122 replies to this topic

[Haydar Husayn]

Is there a good, logically consistent argument, that secular atheists have against cannabalism, incest, and beastiality? What is inherently wrong with these acts?

Specifically, I would like arguments that are also consistent with laws that are commonly accepted in the secular Western world, such as the legality of homosexuality, animal testing, and eating meat.

Alternatively, can an argument for the legality of homosexual acts be made without the same arguments applying to incest, cannabalism, or beastiality, while also remaining consistent with the commonly accepted laws?


I'm looking for a rational debate here, not an emotional one.

[wundermonk]

Hello Haider:

Interesting topic...I myself am a vegetarian and have grappled with issue of eating non-vegetarian food.

In my experience debating this topic meat-eating atheists propose the following points :

(1)We are but another type of animal. All other animals in the animal kingdom eat meat. So, we can also eat meat.
(2)Killing a member of your own species for food is wrong.

From (1) and (2), it follows that cannibalism is unjustified although non-vegetarianism gets a free pass.

I have come across atheists who say that they have no problem *eating* meat but they find it morally wrong to *work* in slaughterhouses that produce meat.

Edited by wundermonk, 31 October 2011 - 10:39 AM.

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Is there a good, logically consistent argument, that secular atheists have against cannabalism, incest, and beastiality? What is inherently wrong with these acts?

The concept of eating a fellow person emotionally can be an issue.  Most people have empathy for other people and even animals too, which is why we tend to hide from what we eat, or dehumanize (or i guess in this case we deanimalize animals) animals before we eat them.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Specifically, I would like arguments that are also consistent with laws that are commonly accepted in the secular Western world, such as the legality of homosexuality, animal testing, and eating meat.

i dont understand what homosexuality has to do with this discussion.  Animal testing is cruel, but better them than me. And eating meat is a part of nature.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Alternatively, can an argument for the legality of homosexual acts be made without the same arguments applying to incest, cannabalism, or beastiality,

The nature of sex and the nature of empathy are two different innate traits.  Theyre two different topics.  incest and homosexual actions are more prominently accepted in the west, than beastiality and canibalism.  Beastiality is with animals whereas incest and homosexuality are with humans, so theyre viewed differently.  Again cannibalism and homosexuality are two different topics with two different sets of background laws and understanding.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I'm looking for a rational debate here, not an emotional one.

When laws are created around morality, emotions are going to be a part of moral discussions and debates.

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 10:52 AM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Hi wundermonk. Thanks for you input.

Quote

(1)We are but another type of animal. All other animals in the animal kingdom eat meat. So, we can also eat meat.
(2)Killing a member of your own species for food is wrong.

Well, these statements seem a little at odds with each other. Animals sometimes kill members of their own species for food, so if we are just another animal where is the problem?

However, if we allow the fact that it is wrong to kill another human for food, what about the cases where someone valunteers to allow himself to be eaten? Or what if a person was killed for reasons that were not related to food, and was then eaten? Would that be ok?

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Is there a good, logically consistent argument, that secular atheists have against cannabalism, incest, and beastiality? What is inherently wrong with these acts?

All 3 of these go against our natural lineage.  That's a fair argument. You could say, well yea, and so is homosexuality.  However homosexuality has been witnessed in a great deal of the animal kingdom, and harms us far less than canibalism, or even incest.  Incest has always been around, and is legal in much of the world anyway.  And beastiality is of course less commonly an interest of people than homosexuality.  When you live in a democracy, it makes a difference as well on what the laws are in regards to these topics.

[wundermonk]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

Well, these statements seem a little at odds with each other. Animals sometimes kill members of their own species for food, so if we are just another animal where is the problem?

However, if we allow the fact that it is wrong to kill another human for food, what about the cases where someone valunteers to allow himself to be eaten? Or what if a person was killed for reasons that were not related to food, and was then eaten? Would that be ok?

Hi Haider: [Note...I am not an atheist...I am an agnostic Hindu although I think I understand atheist positions on many issues...so, let me provide my input based on my understanding of the issue]

When this is pointed out, the common example provided is that of felines that eat their young ones. The *usual* atheist reponse is that felines kill their own young because the mother figures out which of the young ones are weak and are unlikely to survive. That being the case, the mother kills the young one to reduce the pressure on other kittens who are more likely to survive.

From an evolutionary stand point, it doesnt make sense to kill members of your OWN species *primarily* for food. When things are going ok [that is there is no sudden change in predator/prey population dynamics, etc.] it is evolutionarily damaging to kill a member of your own species.

In case where there are *exceptional* circumstances, I believe [I could be wrong here], there is no moral reason *not* to eat a member of your own species.

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Edited by wundermonk, 31 October 2011 - 10:52 AM.

[iSilurian]

wundermonk, on 31 October 2011 - 10:49 AM, said:

In case where there are *exceptional* circumstances, I believe [I could be wrong here], there is no moral reason *not* to eat a member of your own species.

People have empathy for other people.  We do have a natural moral reason not to eat eachother.  However, im not sure if you meant this, but yes in exceptional circumstances, people do bypass the whole emotion thing and they bust a grub.

[Haydar Husayn]

wundermonk, on 31 October 2011 - 10:49 AM, said:

Hi Haider: [Note...I am not an atheist...I am an agnostic Hindu although I think I understand atheist positions on many issues...so, let me provide my input based on my understanding of the issue]

When this is pointed out, the common example provided is that of felines that eat their young ones. The *usual* atheist reponse is that felines kill their own young because the mother figures out which of the young ones are weak and are unlikely to survive. That being the case, the mother kills the young one to reduce the pressure on other kittens who are more likely to survive.

From an evolutionary stand point, it doesnt make sense to kill members of your OWN species *primarily* for food. When things are going ok [that is there is no sudden change in predator/prey population dynamics, etc.] it is evolutionarily damaging to kill a member of your own species.

In case where there are *exceptional* circumstances, I believe [I could be wrong here], there is no moral reason *not* to eat a member of your own species.

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Cannibalism is actually quite common in the animal kingdom considered as a whole.


