin individuals.


Beyond the relationship itself there is also the question of procreation. Again, I would argue there are universal principles here that should guide us. I do NOT argue we know exactly where the magical line is that shall not be crossed, I argue for a conservative position that we are willing to adjust as our knowledge increases.

Once genetic sequencing becomes cheap enough (exactly how cheap? this one of those things that because of our ignorance we have to accept is a fuzzy line), I think that ALL couples will have a responsibility to get sequenced and ensure their offspring will have a REASONABLE chance of at least not having profound deformities and genetic problems. Until then, we do know something about the risks as they related to kinship.

So, what percent chance is "worth" the risk? Again, this is a fuzzy line that each couple should be allowed to decide on their own. There isn't an absolute answer, nor any guarantees, even with genetic testing. But if you KNEW that if you had children they were going suffer horrifically would you abstain from procreative sex? I know I would. What if it was a 90% chance? 80%? Where would you draw the line? Again, I think the key here is to be INFORMED, Consenting, and Empowered.

But, to forbid 'incestual' relationships on the basis of genetic risk but ALLOW the same level of risk between other couples is hypocritical and needlessly inconsistent.


So, if we wrap all this up into practical terms I would say that parent-(*ADULT*)child or (*ADULT*)sibling relationships would have such an extremely high burden of proof as to be impractical, if there is any hint of an abusive relationship (or that it began before the age of consent) then society would have an interest in intervening and procreation would be well beyond reasonable risk levels (even trying to be extremely conservative in honoring personal rights). More distant relationships progressively less so, first-cousins... I just don't know, I admit I am not well-enough informed to be making that decision but I would bring all the tools of science to bear on the question. I think that in the absence of clear direction one-way or the other it should be left up to the Informed, Consenting, and Empowered ADULTS.

What I would absolutely not allow, under any circumstances are abusive relationships, incestual or otherwise, and there is a plenitude of 'otherwise' abusive relationships in existence that I'm more concerned about than hypothetical kin relations. Like selling young women off into marriages against their CONSENT when they are still children who cannot consent - just because they have had their first menses is no excuse for trading them off to be raped. THAT is something that we KNOW causes great harm and psychological damage, it isn't just theoretical.

More distant relationships seem to have very little genetic risk and carry only the same psychological risks as distant relationships.

Again, I stress these can only be relationships between *ADULTS*, not between Children because children CANNOT consent.

Christianity is not moral: slavery

The case of Christian Slavery is exemplary of just how inadequate and damaging Christianity can be (not all are) to ones innate moral compass (which the evidence suggests is given to us by natural Evolutionary pressures that evidence deep interconnectedness, symbiosis, cooperation, altruism, and empathy).

NOTE: This, in no way, implies that Christians cannot be moral people (or Muslims, etc). It means that they are ignoring very serious issues with their religious texts, and it is often these issues that enable and empower extremists. I acknowledge that the bulk of Christians (/Religious People) are simply hard working, honest, loving people. If that was the extent of Religion then I would have no beef with it. But Religion doesn't stop there (see image).

I know that the Kübler-Ross model ("five stages of grief": denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) is technically inaccurate but I think it still provides a good framework for looking at how Christians behave when faced with Slavery and other moral failings of their religion. Of course, not every Christian will go through the contortions in an orderly fashion, but I just want to make sure I touch on the salient points.

Stage 1: Denial

They will object that Christianity doesn't condone Slavery, or at least not "that kind" of Slavery. Or others will claim that Christianity was the birth of a kinder and gentler form of slavery, for the good of the 'godless heathens' they enslaved. And others yet still will claim the Bible merely speaks of Indentured Servitude. And the final appeal will be that "it was a different time", which is an argument for moral relativism (which even I largely reject), not any kind of moral authority.

It should be an embarrassment that such a morally foundational question should be rendered incomprehensible by so many Christians.

While the Bible does speak of Indentured Servitude, this is ALSO immoral and it was still Slavery. But this isn't what I'm writing about today, I'm writing about:

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. (Leviticus 25:46)

Two phrases here make it clear this is not mere Indentured Servitude, that these people are considered property and that they can be kept as Slaves "for ever".

