Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?

Jim Hawkins

Jim Hawkins wrote:
> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
> 
> Jim Hawkins
> 
> 

What has this to do with uk.philosophy.atheism?

On May 27, 1:36 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Jim Hawkins wrote:
> > Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
> > long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
> > to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
> > consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>
> > Jim Hawkins
>
> What has this to do with uk.philosophy.atheism?

He's probably a devout Xtian who wants to bop his little sista

On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>
> Jim Hawkins

REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very
stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
such perverted posts ?

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>
>> Jim Hawkins
> 
> REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
> know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very
> stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
> Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
> doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
> further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
> How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
> such perverted posts ?

I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly 
off topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:08Kdnc4_k6ekyKHVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
>>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>>
>>> Jim Hawkins
>>
>> REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
>> know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very
>> stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
>> Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
>> doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
>> further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
>> How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
>> such perverted posts ?
>
> I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly off 
> topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.
>
> regards, Ian

Since when was religious dogma not a fit subject for discussion among
atheists ?

Jim Hawkins

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:i5WdnSfttoWLVabVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Jim Hawkins wrote:
>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>
>> Jim Hawkins
>>
>>
>
> What has this to do with uk.philosophy.atheism?

Unlike flying fish, of course.

Jim Hawkins

On May 27, 1:38 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
> >> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
> >> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
> >> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
> >> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>
> >> Jim Hawkins
>
> > REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
> > know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very> > stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
> > Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
> > doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
> > further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
> > How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
> > such perverted posts ?
>
> I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly
> off topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.
>
> regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.

X-No-Archive: yes

"Jim Hawkins"  wrote in message 
news:9qOdnSVcRtRf8KHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@supernews.com...
>
> "Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
> news:08Kdnc4_k6ekyKHVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
>>>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>>>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>>>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>>>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>>>
>>>> Jim Hawkins
>>>
>>> REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
>>> know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very
>>> stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
>>> Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
>>> doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
>>> further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
>>> How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
>>> such perverted posts ?


>> I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly off 
>> topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.


> Since when was religious dogma not a fit subject for discussion among
> atheists ?

Is anyone following the confused and misunderstood allegations here...?
We probably all expect others to talk "civily" (sic) at all times but some 
people do not.  However, knowing wrong from right requires that we accept a 
measuring device against which comparison can be made.
The law....?  If it's not illegal it's *right*   ?    If it is 
illegal...it's *wrong*...?
Dishonesty in emotion...?   Not telling someone you are married to, for 
example,  that you *don't* love them.......  is that right, or wrong...?
When your wife says to you "how do I look" having spent a couple of hours 
getting ready to go out,  and you don't really like the dress she's 
earing  - you say,  "you look fantastic!".   Right... or wrong..??
How do we measure morality...?  Since considering .."stiff penalties"  in 
enforcing such transgression,  requires a standard against which some action 
is *right* or *wrong*.
Can morality EVER be absolute...?  or, by definition, is morality always 
relative to humans, society, culture......?
If the koran, for example, allows......no decrees, that a person (usually a 
woman!) is killed because of adultery, are the religious bigots who carry 
out such penalty *right* or *wrong*...?
If the Torah decrees that the penis of a young boy is mutilated without his 
consent, are the perpetrators *right* or *wrong* in their actions...?
If two people chose freely to share their bodies together can that be 
*wrong*......?   Is not the sanctity of each persons own mind and body the 
ultimate personal responsibility as a human being...?
Is the disgraceful and detestable notion of child abuse confined to only 
those who are non believers...??  Do christians/muslims/jews, amongst others 
ever carry out such hideous acts...?  If so, what kind of morality are they 
displaying...
Why would being an atheist be any less moralistic than a fundamental 
christian...?
Where does the notion of absolute morality derive...?   The bible?  If so, 
from where  did it (..the bible) come...?
If it is mankind created, how can mankind decide such morality...?  Is 
morality.. cultural and evolutionary in absolute terms anyway...??
If the bible was god created...... why are there so many errors and 
contradictions contained therein......??



Mark

On May 27, 4:09 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:

>
> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hit the road, U Asshole
U long ago wore out the welcome you never had

"Jim Hawkins"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
9qOdnSVcRtRf8KHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@supernews.com...
|
| "Ian Smith"  wrote in message
| news:08Kdnc4_k6ekyKHVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
| > IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
| >> On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
| >>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
| >>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
| >>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
| >>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
| >>>
| >>> Jim Hawkins
| >>
<snip irrelevant nonsense from DILV>

| > I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly off
| > topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.
| >
| > regards, Ian
|
| Since when was religious dogma not a fit subject for discussion among
| atheists ?
|
| Jim Hawkins

Instinctive incest aversion is nothing to do with religion. Interbreeding can
produce physiologically impaired offspring, and over eons of kin selection,
 the drive to successfully pass on our genes through the generations,
this has resulted in incest aversion becoming 'imprinted'.  The formation
of human relationships, generally speaking, takes account of this (and
of course, of other aversions, eg to the abuse of pre-adolescent
children who cannot yet reproduce).