In zoology, cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species [1] It does not, as once believed, occur only as a result of extreme food shortages or artificial conditions, but commonly occurs under natural conditions in a variety of species.[1][2][3] Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to approximately 90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle. Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores and detritivores.[2]

http://en.wikipedia....alism_(zoology)

[Haydar Husayn]

iSilurian, on 31 October 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

The concept of eating a fellow person emotionally can be an issue.  Most people have empathy for other people and even animals too, which is why we tend to hide from what we eat, or dehumanize (or i guess in this case we deanimalize animals) animals before we eat them.

I think it is generally agreed that emotions are not a very good basis on which to form law. It is just some biochemical reaction anyway. Why should it be given so much importance?

Emotionally, most people have traditionally been in favour of the death penalty, and against homosexuality, even despite the massive amount of propoganda in the opposite direction. However, these emotions are dismissed whe making law.

Quote

i dont understand what homosexuality has to do with this discussion.  Animal testing is cruel, but better them than me. And eating meat is a part of nature.

It seems to me that arguments are used in favour of homosexuality that could just as well apply to these other issues, and I'm trying to find out if there is a way to defend homosexuality without having to accept these other things in order to stay consistent.

Cannabalism and incest are part of nature too, even among humans. There have been many civilisations that have eaten other humans, and continue to do so even now. There have also been civilisations where incest was practiced.

Quote

The nature of sex and the nature of empathy are two different innate traits.  Theyre two different topics.  incest and homosexual actions are more prominently accepted in the west, than beastiality and canibalism.  Beastiality is with animals whereas incest and homosexuality are with humans, so theyre viewed differently.  Again cannibalism and homosexuality are two different topics with two different sets of background laws and understanding.

Incest isn't really accepted. It is not always illegal in itself (although it still frequently is), but incestuous marriages are illegal almost everywhere. I don't see the logic in this.

I agree that these topic are seperate, but they have some things in common, so I would rather discuss them all in one thread. Everyone is free just to focus on one particular issue though.

I don't see why it is ok to kill an animal, to do testing on them even for trivial things such as cosmetics, to lock them up in horrible conditions, to display them in zoos and circuses, to use them for entertainement, to beat them, but to have sex with them is forbidden.

I don't see why sex between two consenting adults of the same gender is normal, but sex between two members of the same family is immoral.

I don't see why eating one type of dead animal flesh is ok, but not another.

Quote

When laws are created around morality, emotions are going to be a part of moral discussions and debates.

What is the basis for this morality? Why is homosexuality morally ok, but those other things aren't?

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I think it is generally agreed that emotions are not a very good basis on which to form law. It is just some biochemical reaction anyway. Why should it be given so much importance?

emotions are not a good basis on which to form law? haha, says the people who believe sharia law should be created around the world .  Sorry, as a non muslim, im sure you can imagine why i find that statement funny. (i would say that Islam itself is a product of those emotions, and thus sharia would be too).

But yes, our emotions should absolutely be given importance in forming laws.  Because if the people arent happy...well, then you will have a problem forcing them to abide by those laws.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Emotionally, most people have traditionally been in favour of the death penalty, and against homosexuality, even despite the massive amount of propoganda in the opposite direction. However, these emotions are dismissed when making law.

I disagree, ive always been more or less against the death penalty and for homosexual peoples rights.  So, perhaps youre simply not recognizing what the demographics are.  Also, i tend to vote for politicians who support my views, and therefore my emotions are not dismissed when these laws are made. Maybe 2000 years ago, peoples opinions on these matters were different.  But not today.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

It seems to me that arguments are used in favour of homosexuality that could just as well apply to these other issues.

you would have to explain to me what you mean when you say this.  Otherwise i dont really know what to say.  Just be specific with what "arguments" youre referring to.  Are they the arguments that i have used? If so, just copy and paste my words ver batim and then apply them to things like cannibalism/homosexuality.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Cannabalism and incest are part of nature too, even among humans. There have been many civilisations that have eaten other humans, and continue to do so even now. There have also been civilisations where incest was practiced.

Incest is practiced in every civilization yes.  Cannibalism, far less so.  In order to eat humans, normally you have to kill them.  And most people arent interested in murdering people for the sake of eating them.  I have enough trouble seeing a dead deer, let alone eating it.  Thankfully when its prepackaged i dont have to deal with that.  It makes eating more enjoyable when your food isnt fighting for its life as people would.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Incest isn't really accepted. It is not always illegal in itself (although it still frequently is), but incestuous marriages are illegal almost everywhere. I don't see the logic in this.

well, not really.  I know here in the US i can marry my second cousins and beyond.  That is incest.  Who doesnt accept incest?  We will have to be more specific on what kind of incest, because realistically speaking, were all related anyway.  Incest is bad in regards to genetic diversity.  But obviously people want sex, and if a close family member is available, sometimes people go for it.  its a lot easier to have sex with a cousin than it is to murder a person for the sake of eating him.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I agree that these topic are seperate, but they have some things in common, so I would rather discuss them all in one thread. Everyone is free just to focus on one particular issue though.

we should probably separate the discussion then, into sections.  With too many sections it will be confusing.  so far your responses have been fine though.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I don't see why it is ok to kill an animal, to do testing on them even for trivial things such as cosmetics, to lock them up in horrible conditions, to display them in zoos and circuses, to use them for entertainement, to beat them, but to have sex with them is forbidden.

Well, killing animals is inevitable.  You cant be a human and not kill animals in some way shape or form.  Just us being alive is enough to kill them based on how we live.  I agree that it seems wrong to use animals in such ways, but for the sake of making money, people will do anything.  If more money = drugging up a cow to make it more meaty, well then thats more money in the pockets of people, less complaints from the people, and everyone is happy except for the cow which has nothing to say about it.  I didnt make the rules of nature, but it is a dog eat dog world, theres nothing we can do about it at the current time. Its a necissary evil to use other animals for our own survival.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I don't see why sex between two consenting adults of the same gender is normal, but sex between two members of the same family is immoral.