The passages that do refer to Indentured Servitude (as the latter portion of this passage does but the first portion clearly DOES NOT) make it clear that this applies to their fellow Israelites, NOT of people from foreign nations.

These slaves can also be beaten, and while the punishment for Murder is to be stoned to death, the punishment for killing a Slave is merely a property crime (and only then if the slave dies immediately, if they die after a day or two then you aren't guilty of anything).

The Reverend Richard Fuller summed up the Christian position in defense of American enslavement of African people in 1845, his letter stating: “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin”

So, Slavery cannot be wrong in the eyes of God (the definition of sin) because it was sanctioned in the Old and confirmed in the New with Paul returning the fugitive slave Onesimus to his master; not with the admonishment that Slavery is wrong but that failing to obey ones master is the crime. Pardon me while I puke.

A Southern Christian View of Slavery, James Henry Thornwell, 1861, From The Annals of America: 1858-1865, The Crisis of the Union

The Presbyterian Church in the United States has been enabled by the Divine Grace to pursue, for the most part, an eminently conservative, because a thoroughly scriptural, policy in relation to this delicate question. It has planted itself upon the word of God and utterly refused to make slaveholding a sin or nonslaveholding a term of communion.

So I really DO NOT CARE how nicely some Slave owner treated their slaves, the institution is wholly filthy and I categorically condemn it. Pity that so many Christians cannot do the same.

On Christianity, slavery CANNOT be considered wrong or immoral because it was sanctioned by God. If you disagree then, I'm sorry, but you don't even understand the basis of your own religion and you remain in the denial phase.

Stage 2: Anger

Once you confront them with these issues they will often become angry with you. They will attack you, insult you, charge that "you just don't understand it because you don't have Holy Spirit". Best I can tell, 'Holy Spirit' involves a removal of that part of a normal human brain that questions absurd propositions.

Few seem to progress beyond Anger.

Stage 3: Bargaining

They will make all kinds of arguments that are completely irrelevant. Every Red Herring and Strawman and attempt to shift the Burden of Proof in the book will be thrown your way.

They will try to dismiss the 'Old Testament', but this is foundational to the New Testament, without it Jesus wouldn't have legs to stand on and he constantly reaffirms and references the Old, perhaps in a new light, but never throwing out a single iota of the law.

Stage 4: Depression

This is an example of why religion (ANY religion, not just "the right one") has such a strong hold on people, they are inculcated with the idea that they are worms and need the Religion to cure them. They build up a mental dependence on the idea, almost as if it were a drug.

David Zucker: I believe in justice, maybe not in this life, but there has to be justice. And if there isn't a God, I think it would be very depressing. I'd prefer to believe there is.

From the outside of the delusion this statement makes no more sense than wishing for a Tooth Fairy. Having been inside the delusion myself I understand the sentiment but it is as baseless as missing an imaginary friend. The feeling of loss is real, the pain felt is real, but the basis in reality for it isn't.

It is a virus that damages the host. We need to understand better how to care for people in this situation, which is part of why Recovering From Religion exists.

Stage 5: Acceptance

When you can state plainly and openly, "I categorically denounce slavery, in all variations, as an immoral action" you will have reached Acceptance.

The Bible plainly has a God that:

• ordained Slavery,
• commanded a man to sacrifice his own child (and then sent the Son to be the scapegoat human sacrifice after this pattern),
• commanded the genocide and infanticide of 8 different nations (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites and the Amalekites):
  

  "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

• murdered the first-born of all Egypt and all infants, children, and adults in a supposed global flood.
• See also: How many has God killed?

If you STILL think this is the foundation of all morality, go back to step 1 and #ThinkHarder

The next step for most people is usually a prolonged 'Spiritual but not Religious' phase, with a general trend that the more you study the sciences, the more you will find that superstition is one of the greatest evils in our world. Upon the precepts of superstition no atrocity, no matter how heinous, cannot be excused.