Why do a small number of people do not feel this aversion? One theory is
that certain 'cues' have been missing during a person's upbringing - eg
never seeing one's biological mother caring for another infant, or not being
raised in the same household with a sibling during one's childhood. And of
course it can be down to simple malfunction - the evolutionary psychology
programming for recognising kin can simply go wrong, as with any ordered
system. In this case the standard motivations for sexual contact are not
switched off by the kinship cue.

Having said this, I suppose that in theory it is no more a 'crime' than
consensual homosexual relationships... but where do you draw the line. Although
atheists would agree that there is no objective, god-given morality, this does
not imply that we have no moral code as a result. Moral guidelines have evolved
that suit the majority, mainly responding to evolutionary prompts over time (and
as a result becoming instinctive), and as a social being conformity is a key
drive. The preferences of small minorities cannot all be catered for.

I repeat, DILV, atheists have a distinct moral code, the cumulation of eons of
evolution of the human psyche. We do what is best for the survival of our genes.
This by no means implies purely selfish acts - on the contrary. We are a social
being for good reason - how does the musketeers' rallying call go ... "All for
one, and one for all!". The 'complicated' term, DILV, is called reciprocal
altruism. Look it up.

pga

Jim Hawkins wrote:
> "Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
> news:i5WdnSfttoWLVabVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Jim Hawkins wrote:
>>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>>
>>> Jim Hawkins
>>>
>>>
>> What has this to do with uk.philosophy.atheism?
> 
> Unlike flying fish, of course.

Absolutely. Flying fish is appropriate as an excellent example of 
evolution (a fish that has developed partial flight capability) and 
relates to the ongoing debate (?) in this group with creationists 
about science and evolution.

regards, Ian

Jim Hawkins wrote:

> 
> Since when was religious dogma not a fit subject for discussion among
> atheists ?

It may well be if there was a connection, but you haven't made any 
connection between incest and religion, other than mentioning 
blasphemy in the same sentence.

Hence my question:

> What has this to do with uk.philosophy.atheism? 

...which you failed to answer, preferring to make a comment about 
flying fish.

So, in the full spirit of debate, what is the connection?

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.

Probably best discussed on a christian newsgroup, Dave, as none of 
the atheists here seem to have any idea what the atheism faith is.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:CKOdnbFqnvrdjqDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
>> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
>> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.


> Probably best discussed on a christian newsgroup, Dave, as none of the 
> atheists here seem to have any idea what the atheism faith is.


Isn't it time we *nailed* this to the floor....?
This ridiculous assertion derives from taking the meaning of the word 
'faith' and using it in comparison but out of context.
Therefore, faith, in the sense dilv uses for his beliefs -or those of other 
religious devouts - is the faith in a "supernatural power or power that 
controls human destiny".
Faith, in the sense that dilv uses for atheism, is the faith in a *cause*. 
The cause being the *cause* of atheism.  Note, not atheism itself, but the 
cause of atheism.
We can show that the direct comparison between faith in a supernatural power 
and faith in a *cause* is a false assertion by definition of the meaning of 
the word in this context.
We can further demonstrate, I believe, that faith in a supernatural power is 
an identifiable precision - albeit irrational - that concerns the existence 
of somebody.  We can show also, that (..the cause of) atheism is - albeit 
rational - an abstract notion since it does not rely upon the existence of 
somebody to survive.  Indeed, the opposite is true.  It exists BECAUSE there 
is no supernatural power.
These differences show, briefly, the way that the word 'faith' when used as 
a comparison makes absolutely no grammatical sense.
It's likening apples and pears as *fruit*  alongside, say the acorn, the 
'fruit of the oak tree........
Nuts are not apples and pears  any more than 'faith' in god is not 'faith' 
in the *cause*  of atheism.
It's linguistic and lexographic obfuscation and is shown to be thus by 
simple comprehension.


Mark
[I might add that I personally do not believe there IS a 'faith'  in the 
atheist cause...]

mark  wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> "Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
> news:CKOdnbFqnvrdjqDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> > IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
> >> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
> >> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.
> 
> 
> > Probably best discussed on a christian newsgroup, Dave, as none of the
> > atheists here seem to have any idea what the atheism faith is.
> 
> 
> Isn't it time we *nailed* this to the floor....?

Dave's just being a provocative shit-head. He knows that this sort of
mis-representation will produce a response.

He reminds me of one of those inflatable punching dolls - you know the
ones - you knock em down and they spring straight back up again, with
the same stupid, gormless grin still stuck on the front of their
air-filled heads.

*If only* it could be nailed to the floor!