I dont see where you get the idea that same gender sex is normal, nor do i see why you think two family members having sex is immoral.  Again it depends on what family members were talking about.  And many people are more or less indifferent when it comes to gay rights.  However that doesnt necessarily mean that its normal.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I don't see why eating one type of dead animal flesh is ok, but not another.

You go try to murder and prepare a human for dinner tonight , let me know how "ok" it is in comparison to eating people.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

What is the basis for this morality? Why is homosexuality morally ok, but those other things aren't?

I would say morality has a lot to do with what is beneficial for our survival.  It would be morally wrong for all countries to drop nukes on eachother because it would destroy us.  But when two women want to have a good time, well...thats not really going to harm anyone.  So some people do it, and other people arent being hurt by it, so they say "ok", and their combined numbers give them the democratic pass on law.

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 01:07 PM.

[macisaac]

But who is talking about murder?  How, from an atheistic perspective, would it be morally wrong to eat people say after they have died?  You could save on a lot of land space that, as an atheist, one would believe is just being used to hold dead, useless bodies that are going to rot away.  Why not save the land space and as well as not letting that meat go to waste?

[iSilurian]

macisaac, on 31 October 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

But who is talking about murder?  How, from an atheistic perspective, would it be morally wrong to eat people say after they have died?  You could save on a lot of land space that, as an atheist, one would believe is just being used to hold dead, useless bodies that are going to rot away.  Why not save the land space and as well as not letting that meat go to waste?

Bodies rot away fairly quickly in this world, well, unless u stuff em with drugs.  So the whole "lot of land space" and "after they have died" thing doesnt work so well.  Also, i personally would rather not give away my loved ones for consumption.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of people chopping my loved ones to pieces and then chewing on them...are you?

[Haydar Husayn]

iSilurian, on 31 October 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

emotions are not a good basis on which to form law? haha, says the people who believe sharia law should be created around the world .  Sorry, as a non muslim, im sure you can imagine why i find that statement funny. (i would say that Islam itself is a product of those emotions, and thus sharia would be too).

From the point of view of someone who believes in Islam, it makes perfect sense to want to live according to God's laws. It has nothing to do with emotions.

Quote

But yes, our emotions should absolutely be given importance in forming laws.  Because if the people arent happy...well, then you will have a problem forcing them to abide by those laws.

I doubt many legislators would agree with you. The vast majority of people don't like piracy laws, but they are still made. I gave you some other examples as well.

Quote

I disagree, ive always been more or less against the death penalty and for homosexual peoples rights.  So, perhaps youre simply not recognizing what the demographics are.  Also, i tend to vote for politicians who support my views, and therefore my emotions are not dismissed when these laws are made. Maybe 2000 years ago, peoples opinions on these matters were different.  But not today.

Polls have consistently shown public support for the death penalty in many countries where it is illegal, and they also show opposition to gay marriage, until perhaps very recently. The change in the laws had nothing to do with the public. It is very unlikely that homosexuality could have become legal in most countries if it had gone to a referendum back when the law was changed. The same goes for abortion.

Since then, there has of course been a massive amount of propaganda in favour of these positions, so it's hard to draw too many conclusions from any current public support.

Quote

you would have to explain to me what you mean when you say this.  Otherwise i dont really know what to say.  Just be specific with what "arguments" youre referring to.  Are they the arguments that i have used? If so, just copy and paste my words ver batim and then apply them to things like cannibalism/homosexuality.

No, I am not referring to anything you have said, just the commong arguments that get used such as 'two consenting adults, etc'.

Quote

Incest is practiced in every civilization yes.  Cannibalism, far less so.  In order to eat humans, normally you have to kill them.  And most people arent interested in murdering people for the sake of eating them.  I have enough trouble seeing a dead deer, let alone eating it.  Thankfully when its prepackaged i dont have to deal with that.  It makes eating more enjoyable when your food isnt fighting for its life as people would.

Cannabalism was historically relatively widespread in Africa, South America, the Pacific islands, and perhaps elsewhere. Even today, you read cases of cannabalism in Africa, such as in the Congo. Just google cannabalism in congo.

Quote

well, not really.  I know here in the US i can marry my second cousins and beyond.  That is incest.  Who doesnt accept incest?  We will have to be more specific on what kind of incest, because realistically speaking, were all related anyway.  Incest is bad in regards to genetic diversity.  But obviously people want sex, and if a close family member is available, sometimes people go for it.  its a lot easier to have sex with a cousin than it is to murder a person for the sake of eating him.

I was referring to marriage between immediate family members such as brother and sister, father and daugher, mother and son, uncle and niece, etc. But we can include first cousins if you want. I don't think that really helps you though. What possible coherent argument can there be against first cousin marriage?

Quote

we should probably separate the discussion then, into sections.  With too many sections it will be confusing.  so far your responses have been fine though.

I think for the time being, it is ok to keep them together. If need be, we will address one issue at a time.

Quote

Well, killing animals is inevitable.  You cant be a human and not kill animals in some way shape or form.  Just us being alive is enough to kill them based on how we live.

You could say the same about other humans. The way the rich live leads to the death of some of the poor.

Quote

I agree that it seems wrong to use animals in such ways, but for the sake of making money, people will do anything.  If more money = drugging up a cow to make it more meaty, well then thats more money in the pockets of people, less complaints from the people, and everyone is happy except for the cow which has nothing to say about it.  I didnt make the rules of nature, but it is a dog eat dog world, theres nothing we can do about it at the current time. Its a necissary evil to use other animals for our own survival.

It is not at all necessary to use animals in all the ways they are used.

Quote

I dont see where you get the idea that same gender sex is normal, nor do i see why you think two family members having sex is immoral.  Again it depends on what family members were talking about.  And many people are more or less indifferent when it comes to gay rights.  However that doesnt necessarily mean that its normal.

Are you telling me that message coming from the media isn't that homosexuality is normal?

Quote

You go try to murder and prepare a human for dinner tonight , let me know how "ok" it is in comparison to eating people.

Like macisaac said, I'm not talking about murder. I could, but that would open a whole new can of worms.