There are lots of resources out there now days that can help you eliminate this kind of superstitious thinking from your life but YOU have to first recognize it and work on it.

See Also:
Death of the Southern God

Argument from Design is self-defeating

Let's say you are walking along a secluded beach.

In the sand you find a fine gold watch, you open it up and it's still keeping perfect time!

Ah, you think, this watch must have been created by a fine watchmaker. I can see the hand of design...

NOTE: you didn't look at the arrangement of grains of sand and jump to this conclusion because WATCHES AREN'T ANYTHING LIKE *SIMPLE* NATURAL PROCESSES!

This argument is self-defeating the moment you KNEW you needed something 'obviously' made by a human to make it.

That VERY contrast is the defeater.

Guess what else, human's ARE part of Nature, the things we produce are produced by natural processes also but they are natural processes that required the formation of a system capable of building models of the future and enacting complex, fine-grained actions.

There is absolutely zero evidence there is a 'ghost' required to operate the machine.

Primary Source: Correspondence Between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan

Correspondence Between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan

excerpt on Christianity showing that Roman objection had to do the (perceived) willful disobedience to authority

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

XCVIII

Trajan to Pliny

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

IF God is a perfect being...

Dembinho tweeted:

@Futiledemocracy Everything came into existence, but God did not. If He had come into existence He would be in need, and God is perfect

Let's look at this and some related premises and see what conclusion logically follows...

(P1) A God would necessarily be a Perfect being
(P2) A Perfect being is Complete (or he would be in need)
(P3) God, if existing, could be the only Perfect and Complete being
(P4) Nothing can be against the Will of God
(P5) The universe exists

From (P1) and (P2) A Complete being cannot desire to create something, as that would imply a state of incompleteness and thus imperfection
Therefore, if God created the Cosmos it would have necessarily been against his Will, but from (P4) this is a contradiction
The Cosmos exists (from P5), therefore God cannot exist as it would be a contradiction.
From (P3) there are no other possibilities.

If there is no flaw in the premises or the logic then the conclusion necessarily follows - so which premise or deduction is incorrect and why?

Excerpts paraphrased from the Jainist philosophy of Acharya Jinasena, 9th century, Mahapurana (महापुराण) 4.16-31: If God is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. How can an immaterial god create that which is material?

How to quote mine like a lying creationist

Just a quick look at how utterly ignorant and dishonest people quote mine to make false points:

This one is taken from this little gem of a post called "Darwin Was Wrong".

Let's take a look at one example:

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!

Oh dear, it looks like that 'Theory' of Evolution is in deep do do. Until you go and read the original:

Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media. But why?

One reason that keeps on betraying itself is that a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think the MAIN [emphasis mine] evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. Thus, on the Horizon programme "Did Darwin get it wrong?" in March, a creationist told us that the facts about the fossils are contrary to the predictions of the evolutionists-but agree with those of the creationists...However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. [note: nor does the fossil record contradict the theory of evolution] In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Dawrwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies.

So we can see here the bits this lying lowlife clipped out of the quote (and note how I supplied a link to the source so you can verify it yourself and read it in the greater context of the article as well). The article in NO WAY supports this liars conclusions.

Further note this is an article from 1981 - much has changed in the fossil record since that time, many so-called "gaps" have been filled in with dozens of species, absolutely in conjunction with the predictions of evolutionary theory. But this still doesn't mean that the fossil record is the primary evidence in support of evolution. Out of the trillion trillion trillion organisms that have ever lived the fossil record is but a tiny fraction of them, it can never be completed because Nature didn't see fit to carefully preserve each and every organism (nor 2 of some and 7 of others). What scientists look for in the fossil record is information about the timescales (rate) of changes and that nothing in the fossil record contradicts the theory.

The article goes on to debunk many other creationist lies, including several others in that very webpage I'm commenting on -- you can call them 'myths' if you want but they simply lies. There is really no excuse for such ignorance in this day and age, if they are mistaken out of ignorance it is willful and deliberate.

If we evolved from monkeys...