-- 
Jon

mark wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> "Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
> news:CKOdnbFqnvrdjqDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
>> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
>>> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
>>> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.
> 
> 
>> Probably best discussed on a christian newsgroup, Dave, as none of the 
>> atheists here seem to have any idea what the atheism faith is.
> 
> 
> Isn't it time we *nailed* this to the floor....?

Yes of course.

It has already been pointed out to him that the notion of the 
religious "having faith" specifically means that their beliefs are 
supported only by faith, as there is no evidence.

When we say that we "believe" in evolution we mean that we are 
guided by the overwhelming evidence. The complete opposite of his 
"faith".

So, Dave - provide the real, positive evidence for your god and then 
we can continue this discussion.

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 27, 1:38 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On May 27, 2:02 am, "Jim Hawkins"  wrote:
>>>> Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>>>> long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>>>> to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>>>> consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>>>> Jim Hawkins
>>> REPLY:  1.  Its not 'nonsense'  to expect people to talk civily and
>>> know whats right from wrong in society.  In fact, there should be very
>>> stiff penalties to enforce it because of the atheists tenet of Moral
>>> Relativism being pervasive.  2.  Two people agreeing on consentual sex
>>> doesnt all of a sudden make it correct ; in fact, 2 wrongs make it
>>> further wrong. And its worse still to be a predator of children.
>>> How did you  reach the dissent from morality that allowed you to make
>>> such perverted posts ?
>> I'm sure that we'd all like to debate the issue, but it is clearly
>> off topic and nothing at all to do with this newsgroup.
>>
>> regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
> from wrong)

Ah yes, I almost forgot...

Better man decides what is right or wrong than follow bogus morals 
from a non-existent deity. Of course, if your deity was real, you'd 
wouldn't have bottled at providing the real positive evidence for 
its existence, would you?

regards, Ian

In article <483cf93e$0$904$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, pgk9
@alpesprovence.net says...

<snip>

> Instinctive incest aversion is nothing to do with religion. Interbreeding can
> produce physiologically impaired offspring, and over eons of kin selection,
>  the drive to successfully pass on our genes through the generations,
> this has resulted in incest aversion becoming 'imprinted'.  The formation
> of human relationships, generally speaking, takes account of this (and
> of course, of other aversions, eg to the abuse of pre-adolescent
> children who cannot yet reproduce).

<snip>

I often wonder whether the reason why I (and I guess many others) find 
foreign and even regional accents attractive and alluring in the 
opposite sex, is to reduce the chances of breeding with a close 
relation.

Jim Ford

On May 28, 2:52 am, jskin...@senet.com.au (Jon Skinner) wrote:
> mark  wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> > "Ian Smith"  wrote in message
> >news:CKOdnbFqnvrdjqDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> > > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> REPLY:  It deals with moral relativism (man deciding what is right
> > >> from wrong) ;  and that is shared on a widespread basis in the Atheism
> > >> Faith. Therefore, it is on topic to this NG.
>
> > > Probably best discussed on a christian newsgroup, Dave, as none of the> > > atheists here seem to have any idea what the atheism faith is.
>
> > Isn't it time we *nailed* this to the floor....?
>
> Dave's just being a provocative shit-head. He knows that this sort of
> mis-representation will produce a response.
>
> He reminds me of one of those inflatable punching dolls - you know the
> ones - you knock em down and they spring straight back up again, with
> the same stupid, gormless grin still stuck on the front of their
> air-filled heads.
>
> *If only* it could be nailed to the floor!
>
> --
> Jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's one of the best descriptions of Dimwit (aka Bozo) I've ever
read, Ken

"Jim Hawkins"  wrote:

>
>Now that the ancient religious nonsense of blasphemy has, at
>long last, been removed from the statute book, is it too much
>to hope that another such absurdity, the 'offence' of
>consensual adult incest, will be given the boot too ?
>
>Jim Hawkins
>
It took 140 years of campaigning to repeal the blasphemy 
laws, and even then the Bishops were saying "this is not the 
right time".
 

-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

"Jim Ford"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
MPG.22a76e3ee878363c9896aa@news.virginmedia.com...
| In article <483cf93e$0$904$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, pgk9
| @alpesprovence.net says...
|
| <snip>
|
| > Instinctive incest aversion is nothing to do with religion. Interbreeding 
can
| > produce physiologically impaired offspring, and over eons of kin selection,
| >  the drive to successfully pass on our genes through the generations,
| > this has resulted in incest aversion becoming 'imprinted'.  The formation
| > of human relationships, generally speaking, takes account of this (and
| > of course, of other aversions, eg to the abuse of pre-adolescent
| > children who cannot yet reproduce).
|
| <snip>
|
| I often wonder whether the reason why I (and I guess many others) find
| foreign and even regional accents attractive and alluring in the
| opposite sex, is to reduce the chances of breeding with a close
| relation.

It could well play a role (writes someone who left the UK long ago to live 
between France and the Far East, and with 3 out of 4 kids of dual nationality 
;-)

pga