Quote

I would say morality has a lot to do with what is beneficial for our survival.  It would be morally wrong for all countries to drop nukes on eachother because it would destroy us.  But when two women want to have a good time, well...thats not really going to harm anyone.  So some people do it, and other people arent being hurt by it, so they say "ok", and their combined numbers give them the democratic pass on law.

I suppose what I am trying to get at is what is the basis for your morality? I know what mine is, the laws of God. What is yours?

[macisaac]

iSilurian, on 31 October 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Bodies rot away fairly quickly in this world, well, unless u stuff em with drugs.  So the whole "lot of land space" and "after they have died" thing doesnt work so well.  Also, i personally would rather not give away my loved ones for consumption.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of people chopping my loved ones to pieces and then chewing on them...are you?

A human body doesn't really rot any faster than say a sheep, pigs, cows, etc I'd think.  Think about it, have say a butchery attached to the local hospitals so when grandma goes, wham bham shezam she's also provided the meal for the funeral reception.  Again, from an atheist perspective (which obviously I do not share myself), how is this morally wrong?

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

From the point of view of someone who believes in Islam, it makes perfect sense to want to live according to God's laws. It has nothing to do with emotions.

To each their own

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

I doubt many legislators would agree with you. The vast majority of people don't like piracy laws, but they are still made. I gave you some other examples as well.

Piracy laws go against other laws built for the sake of a companies protection. And yes enough legislators agree with me on a handfull of my emotional interests.  But, this discussion shouldnt turn into a small banterring.  If you have a legitimate statement to make, make it.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

Polls have consistently shown public support for the death penalty in many countries where it is illegal, and they also show opposition to gay marriage, until perhaps very recently. The change in the laws had nothing to do with the public. It is very unlikely that homosexuality could have become legal in most countries if it had gone to a referendum back when the law was changed. The same goes for abortion.
Since then, there has of course been a massive amount of propaganda in favour of these positions, so it's hard to draw too many conclusions from any current public support.

Well, perhaps that country needs to reexamine its democratic values.  Changes in laws have many factors and "ok" for your last part.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

No, I am not referring to anything you have said, just the commong arguments that get used such as 'two consenting adults, etc'.

ok, well sorry, im not familiar with these arguments.  I do have atheistic views though, so i would assume that my own arguments could be used.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

Cannabalism was historically relatively widespread in Africa, South America, the Pacific islands, and perhaps elsewhere. Even today, you read cases of cannabalism in Africa, such as in the Congo. Just google cannabalism in congo.

and?

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

I was referring to marriage between immediate family members such as brother and sister, father and daugher, mother and son, uncle and niece, etc. But we can include first cousins if you want. I don't think that really helps you though. What possible coherent argument can there be against first cousin marriage?

My argument against first cousin marriage? Many places allow first cousin marriages.  I personally would say that it hurts our genetic variation though.  Which is not good for us.  Plus it increases the changes of babies being born with defects.  Im not sure if thats the kind of answer youre looking for.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

You could say the same about other humans. The way the rich live leads to the death of some of the poor.

Sure, but they arent exactly going extinct.  Also, again we dehumanize people before we kill them too.  Heck, nobody even sees people in pain when they simply shoot a rocket from hundreds of miles away.  Preparing them for brunch though is still completely different.  I asked the question in my last post...would you be ok with giving up your loved ones to be chopped up and eaten?  I know i wouldnt.  But i would be ok with shooting a missile at people i cant see, and i would be ok with chopping down trees to build my house.  Thats rhetoric, of course i personally am not the person to drop bombs or cut down trees, but you get the idea.  Some actions are far more personal than others.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

It is not at all necessary to use animals in all the ways they are used.

ok?

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

Are you telling me that message coming from the media isn't that homosexuality is normal?

It depends on how you define homosexuality.  And, the media and reality are two different things.  I guess it depends on what media youre referring to as well.  Bill Oreilly isnt going to promote gay sex, but maybe a movie will.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

Like macisaac said, I'm not talking about murder. I could, but that would open a whole new can of worms.

well, i responded to macisaacs post above. have a look.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

I suppose what I am trying to get at is what is the basis for your morality? I know what mine is, the laws of God. What is yours?

My basis for morality are my emotions and my knowledge.

macisaac, on 31 October 2011 - 01:48 PM, said:

A human body doesn't really rot any faster than say a sheep, pigs, cows, etc I'd think.  Think about it, have say a butchery attached to the local hospitals so when grandma goes, wham bham shezam she's also provided the meal for the funeral reception.  Again, from an atheist perspective (which obviously I do not share myself), how is this morally wrong?

Most animals are prepared upon death.  When humans die, they arent immediately prepared.  This whole discussion, no offense is just full of holes on your part.  And again, i wouldnt give up my grandma to hungry homeless people haha.  would you?  I wouldnt, i love my mum mum .  the homeless bumbs can starve for all i care, i dont know them.

Realistically speaking, you guys know right from wrong, not from scripture, but from your emotions.  Non religious countries have morals too.  So you shouldnt be asking me where my morals come from.  There are only so many places my morals could come from.

Nobody, religious or non religious is going to send their loved grandma to a meat factory.

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[halwahalwa_1.1]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Is there a good, logically consistent argument, that secular atheists have against cannabalism, incest, and beastiality? What is inherently wrong with these acts?

Specifically, I would like arguments that are also consistent with laws that are commonly accepted in the secular Western world, such as the legality of homosexuality, animal testing, and eating meat.

Alternatively, can an argument for the legality of homosexual acts be made without the same arguments applying to incest, cannabalism, or beastiality, while also remaining consistent with the commonly accepted laws?


I'm looking for a rational debate here, not an emotional one.

When you are using "secular atheists"  you mean simply "atheist" I guess ?

First, we as human being, our moral Judgement is entirely dependent on our experience through which we can put labels of "good or bad" on our social behaviors : cannabalism, incest, beastiality, homosexuality and others (kiling, raping, stealing or marriying, working etc.)

Our moral Judgment rise proportionally to our wisdom (+ knwoledge) which is a consequence of our personal experience. Experience is how we human, an intelligent animal, try to improve first our personal state and then the state of our society in accordance with the benefit or the prejudice acquired by having such or such behavior.

