The Instigator
ffr123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Undulating_Myelin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheist will be totally okay if someone from their family is in safe incestious relationship

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 106910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

ffr123

Pro

The only moral compas of atheis is the golden rule which implicate that as long as the action did not harm the others then nothing wrong with it....so if an atheis member of family want to have safe sexual relationship with the other member of the immifiate family the nothing wrong with it and they would not be ashamed of it or digust by it....
Undulating_Myelin

Con

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "atheist": "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism" https://www.merriam-webster.com....

Just because someone does not believe in the existence of god(s) does not mean that they are okay with incest in their family, nor does being atheist mean that your one and only "moral compass" is the Golden Rule. Here's an example to prove my point: I am atheist, and my immediate reaction to incest anywhere is disgust. But then again, incest can be damaging to someone. If a child is born from such an encounter, they're more likely to have a mental illness, which will emotionally hurt the parents and family. Incest may hurt people of the jealous type, such as if they see their crush in an incestuous relationship and feel sorrow at it. It may be reasonably argued that incest could always lead to some damage in the mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual sense to some person, and thus be in violation of the Golden Rule. This however, does not prove the affirmative position, because not all atheists subscribe to or exclusively to the Golden Rule.

Now the burden of proof is with you to prove that all atheists are okay with incest in their family, optionally by first proving that all atheists subscribe exclusively to the Golden Rule.
Debate Round No. 1
ffr123

Pro

"Just because someone does not believe in the existence of god(s) does not mean that they are okay with incest in their family,"
" I am atheist, and my immediate reaction to incest anywhere is disgust"

Why ??? can you give me some logical argument??

"If a child is born from such an encounter, they're more likely to have a mental illness"

what mental illness?? do you have some proof or evidence??

"It may be reasonably argued that incest could always lead to some damage in the mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual sense to some person"

What physical damage? what spiritual damage? does atheist not believing in the spirit existence at all?

Alright then if atheis does not only have Golden Rule as their moral compas then can tell me what the other moral compass which used by an atheist beside Golden Rule? And if indeed atheist have another moral compass beside Golden Rule, is it rule incest as amoral behavior?
Undulating_Myelin

Con

"Why ??? [C]an you give me some logical argument??"

I did, you've made your case that all atheists would be okay with incest, so all I need to provide is at least one example of an atheist who is not okay with incest. I serve as an example. Opinions often do not have logical reasons behind them. To be logical, they should have these, but to exist, they do not. While my aversion to incest has not been justified here, it exists. Ergo, I am an atheist that does not like incest.

"[W]hat mental illness?? [D]o you have some proof or evidence??"

Take, for example, the study done in Czechoslovakia http://bit.ly..., which shows that the children in the sample who were born from incestuous relations had an approximate 42% chance of having a severe birth defect, while those born of non-incestuous relations had only an approximate 6% chance of the same occurence. I should amend my statement, however, that the birth defects found here were not exclusively mental, that some also experienced "congenital physical malformations." This argument, however, about the consequences of incestuous relations, is not relevant to the main argument.

"What physical damage?"

See congenital physical malformation in source cited above.

"[W]hat spiritual damage?"

Irrelevant; my opinion need only exist to provide a valid counterexample.

"[D]oes [an] atheist not [believe] in the spirit existence at all?"

Atheist, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, do not believe in God, but it does not say that they do not believe in spirits.

"[W]hat [other] moral compass [is] used by an atheist beside[s the] Golden Rule?"

Buddhism is a moral system http://bit.ly.... Buddhists do not believe in a deity. Buddhists have another moral system they subscribe to: Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhists are an example of atheists with a moral compass other than the Golden Rule.

"And if indeed atheist have another moral compass beside Golden Rule, [does] it rule incest as [im]moral behavior?"

Incest, in Buddhism, is called "agammagamana, literally 'going to what should not be gone to', or 'wrong desire' (adhamma raga)" http://bit.ly.... The Buddha said once, after hearing of an incestuous encounter, "Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?" This appears to mean that Buddhism considers incest fairly immoral, since it is based off of the word of the Buddha.

The example above, however, is not an exhaustive example of what atheists can use as "moral compasses." I, for one, subscribe to Stoic philosophy to some degree.
Debate Round No. 2
ffr123

Pro

"Opinions often do not have logical reasons behind them."

Can i claim that your aversion toward incest have no logical reason behind them?

