A question to all atheists

If this is to be true, then I do disagree with the intention for this thread.

However, the link your proposing that Islam is somehow involved, is frankly absurd. His post would inevitably be criticized here, not his beliefs.

X.

It is true; that is obvious. His belief that his morality is somehow better than anyone else's because of his superstitious beliefs is arrogant and most certainly open to criticism.

Back to this again are we.
As hydeman has pointed out the OP himself "you would know that the OP specifically asked what people thought of the matteras atheists, not what they thought as people who just happen to be atheists. See posts #8, #11, and #20."

Also, you responded from point 3 of mine which was: "When you ask a question which has nothing to do with a belief structure ofcourse you're going to get criticised"
Taking my words out of context. Typical.


You didnt respond to why I mentioned Islam, guess you realised that you didnt know the full story. Ill accept your apology for jumping in and assuming.

"My point was simply, in this thread, he was simply asking a question to the atheistic community, which only few actually responded appropriately. I see no issue with criticizing him due to his apparent intentions against fellow atheists."

So then you can see why few responded.
Answered your own question there mate.


Actually no, the definition isnt as simple as a google search. Very ignorant.
Other defintions out there state:
sexual intercourse between two persons commonly regarded as too closely related to marry
The crime of sexual relations with a person defined by statute as too closely related.
Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.

Just a few I found^.
Note there are many places in the world where marrying your first cousin is against the law.

Most would agree incest is the sexual relation between two people who are blood related. Which fits in the category of first cousins Which from an islamic point of view is perfectly acceptable and wide spread, after all the consequences are the same as what one may expect. They both may have been raised together socially and sexual relationships will lead to genetic defeats in future children (fact). Prophet mohammed himself married cousins which should be a pretty good sign that it is perfectly allowed and accepted. After all the prophet was perfect, right?

Like I said, you can find 99% of Scholars agreeing with this.... even Naik agrees. Its a universal fact, I'm sorry but I dont appreciate the playing dumb. Fact is, 1st marriage is allowed.
Fact is, some will see that as incest.

If you ask me, theres little difference between father/son and man/first cousin incest. Both cause genetic defeats and both have been socialised and brought up together. Both are horrible.

However is still acceptable in Islam.


Anyway, I'm done replying.
Seems like you cant admit when you're wrong. I posted the reason I mentioned Islam , I gave you the screenshot of the OP and you still are trying to argue with me about atheist vs atheism despite being corrected by multiple users.

I quoted the quotes in the Quran which allow for 1st cousin marriage and therefore incest to most peoples definition. I think you need to educate yourself more about the topic before you try to defend it, clearly its a wide spread view accepted by all scholars and you trying to tell me I've misinterpreted is just a disservice to yourself and your own belief. Lets face it, scholars know more that you right. They must do considering you're so quick to ask about their opinion.

Funny isnt it, how the Quran allows something with so much biological consequences. Its almost like the Quran rejecting something which is biological natural... oh wait.

I dont have time to debate further, exams to revise for. You being so one sided despite the OP's clear incentive just shows what a waste of time me replying would be. You bring no logical or rational thought to the topic, just misinformed statements and slight differences in the definitions of certain words.

Indeed, although his intention is something I disagree with, the absurd notion that this permits you and others to ridicule his religious beliefs is frankly nonsense.

It looks like you answered yourself, ' Most people agree...'. Therefore you admit that this issue is subjective, the definitions you put forward involve classifying to see if one is too close to marry, thus cousins may not be deemed as too close to marry. Thus, your argument falls apart.

Ah yes, 99% of scholars agree even though I haven't shown or proven this. It's pretty obvious why...

'Even Naik..' Ha! You're using Zakir Naik to support your point! Such drivel is frankly unheard of. A scholar (or allegedly claimed one, despite his open lies) that is from only one sect. So my earlier point of choosing the Islamic interpretation to use was indeed right, right?

Yes of course, it's universal but only 99% scholars agree...

Yes, so many biological consequences, yet you haven't proven one.

Father and son isn't allowed in Islam.

I am one sided, yet I agreed that his intention was not right?

Do you believe it is morally acceptable for a consenting , and informed consenting 25 yer old son to have sex with his 55 year old informed consenting father, as an atheist?