1)For example, killing somebody or harming (in a society) causes prejudice and not benefit
-from ethical point of view is it good to take life ? (no because killing is to forbid somebody to live)
-who are you to kill somebody or forbid him to live ? (as both, the killer and the killed, are equal in the intelligent animal reign)
-animals (inferior) kill to eat, to defend and not for free, so you have only one choice means to defend even when talking of defense you are not compelled to kill because you have something that animals don't have : the power of persuasion and argumentation
etc.

These systems are based upon experience :

A-Religions or the ways of life that teaches you how to live is also based on some kind of experiences (there is no best religion or worse religion, all are equal)
B-Philosophical ways of life
C-Laws that regulate a modern society
D-Purely experience based ways of live

Religious people use A-) B-) and C-)
Non religious people use B-) C-) and D-)

The result is same, one way or the other.

--------------------X------------------------

The 3 behaviors below harm a society, so as wise society we forbid these behaviors.

Cannibalism : As intelligent animals we are different from inferior animals (non-human) who have no choices whereas we have choice to not eat our brethren, this choice comes when you are sufficiently aware of what you represent (you have morals and manners or moral conduct codified by the society). Thus some moral conduct are codified by the society itself for its benefits. There are also cases of animal (inferior) cannibalism. If an intelligent animal (human) eats animals (inferior) it's also a type of cannibalism but the level is low. We as intelligent animals we have this choice to not eat inferior animals. So why not to follow our intelligence and wisdom. Vegeterianism is the best way to express our wisdom.  

Incest : The case of incest is somehow similar. Theoretically there would not be a problem having sexual intercourse with your mother or your father or your sister or your brother but as intelligent human we have defined some boundaries of social relation because our society relies on these type of relations. What a society where you can not say if your mother is your wife or your mother ? And so on. It will not benefit our society.

Beastiality : Same case.

Homosexuality : This behavior is not a desease. It's a natural behavior. It doesn't harm a society. It's a neutral behavior. And through this behavior some person can live gladly and with satisfaction. As it doesn't harm a society so there is no reason to condemn homosexuality.

Edited by halwahalwa_1.1, 31 October 2011 - 03:19 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

halwahalwa_1.1, on 31 October 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

When you are using "secular atheists"  you mean simply "atheist" I guess ?

No, theoretically an atheist could believe in living in a state that is not completely secular. He may consider that although he personally doesn't believe in God, the greater good of society is better served by living in a state that maintains some aspects of religion. In fact, I think most atheists are in this category, even when they don't realise it. Hardly anyone would like to live in a consistently secular and atheistic society.

Quote

First, we as human being, our moral Judgement is entirely dependent on our experience through which we can put labels of "good or bad" on our social behaviors : cannabalism, incest, beastiality, homosexuality and others (kiling, raping, stealing or marriying, working etc.)

How can your experience tell you if something is morally good or bad?

Quote

Our moral Judgment rise proportionally to our wisdom (+ knwoledge) which is a consequence of our personal experience. Experience is how we human, an intelligent animal, try to improve first our personal state and then the state of our society in accordance with the benefit or the prejudice acquired by having such or such behavior.

Nazi Germany had accumulated much more knowledge and wisdom than many more 'primitive' societies. It had a great cultural and philosophical heritage. But would you consider it was particularly moral? Is it obvious that the current attitude towards abortion is so moral? Not to me.

Quote

1)For example, killing somebody or harming (in a society) causes prejudice and not benefit
-from ethical point of view is it good to take life ? (no because killing is to forbid somebody to live)
-who are you to kill somebody or forbid him to live ? (as both, the killer and the killed, are equal in the intelligent animal reign)
-animals (inferior) kill to eat, to defend and not for free, so you have only one choice means to defend even when talking of defense you are not compelled to kill because you have something that animals don't have : the power of persuasion and argumentation
etc.

Who are you to forbid an animal to live? Who says that intelligence should be the principle criteria in determining that human live is sacred, but animal life isn't?

I don't see why one biochemical organism should be considered more important than the other, based on the greater complexity of the brain. It seems very arbitary. And why is it then not ok to kill mentally handicapped people? Or people with low IQ? They are inferior in intelligence after all.

Quote

These systems are based upon experience :

A-Religions or the ways of life that teaches you how to live is also based on some kind of experiences (there is no best religion or worse religion, all are equal)
B-Philosophical ways of life
C-Laws that regulate a modern society
D-Purely experience based ways of live

Religious people use A-) B-) and C-)
Non religious people use B-) C-) and D-)

The result is same, one way or the other.

--------------------X------------------------

What makes you think all religions are equal? Even from an atheist perspective, there is little reason to think that, unless you consider all moral systems to be equal, which would be consistent with atheist beliefs. I doubt you believe that however.

Quote

The 3 behaviors below harm a society, so as wise society we forbid these behaviors.

Cannibalism : As intelligent animals we are different from inferior animals (non-human) who have no choices whereas we have choice to not eat our brethren, this choice comes when you are sufficiently aware of what you represent (you have morals and manners or moral conduct codified by the society). Thus some moral conduct are codified by the society itself for its benefits. There are also cases of animal (inferior) cannibalism. If an intelligent animal (human) eats animals (inferior) it's also a type of cannibalism but the level is low. We as intelligent animals we have this choice to not eat inferior animals. So why not to follow our intelligence and wisdom. Vegeterianism is the best way to express our wisdom.  

Just because we have a choice, why does that mean we should forbid ourself one particular choice? You haven't actually shown why eating human flesh is wrong.

Quote

Incest : The case of incest is somehow similar. Theoretically there would not be a problem having sexual intercourse with your mother or your father or your sister or your brother but as intelligent human we have defined some boundaries of social relation because our society relies on these type of relations. What a society where you can not say if your mother is your wife or your mother ? And so on. It will not benefit our society.

The fact that your mother would also be your wife isn't an argument. Cousin marriages are very common in parts of the world, and this leads to your cousin also being your wife.

You say that there are no benefits to society in incest, but leaving aside the fact that there is no reason to place this criteria over others, it isn't true. Incest is a good way of keeping wealth and power within a family for example. This is probably why the Ancient Egyptians used to practice it.