"which shows that the children in the sample who were born from incestuous relations had an approximate 42% chance of having a severe birth defect"

I did say "safe incestuous relationship" right? so what i mean is this incestuous relationship is not intended for reproduction but only for sexual or intimate relationship

"Buddhists do not believe in a deity"

really then who is ganesha, pattini, or saman in budishm?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Undulating_Myelin

Con

"Can i claim that your aversion toward incest have no logical reason behind them?"

You may, but my aversion exists, and I am atheist, disproving the original point.

If by "safe incestuous relationship" you mean for no purpose of reproduction than yes, that relation could still cause harm to others, if those others are offended, disturbed, or otherwise negatively affected by the existence of it. Nevertheless, this issue of whether such a relationship should cause harm to someone is irrelevant to whether all atheists would approve of the relationship, because not all atheists subscribe to the Golden Rule and only the Golden Rule.

"then who is ganesha, pattini, or saman ... ?"

These are Deva, classified as Buddhist deities; I stand corrected. However, since this example is about whether Buddhists are atheists, then the existence of Deva does not entirely disprove this point. Deva are deities, but they are not gods in the usual sense, the sense used in the definition of atheism. They do not interfere with human events, and the only deity-like attributes they have is that they sometimes exist on other planes, or incorporeally, and have long, but not infinite life span. They are not invincible, and their major distinguishing factors are major happiness and enlightenment, which are not definitively god-like qualities http://bit.ly.... According this source, however: http://bit.ly..., Buddhists are atheistic.

The fact that all atheists would accept a "safe incestuous relationship" in their family does not require the example of Buddhists being atheists and opposing incest to be true. As stated before, I am atheist, and am opposed to incest anywhere. My opinion does not need to be logical for this to be true. For example, one could not earnestly state that one who possesses an invalid opinion about an issue does not have an opinion on this issue. This is then my final (?) statement: the assertion that atheists--all of them, not just some--would accept a non-reproductive incestuous relationship in their family, is a false assertion because I am atheist and opposed to such a relationship.

I can refute said assertion, that all atheists hold such views, because that is what the title of this debate requires. It states "Atheist will be totally okay ... " which means that, if one chose to select an atheist from the population of atheists on the Earth, that they will be okay with the said relationship. For this assertion to be completely true, it needs to be true for every scenario; therefore for every atheist possible to be selected. If, for example, one were to ask me, one of the atheists in the population of atheists on Earth, whether I approved of this sort of relationship, I respond in the negative, thus disproving the assertion. If you asserted instead that a majority of atheists approved or some proportion, this method of refutation would not be valid. The valid method of refutation would then be to find reliably produced, collected, and analyzed statistics that disprove the majority assertion, or if none exist, then to make some inevitably "squishy" epistemological argument, by constructing the most reasonable argument possible assembled from valid and widely-accepted assumptions and scientific claims. For this debate, however, this method is unnecessary.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MRAAJ 6 months ago
MRAAJ
Why Is Pro directly correlating atheism to incest?? Shall i directly correlate intelligence to the amount of beans i eat!!? Pro defines ignorance, is he forgetting incest is a global taboo not bound by faith, eg ancient (Christian) royalty performed incestuous acts to keep their bloodline strong.

ps I'm sikh not atheist just incase pro tries to troll
Posted by Surgeon 6 months ago
Surgeon
Interesting how atheists are all lumped together, as if there was no morality before the current swathe of organized religions of human history. I would like to advise the poster of the debate that Atheists are not a homogeneous community and whilst some do come at morality from the perspective of moral relativism, others do not. I am an atheist and a Moral Realist and would subscribe to a view that objective morality exists and springs from facts about the natural world and our human nature. If the owner of this debate clings to a religious foundation for morality, he is infact clinging to a form of Moral Subjectivism where all moral decrees of a singular mind are infact moral. Thus if a god decreed incest was OK or turned a blind eye to incest it would be OK in this Moral system (eg the story of Lot). Hardly a strong foundation for morality.
Posted by Mostly_Neutral 6 months ago
Mostly_Neutral
I will not challenge this as i do not believe that it deserves to be challenged. I am an atheist and what i am "disgust" by is the lousy use of English in that piece of writing. Far be it from me, and forgive for asking, and i don't mean to pry, but is English your first language? Because i think that it would be fair to deduce from this, that it is not.
Posted by missmedic 6 months ago
missmedic
so you get off on incest do ya, you sick fuk
Posted by SirDave 6 months ago
SirDave
Not gonna debate this, but I'd like to point out that each atheist has a different moral compass. Each person has a different thing that they base their morality on. I wouldn't be quick to generalize.
No votes have been placed for this debate.