"If we evolved from monkeys/apes why are there still monkeys/apes"

This is a study in how to clearly and boldly display that you are utterly ignorant about Evolution. No statement I'm aware of shows more blatant and willful ignorance than this one. You are like a peacock, showing off just how ignorant of the facts you are as if you are proud of being ignorant. Baffling. I mean, it's fine if you don't understand Evolution and don't take a position on it, it's when someone speaks publicly, as if one is an authority, that I take objection to it.

If you even remotely cared about the truth then you would do your due diligence and research such simple topics, but you clearly don't or you wouldn't have made such a statement.

Did it not even cross your seemingly vacuous mind that we DIDN'T evolve from modern monkeys, but rather from a distant common primate ancestor?

In fact, we have very good information about when each lineage split (but not perfect of course, exacting details are lost in the mists of time, but this doesn't mean that we cannot know anything about the subject).

For example, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (modern chimpanzee, NOT the same as the common ancestor) last shared a common ancestor some 4.1 million years ago.

And if we consider the Pongo pygmaeus (modern orangutan, again, NOT the same as the common ancestor), the divergence is even greater, indicative of MUCH older last shared common ancestor some 14 million years ago.

What was that common ancestor? We don't know precisely what it was because 14 million years is a LOT of time and intelligent animals aren't fossilized as often as those that die in favorable sediments for fossilization. But we do have fossils that date from around these times and we believe (based on the evidence) that they would be the close cousins of the suspected common ancestor.

It would be ridiculous to expect to find, out of the billions of animals dead over millions of years, one that was EXACTLY in our lineage. Nor is such a thing necessary. They would be almost indistinguishable from the ones we do find. Some random person from Europe isn't your direct ancestor but they are still a Homo Sapien and their DNA is extremely close to yours. Now imagine that you find a European from 5000 years ago -- that's still close enough. Even human beings 100,000 years ago are anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, you have to look back deeper in time before you start seeing genetic variants that are different enough to warrant being categorized as a different species, 250,000 years is on the edge, 1 million years, 4 million years, 14 million years, 3.6 BILLION years -- these are the massive timescales where evolutionary changes accumulate to significant levels.

But for an example, one such species is Ardipithecus kadabba. We can tell from the remains that this was neither modern ape, chimp, or human - but rather has a blend of features that fit into the geological timescale in which it was found. Then there is Ardipithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis, and Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo rudolfensis, and Homo rudolfensis -- all different species that show the evolutionary changes from earlier primates to Homo sapiens.

Consider that, aside from being a completely unique mix of alleles from your parents (DNA recombination during meiosis means that each chromosome you inherit aren't just a copy of one from one of the parents but a completely unique, sliced-and-diced random mix from both parents), you have about 150 mutational changes in your DNA as well. And that is multiplied by every organism in parallel over every generation (and the small animals had much shorter generation times, bacteria have generations measured in hours and there are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria on the earth - that is an unimaginable amount of mutational change every minute, not to mention over 3.6 billion years).

Most mutational changes are neutral, neither harmful nor helpful (or at least extremely subtle). Extremely harmful mutations result in either an nonviable gamete or zygote, by some estimates 40-50% of all fertilizations are unviable and produce natural miscarriages. The moderately harmful mutations that aren't fatal, are evident in our population as diseases. Slightly harmful mutations might be carried in populations for thousands of years, some of these (eg, sickle cell) even prove to have benefits that cause them to spread in populations despite their harmful "side-effects" (really there are only affects, side-effect is a misnomer based on a bias of what is 'beneficial' and what isn't). And occasionally, a mutation will prove beneficial such as Escherichia coli evolving the genes necessary to process Citrate (which actually depended on several independent mutational changes which were EXACTLY identified in the research). Some mutations are purely morphological, some affect protein expression, some affect only the timing of expression (especially evident in the HOX gene complex).

And in light of all of that you expect to be taken seriously when you say something utterly devoid of reflective thought like "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys"?

Have some pride and educate yourself.

See Also: Evolution: As Simple As Possible, and the Rational Wiki response.

This is apparently 'proof' to Islamists?