Quote

Beastiality : Same case.

What do you mean same case? As in, it doesn't benefit our society? In that case, there are many things that not only don't benefit society, and are actually sometimes harmful to it, but they are not illegal (alcohol would be one obvious example). This is not a criteria that ever really gets used other than as an excuse to not consistently apply certain secular principles.

Quote

Homosexuality : This behavior is not a desease. It's a natural behavior. It doesn't harm a society. It's a neutral behavior. And through this behavior some person can live gladly and with satisfaction. As it doesn't harm a society so there is no reason to condemn homosexuality.

Incest and cannabalism are natural behaviour too, since they occur frequently in nature, and have been widely practiced by certain human civilisations. Two members of the same family can also live gladly and with satisfaction, as can someone who wants to have sex with an animal that he owns. You haven't demonstrated why this would be harmful to society, and neither have you proven that homosexuality isn't harmful for society. You are just making assumptions.

[iSilurian]

This discussion needs a focus.  I feel like people are just randomly talking without a goal.  Haidar, if you could, please bring the discussion into a coherent debate.  If you could kindly state the purpose of the discussion with details as to how you have defined it, i would appreciate it.

You originally asked

"Is there a good, logically consistent argument, that secular atheists have against cannabalism, incest, and beastiality? What is inherently wrong with these acts?"

And the answer is, they are against our well being and our natural lineage.  Cannabalism involves killing and eating the ones you love.  Incest involves genetic defects (but if its for the sake of maintaining wealth, it could be argued to be good0, and beastiality involves having sex with animals, in which very few want to do (most people simply aren't interested in having sex with a horse)

These are very simple answers.  You wouldnt chop your grandma up and eat her when she passed away.  You wouldnt have sex with your pet cat either.  So why are you asking atheists why they wouldnt, if you yourself wouldnt?  Do you think that just because atheists dont have scripture, do you think that means they would want to chop up their grandma and eat her?  no, of course not.  Just because atheists dont have scripture, doesnt mean they would have sex with their pet cat either.  Its very simple.

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 05:02 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

What about my original post do you feel is unclear?

The intent of my questions is to explore a number of issues such how consistently atheist and secular principles are being applied in secular law, what arguments atheists have against behaviour the is widely considered to be immoral, and what is the basis for atheist morality. I am happy for the discussion to go in any direction related to these topics, although I would like the discussion to center on the issues raised in the OP.

[Lanatin]

What about eating the dead meat of a tyrant or perv

[Haydar Husayn]

iSilurian, on 31 October 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

And the answer is, they are against our well being and our natural lineage.

Alcohol and gambling are against our well being, but they are still legal. You will have to define exactly what you mean by natural lineage, because as I have said incest and cannabalism have occured quite frequently among animals and human societies. There is nothing particuarly 'unnatural' about them.

Quote

Cannabalism involves killing and eating the ones you love.

Where do you get that from? You don't have to necessarily kill anyone to eat human flesh, and it certainly doesn't have to be someone you love.

Quote

Incest involves genetic defects (but if its for the sake of maintaining wealth, it could be argued to be good0,

Children born from incestous relationships carry an increased risk of genetic defects. How much is still a matter of research. However, there are people who have genetic problems that carry a very high risk of being passed on to their children, regardless of who they marry, and nobody stops them from breeding. So this argument is inconsistent with laws as they stand. To be consistent, anyone known to have a high risk of passing down a genetic disease would have to be prevented from having children, or at least would have to have their sexual partners genetically screened to eliminate people who would increase the risk due to their own genes.

Quote

and beastiality involves having sex with animals, in which very few want to do (most people simply aren't interested in having sex with a horse)

I don't understand what the fact that allegedly few people want to have sex with animals has to do with it's legality. Since when is a popularity a factor in making laws? Anyway, who is to say how popular it might be if it became legal, and their was a massive propaganda campaign to convince people it was normal?

As it stands, beastiality is probably more common than you would think, especially among people with easy access to animals, such as on farms.

Quote

The Kinsey reports controversially rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50 percent in people living near farms

http://en.wikipedia....t_of_occurrence

There also appears to be quite a bit of interest in animal pornography among internet users, so it's not farfetched to imagine quite a few would try it if it was legal and there was the opportunity.

Quote

These are very simple answers.  You wouldnt chop your grandma up and eat her when she passed away.  You wouldnt have sex with your pet cat either.  So why are you asking atheists why they wouldnt, if you yourself wouldnt?  Do you think that just because atheists dont have scripture, do you think that means they would want to chop up their grandma and eat her?  no, of course not.  Just because atheists dont have scripture, doesnt mean they would have sex with their pet cat either.  Its very simple.

I think you have misunderstood. I am not asking atheists why they wouldn't do it themselves. I am asking what their objection is to other people doing it, and why it should be illegal, or considered immoral.

Edited by Haider Husayn, 31 October 2011 - 05:41 PM.

[halwahalwa_1.1]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

No, theoretically an atheist could believe in living in a state that is not completely secular. He may consider that although he personally doesn't believe in God, the greater good of society is better served by living in a state that maintains some aspects of religion. In fact, I think most atheists are in this category, even when they don't realise it. Hardly anyone would like to live in a consistently secular and atheistic society.

Why not ? I don't see any problem.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

How can your experience tell you if something is morally good or bad?

Experience get rich through evolution by transmission and improvement to one generation to another slowly.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Nazi Germany had accumulated much more knowledge and wisdom than many more 'primitive' societies. It had a great cultural and philosophical heritage. But would you consider it was particularly moral? Is it obvious that the current attitude towards abortion is so moral? Not to me.

It's only an assumption. Where in Nazism do you see some wisdom ? Maybe you see wisdom in fascism.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Who are you to forbid an animal to live? Who says that intelligence should be the principle criteria in determining that human live is sacred, but animal life isn't?

To remind you, I don't think we should kill animals, I am militating for vegeterianism. So your question here is baseless.  All lives are sacred, no doubt. Intelligence is not a criteria in determining that human life is sacred. On the contrary, your intelligence is a criteria to not kill animals (inferior or superior).