Response to: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234974450-imam-sadiqas-debate-with-athiests/

Someone on twitter posted this link to be and said "You might enjoy reading this".

Actually, believe it or not, no... I don't enjoy long strings of ignorance, lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

Let's take a quick look at these:

(1) "Juad Ibne Dirham, a leader of atheist sect had kept some mud and water in a glass bottle. After some days worms grew in it and he claimed to be their creator"

How completely ignorant is this strawman? First of all, any given atheist might be completely ignorant of science. If this was a real person they clearly are ignorant of science so this ENTIRE string is built on the logical fallacy of the strawman and is therefore completely invalid. Next.

Reason/Logic/Science 1, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(2) "There is a verse in Quran that is according to our belief and which goes against your faith...nd He it is Who is God in the heavens and God in the earth…( Surah Zukhruf 43:84)"

and they say "nuh huh". Ooooooookay. So what is this supposed to prove? Another strawman. It's really easy to setup completely weak strawmen and knock them down, this proves nothing. Next.

Reason/Logic/Science 2, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(3)"One day Abu Shakir came to the Imam and said, “Prove to me the existence of God.” Imam (a.s) told him to be seated..."

This should be good, haha.

"...inside which flow two seas of gold and silver. But neither can the yellow mix with the white nor the white can merge with the yellow"

Obviously they have never heard of a scrambled egg. What kind of stupid argument are we looking at here?

"...No one can even know whether the newborn would be a male or a female"

Utter and complete nonsense - we can insert very fine instruments into the egg, extract a tiny DNA sample and sex the chicken.

"...Can your reason agree that all this happened without a designer or a maker?”"

Ah, the absolute FAVORITE of religion, the Argument From Ignorance. If you don't know how something happens naturally then surely God must have done it. Nonsense. In fact, we have EXTREMELY detailed knowledge now of exactly how evolution works and why it gives the mere APPEARENCE of design but doesn't require an actual designer. The need for 'God' in the production of natural biology ceased to exist 150 years ago and the evidence supporting it now exists in volumes that fill hundreds of thousands of pages.

Reason/Logic/Science 3, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0

(4) "One day an atheist from Egypt came to Imam (a.s) who asked his name. “Abdul Malik,” replied...It is surprising that when you do not have any knowledge about the earth or the sky, the east or west, how can you deny the existence of God?"

Another Argument From Ignorance.

"Don’t you ever reflect on the earth and the sky that why the sky does not crash on the earth?"

The 'sky' crash on the earth, LOL. Are you #*$&ing kidding me? It's these Biblical 'firmament' idiots who used to think the sky was a great dome because they FAILED TO GRASP COSMOLOGY. Ignorance, Ignorance, Ignorance -- a 'divine' being would know better.

"Why the earth does not sink below itself?"

Displays an utter ignorance of cosmology and physics, it's not even a valid question.

Reason/Logic/Science 4, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0


One of the comments on that page: "Have you guys/gals noticed how amazing these debates are?"

No, but I noticed that they are shameful & dishonest.


One final example, from a comment (again with the egg analogy):

"Imam (to the man): Tell me something. Is it possible to keep two different colours of liquid in one container without any barrier and yet they don’t get mixed?

Man: Impossible."

First of all the egg contents CAN be mixed, secondly the egg contents ARE mixing slightly, even in the egg, and thirdly OF COURSE THIS IS POSSIBLE, IT IS TRIVIAL.

Reason/Logic/Science 5, Pretending-To-Know-Shit-That-You-Know-NOTHING-About 0



So once again, Ignorantly pretending to know shit on "faith" is an utter failure. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again it fails but each new moron thinks they have the magic words from the skydaddy.

All these thousands of pretend 'gods' are the SAME Bullshit, over and over again: http://krankypanz.blogspot.com/2012/06/list-of-gods.html

I'll tell ya what is 'Impossible', the laughable idea that YOU finally got it right.