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

I don't see why one biochemical organism should be considered more important than the other, based on the greater complexity of the brain. It seems very arbitary. And why is it then not ok to kill mentally handicapped people? Or people with low IQ? They are inferior in intelligence after all.

According to my experience, and this is why I am militating for vegeterianism is the nervous system that all animals (inferior or superior) have. To have a nervous system implies having perception at a conscious level.
So there is no question about killing mentally handicapped or those with low IQ.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

What makes you think all religions are equal? Even from an atheist perspective, there is little reason to think that, unless you consider all moral systems to be equal, which would be consistent with atheist beliefs. I doubt you believe that however.

All religions are equal at the level of transmission of a basic moral system (not to kill, not to steal etc. basic things upon which a small society can rely). I am not talking about worshipping god(s), doing prayers or some ritualistic components of a religion).

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Just because we have a choice, why does that mean we should forbid ourself one particular choice? You haven't actually shown why eating human flesh is wrong.

Through evolution, from generation to generation, we came to this conclusion that eating human flesh is not proper for our society (benefit or prejudice). As human flesh can be replaced by animals flesh, for example. But this didn't happen suddenly. It was through experience of our forefathers.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

The fact that your mother would also be your wife isn't an argument. Cousin marriages are very common in parts of the world, and this leads to your cousin also being your wife. You say that there are no benefits to society in incest, but leaving aside the fact that there is no reason to place this criteria over others, it isn't true. Incest is a good way of keeping wealth and power within a family for example. This is probably why the Ancient Egyptians used to practice it.

It depends in which society you are living. Each society has their own moral conduct codification. For example, in some muslim societies stoning, cutting hands, hanging is not a problem and this is not the case of European societies that are more advanced in this matter. I read somewhere, for example that in ancient Persia, sexual intercourse between a son and his mother (or sister) was not a problem. According to french anthropologist Levi-Strauss, incest taboo is a prohibition against endogamy, its effect is to encourage exogamy. Through intermarriage, houses or other unconnected lines will form marital attachments that enhance social cohesion and solidarity. Thus, not all societies accept incestuous relation, specially the modern societies.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

What do you mean same case? As in, it doesn't benefit our society? In that case, there are many things that not only don't benefit society, and are actually sometimes harmful to it, but they are not illegal (alcohol would be one obvious example). This is not a criteria that ever really gets used other than as an excuse to not consistently apply certain secular principles.

All is about benefit or prejudice. Alcohol doesn't harm a society. It harms only if some boundaries are trangressed. "In excess everything is harmful" even things that are not alcohol. In Islam alcohol is not categorically prohibited, for example.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Incest and cannabalism are natural behaviour too, since they occur frequently in nature, and have been widely practiced by certain human civilisations. Two members of the same family can also live gladly and with satisfaction, as can someone who wants to have sex with an animal that he owns. You haven't demonstrated why this would be harmful to society, and neither have you proven that homosexuality isn't harmful for society. You are just making assumptions.

Even having sexual intercourse with a woman, no matter if it's your mother or your sister, with a man, no matter if it's your father or your brother, is natural. But, as previously said, incest and cannibalism don't fit with the prerogatives of a modern society.

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

What about my original post do you feel is unclear?

The intent of my questions is to explore a number of issues such how consistently atheist and secular principles are being applied in secular law, what arguments atheists have against behaviour that is widely considered to be immoral, and what is the basis for atheist morality. I am happy for the discussion to go in any direction related to these topics, although I would like the discussion to center on the issues raised in the OP.

Well, obviously different people have different opinions on certain matters.  One atheist isnt automatically going to agree with another just because they both dont believe in God.  Do muslims agree with jews that you shouldnt wear mixed fabrics? no of course not.  anyway...

atheists arent always going to be against behavior that is immoral either. And if they are against it, the reasons they give are their own reasons.  i am against cannibalism because i dont want to eat my grandma.  Ok, so ive answered the question, should that not be the end of the discussion? Or do you want more?

The basis that i use in my decision to not eat my grandma, is that i love her and id rather not eat her, nor give her away to be eaten.

I'm not a fan of incest because it causes genetic issues. And I'm not a fan of having sex with animals because i am not sexually interested in animals.  Ok, so now what?

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 05:55 PM.

[iSilurian]

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

Alcohol and gambling are against our well being,

Thats not necessarily true.  Its subjective, and if you really want to get technical, it could be argued that a bit of alcohol is even good for you.  Either way, its subjective.  Not only that, but theyre legal for a reason.  Being legal may even be the least worst of two evils between being legal and illegal.  In regards to cannibalism, its also natural for people to fight eachother, but that doesnt mean that its always good for them.  A society cant go purely cannibalistic and just start killing and eating eachother.  You cant broaden the scope of cannibalism and just say "oh its not unnatural, so why arent we doing it?" because thats just ignoring all of the details.  Same with incest.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

Where do you get that from? You don't have to necessarily kill anyone to eat human flesh, and it certainly doesn't have to be someone you love.

I say that because in order for your idea to work, wed have to essentially design a whole industry around eating people, which could be associated to eating loved ones.  And again, would you eat your grandma? no you wouldnt.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

Children born from incestous relationships carry an increased risk of genetic defects. How much is still a matter of research. However, there are people who have genetic problems that carry a very high risk of being passed on to their children, regardless of who they marry, and nobody stops them from breeding. So this argument is inconsistent with laws as they stand. To be consistent, anyone known to have a high risk of passing down a genetic disease would have to be prevented from having children, or at least would have to have their sexual partners genetically screened to eliminate people who would increase the risk due to their own genes.

This is my own personal reason, along with naturally not being sexually interested in my family.  Its not supposed to be consistent with every living being on earth.  I dont expect all human beings to not have an interest in a family member/

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

I don't understand what the fact that allegedly few people want to have sex with animals has to do with it's legality. Since when is a popularity a factor in making laws? Anyway, who is to say how popular it might be if it became legal, and their was a massive propaganda campaign to convince people it was normal?