When Cells Divide: the argument from uniqueness

MYTH: A zygote, formed during conception, is when a unique set of human DNA is created

FACT: This is FALSE. Just about every cell copy (mitosis) produces a 'unique' DNA variant (due to mutations, copy variations, duplications, transpositions, mitotic crossover, etc) and this is especially present during the production of gametes (spermatozoa and ovum) when DNA recombination shuffles the alleles between the different pairs of chromosomes (segments of DNA are sliced and randomized between the pairs of a chromosome).

Even 'identical twins', which are produced when the morula splits after the zygote has begun to divide into multiple cells, do not have IDENTICAL DNA - there are already differences in the copies at those early stages (both genetic and epigenetic differences).

So every gamete, while being haploid (having only one full set of our human DNA chromosomes, unlike our diploid cells which have 2 full copies), is a completely unique set of human DNA, unlike either of the originals but a complex mixture of the two. The Zygote is just the combination of these two, already unique, sets of chromosomes.

References:

Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm
Cell Division
Genetic Recombination
Mitotic crossover
Chromosome
Allele
Gamete
Scientific American: Identical Twins Genes are not Identical



MYTH: Life begins at conception / first breath

FACT: Life began only once (so far as we have evidence for) approximately 3.6 billion years ago - it is ridiculous to argue that it 'begins' at conception.

Furthermore, we know now that every cell in your body could be potentiated to become a new and unique 'human being', should we decide to do so.

And there are even **single-celled** humans (see HeLa), does each of those unique cells get full voting rights?

A human being is simply NOT a cell -- it is what a very large collection of specifically differentiated cells working together in concert create, and specifically there has to be a working human brain involved. This also applies to end of life, when there is no more brain function we recognize that we need to allow the body to cease functioning as well. The mere POTENTIAL to form a working human brain isn't sufficient or we would try to save every cell before death and potentiate it to be a full human being because it HAS that potential, so this is disproved reductio ad absurdum.

Also consider carefully that human beings seem to all have the POTENTIAL to do harmful things to other human beings. If the potential for something is the same as that something then should we preemptively incarcerate all human beings for their potential to do harm? Again, that would be absurd - reductio ad absurdum. You'd have to show why your 'potential' argument deserves special treatment or you're committing the Special Pleading fallacy.


References:

Timeline of evolutionary history of life
HeLa



MYTH: Gametes aren't 'alive'.

FACT: Then please explain how there can be 'dead' spermatozoa (see necrospermia) and why they don't create babies?

See Also:

http://sperm.abc.hu/en/fenymikr.htm

What I would do...

My comment over on Forbes: If The US Spends $550 Billion On Poverty How Can There Still Be Poverty In The US?

The ignorance of privilege and prejudice shown in this article (and some of the comments) is just appalling.

First of all, the measurement of poverty is not to say where people are after they have received assistance but to measure the underlying problem. The money spent doesn't magically make things better - we often actually refuse to spend funds on root cause. Instead, we've decided as a nation to only treat the symptoms at the absolute minimal level we can possibly get away and still let the 'rich' sleep at night.

Saying things like "many of your disadvantaged poor people are just lazy free-loaders", as elmer did, shows just how deep this ignorance runs. This is an inexcusable cheap shots at people whose lives elmer clearly knows nothing about. I've lived in those shoes personally, I managed to get out but I don't make the mistake of misattributing that success. I'm not better than anyone else -- I got lucky, period. And I'm thankful even for the woefully inadequate job the government did in assisting my family during our hardest times (I remember shopping with food stamps). When my mother was working multiple jobs, for substandard wages, to try to feed us. When we had to move because we couldn't afford the rent. When that forced us to move into an area with an inadequate school system. When that trashed my education and I had to work jobs during the day and finished High School through a program I attended at night). I went from a highly progressive, loving, caring school system into one that almost despised students.

You carp and moan about it while doing EVERYTHING in your power to continue and worsen this atrocious system.

The people I know even now are working 4 jobs and trying to get an online education (the only one they can afford, as insufficient as that is). But the institution of the United States has decided that women aren't worth paying fairly and they don't want to give people actual jobs -- they want to pay below poverty wages for back-breaking and mind-numbing labor.