Since when is a popularity a factor in making laws? since democracy.  There have been propaganda campaigns which have convinced people that the taliban are evil monsters, is it normal? i guess so. It happens.  Its not going to be easy, but yes i can see it happening.

Haider Husayn, on 31 October 2011 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think you have misunderstood. I am not asking atheists why they wouldn't do it themselves. I am asking what their objection is to other people doing it, and why it should be illegal, or considered immoral.

Ok, see thats a different question than the first one you asked.

Edited by iSilurian, 31 October 2011 - 06:08 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

halwahalwa_1.1, on 31 October 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

Why not ? I don't see any problem.

Because, as I am trying to argue, cannabalism, incest, and beastiality, among other things, would have to be legal in order to remain consistent.

Quote

Experience get rich through evolution by transmission and improvement to one generation to another slowly.

Quote

It's only an assumption. Where in Nazism do you see some wisdom ? Maybe you see wisdom in fascism.

Maybe not in Nazism itself, but it would be hard to argue that the German culture that Nazism came from was very rich in wisdom. Think of all the great German philosophy, literature, science, etc, that all predate Nazi Germany. It it one of the richest cultural heritages in the world.

Quote

To remind you, I don't think we should kill animals, I am militating for vegeterianism. So your question here is baseless.  All lives are sacred, no doubt. Intelligence is not a criteria in determining that human life is sacred. On the contrary, your intelligence is a criteria to not kill animals (inferior or superior).


According to my experience, and this is why I am militating for vegeterianism is the nervous system that all animals (inferior or superior) have. To have a nervous system implies having perception at a conscious level.
So there is no question about killing mentally handicapped or those with low IQ.

Ok, so would you agree in order to be a consistent opponent of cannabalism, you would also need to be against eating any form of meat?

Quote

All religions are equal at the level of transmission of a basic moral system (not to kill, not to steal etc. basic things upon which a small society can rely). I am not talking about worshipping god(s), doing prayers or some ritualistic components of a religion).

That is a bit simplistic. What if one religion says incest is ok. Is it still equal to one that fobids incest, according to you?

Quote

Through evolution, from generation to generation, we came to this conclusion that eating human flesh is not proper for our society (benefit or prejudice). As human flesh can be replaced by animals flesh, for example. But this didn't happen suddenly. It was through experience of our forefathers.

Cannibals still exist to this day, so clearly evolution has nothing to do with it. Why couldn't someone a hundred years ago make the same argument against homosexuality? That we came to the conclusion that is was not proper for society, and that is why it has been banned throughout virtually the entire world? And that even in civilisations like the ancient Greeks, where pederasty was seen as completely normal, sex between two grown men was severly frowned upon?

Quote

It depends in which society you are living. Each society has their own moral conduct codification. For example, in some muslim societies stoning, cutting hands, hanging is not a problem and this is not the case of European societies that are more advanced in this matter.

By what objective criteria do you judge that European societies are more advanced than Muslim ones?

Quote

I read somewhere, for example that in ancient Persia, sexual intercourse between a son and his mother (or sister) was not a problem. According to french anthropologist Levi-Strauss, incest taboo is a prohibition against endogamy, its effect is to encourage exogamy. Through intermarriage, houses or other unconnected lines will form marital attachments that enhance social cohesion and solidarity. Thus, not all societies accept incestuous relation, specially the modern societies.

This is all very interesting of course, but how does it make incest morally wrong, or worthy of being deemed illegal? If two consenting adults, who happen to be closely related to each other, want to have sex, what is the problem? It is afterall just the coming into contact of a bunch of atoms that form biochemical machines. What is 'wrong' with that?

Quote

All is about benefit or prejudice. Alcohol doesn't harm a society. It harms only if some boundaries are trangressed. "In excess everything is harmful" even things that are not alcohol. In Islam alcohol is not categorically prohibited, for example.

I beg to differ. The negative effects of alcohol on society are plain to see for everyone. You could argue that those effects wouldn't exist if everyone drank in moderation, but that is not what is happening. I would also say that there is no obvious reason that incest, beastiality, or cannabalism, practiced in appropriate moderation would harm society. Of course, if it is not done in moderation then anything could happen, but it is the same with homosexuality. If enough people became homosexuals, then the human race would die out.

And by the way, alcohol is categorically prohibited in Islam, at least among mainstream Shias and Sunnis. I'm not talking about deviants that ignore the Quran and the widely transmitted sayings of the Prophet Muhammad .

Quote

Even having sexual intercourse with a woman, no matter if it's your mother or your sister, with a man, no matter if it's your father or your brother, is natural. But, as previously said, incest and cannibalism don't fit with the prerogatives of a modern society.

Why not? And why is it so important to fit the prerogatives of modern society, whatever those may be? Why can't people just do what makes them happy, especially when they aren't harming anyone else?

iSilurian, on 31 October 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

Well, obviously different people have different opinions on certain matters.  One atheist isnt automatically going to agree with another just because they both dont believe in God.  Do muslims agree with jews that you shouldnt wear mixed fabrics? no of course not.  anyway...

atheists arent always going to be against behavior that is immoral either. And if they are against it, the reasons they give are their own reasons.  i am against cannibalism because i dont want to eat my grandma.  Ok, so ive answered the question, should that not be the end of the discussion? Or do you want more?

The basis that i use in my decision to not eat my grandma, is that i love her and id rather not eat her, nor give her away to be eaten.

I'm not a fan of incest because it causes genetic issues. And I'm not a fan of having sex with animals because i am not sexually interested in animals.  Ok, so now what?

I'm not forcing you to participate in the thread.

Of course everyone is free to have their own personal morality, and they don't need to justify it. I'm just pointing out that it is very subjective, and there seem to be no clearly defined moral principles that all atheists share. One morality is as good as another, and it is just a case of how many people you can get to share a particular one. If in 50 years time enough people decided that beastiality was normal, then it would no longer be considered immoral.

On the other hand, for a Muslim, morality is not subject to change over time. God decides what is moral and immoral, and He does not change his mind. Therefore, we have a source of objective morality that gives real meaning to the words moral and immoral.