I would take 1 of them over 100 elmers.

Disclaimer: I now (happily) pay more in TAXES than about half of those in the US make in total income. I welcome more taxes if they actually go to improving the situation. I want to HELP people and I can see with MY OWN EYES that they desperately need it. It's not easy to help others, most often issues run psychologically deep due to abuses of the past. But I refuse to turn a blind eye and let others suffer without doing what I can.

What we need to do is simple:

1) end the drug war, full stop -- and put every person in prison for ONLY possession (not including those pleading down from violent offenses) into a program where they are released once they get a degree. This will also end that source of funding to terrorist and organised criminal organizations. This will also put a stop to ripping apart families (that are, DISPROPORTIONATE TO ACTUAL DRUG USE, minorities). The ignorant drug war is a massive source of the problems in this country.

The entire drug war is founded on racism and lies.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testimony to US Congress supporting Marihuana Tax Act, 1937

and later used by Nixon as a political tool:

"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." - Richard M. Nixon, about the War on Drugs to Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, according to Halderman's diaries


2) Anyone who wants to attend a brick&mortar community college for a 4-year degree should have every class and book paid for. They shouldn't have to jump through massive hoops that are practically designed to prevent people from getting aid. Just cover it.

3) We need a way to intervene earlier and more compassionately for those who are suffering mental and physical abuses. We need MORE intrusion and intervention into people's personal lives -- but, in exchange, we need to do so with an eye towards improving our future. You CANNOT simply throw everyone into prison -- that exacerbates the issues ten-fold. To borrow a recent metaphor, we need to OCCUPY the lives of people who, probably due to abuses in their own past, are abusing those in their current lives. If we do this with love and compassion and a desire to improve the lives of the next generation we can, step-by-step, crawl out of the current psychological deficit we have in the world.

This also means we need to stop yanking kids out of homes on the slightest pretext. The outcomes for such children are just as bleak as the abused (and they offer suffer worse abuses in foster care).

Except in the extreme cases, don't imprison, separate, & destroy -- OCCUPY, HEAL, SHOW COMPASSION.

Note that this is NOT saying that someone who harms a child gets off Scott Free. Violent acts against others should be tried. I'm talking about what do we DO when someone is found to be a threat to the family? Locking them up in prison punishes the family as much as the offender - this is STUPID.

I'm saying, take however many we can afford (let's say 10,000 for starters), and put someone on them 24x7. Watch them, educate them, make them do the things that must be done. Show them how to care for and treat children. And educate them on how to help the next generation in turn. Let those that are successful participate and lead the next generation.

Or you can take the only father figure those children have out of the home, leave the mother alone to care for 2 or 3 kids -- giving her jobs that don't cover child care. That's surely been a recipe for success for the past 50 years (NOT).

4) we need to ensure those in need have adequate shelter, clothing, food, education, and medical care. We do the bare minimum palliative care today and we do almost nothing to actually try to improve the situation. Cut 1% of the military budget every year for 10 years and move it into funding education -- not just more of the same but we need research programs to guide development of an improved educational system.

We have some of the best education in the world in some cases and we have a LOT of education that is bottom of the barrel.

We should produce a series of programs that teaches deep, key concepts and critical thinking skills. This should be developed by the best of the best and made available online to everyone along with a promulgation program to encourage people to participate (btw, things like iTunes U is already an incredible resource for free education programs -- more of that is good but I'm talking about programs more targeted at the currently disadvantaged). The majority of this is a one time cost! This is low-hanging fruit.

For example, memorizing a bunch of historical dates is PURPOSELESS and utterly worthless -- what needs to be taught (broadly) from history is why things are the way they are today -- how we got here and the mistakes we've made. And, if done properly, that makes history vibrant and interesting. Most of what passes for 'History' in schools today is actually harmful to an education.

And hey -- maybe I'm wrong about some things -- I wouldn't propose we do anything without setting metrics for success or failure and, when things are failing we need to try something else. Why don't ANY bills have clearly defined metrics for success? This is standard business practice: set goals, define metrics, measure results.