From your comments, I understand that this video generated a lot of controversy. It is important to note that the ethics of incest has a long historical pedigree. Similarly, we're now seeing academics argue for the ethics of sex for "minor attracted persons." Not understanding why people believe what they believe about this topic does not make it go away. It is the same as every other topic—it is vital to probe the reasons people have for their beliefs and see if that aligns with the best available evidence.
Every woman I have ever known who has experienced even a mildly incestuous advance has never really recovered from the pain, confusion, disgust, and wrongness they feel. No-one had to define it as wrong intellectually or teach us it was wrong.
A common response by religious people to almost any discussion with atheists is "Without God morality doesn't exist".
This used to irritate me as an obvious over-generalization. But the more I have thought about it the more I agree that it's a argument that is hard to refute.
If you eliminate God, then there is no cosmic morality. What is left is man-made morality, which is hard to differentiate from LAW. The law can be subjectively good or bad, and that changes over time. Homosexuality used to be a crime. Slavery used to be legal. We might say "those were bad laws" - but based on what? Mostly it comes down to a claim that they were immoral. Without any morality it's merely a matter of taste (or utility, or power) whether something is legal or not.
Essentially we are living through the age that Nietzsche foresaw in his later writings were average people no longer believe in God, and therefore no longer feel bound by morality ("beyond good and evil"). He predicted it would be an age of horrors, and the 20th century surely was. Has anything changed since then?
It's interesting that the New Atheists mostly shy away from discussing morality. The 10 Commandments were objectively useful, but they are (in New Atheist Land) nothing anyone has to pay particular attention to. Just obsolete claptrap. And they are replaced with --- nothing.
Is that really progress? We used to have aspirations towards goodness based on a (possibly) false construction (God). Now we have no standards at all, buy at least we don't believe in the false construct. Judged from "is society getting better or worse" I'd say it's not a good thing.
I have a few thoughts on incest in the Bible. Operating within the biblical historical narrative, the problem reduces to the problem of data corruption. We know from information technology, that data corruption is unintended changes to data and that it always results in a loss of functionality. Though most people wouldn't refer to it in those terms, we have all seen examples of this.
Before you perform any update on your cellphone, every time, it warns you to not turn your device off while the update is applied. iPhones will not even attempt to perform an update, if the phone has insufficient battery life for the update to complete before losing power and/or being connected to a power source. This is to prevent the device from losing power and failing to complete the copy of new code (functionality) to the device, resulting in data corruption. This would be data corruption because it is an unintended copying error, which is what genetic mutations are, by definition.
It is expected, not surprising, that scientists are stumped how data corruption, accumulating over time, could produce new functionality. It is something that one could only imagine, and it was “far easier to envision and defend the concept of a universal tree of life before we had data from genomes." doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-34
So what does this have to do with incest and the Bible? In Genesis, it claims God made everything good (Genesis 1:31). Combining what we know from the field of genetics, information technology, and the biblical narrative, if Adam was created as a human, his DNA would not contain mutations or copying errors at the time of his creation, nor would Eve's. When their offspring bred with each other, there were very few, if any, mutations to be concerned with, so incest was not a biological problem. Thousands of years later, mutations (copying errors) had time to accumulate, and the danger of expressing a mutation (and losing the corresponding function) rose accordingly. So, one could argue that the Biblical view of incest, only becoming a problem later in history, is consistent with a modern understanding of genetics and information technology.
The far left is advocating for incest, pediaphilia and other taboos. Woke university professors now promote these practices in their journals and publications. Their purpose is to destroy the nuclear family. To learn more about the "Top 7 Marxism Clues," see my Substack article at https://2026.substack.com/p/top-7-marxism-clues
This earned you an Unsubscribe, for letting the MAPS push you backwards into thinking that "just asking the question" was worth posting about. No, no, no, no. What you choose to write about matters. This is not something to be proud of.
T is a Deluxe Class citizenship that comes w/unlimited taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery, the right to impose your sexual fetishes, neologisms & delusions on lesser-class citizens and to have them punished for insults, real or imagined, to your hallowed trans feelings.
Kings & Queens did not employ incest because they thought it was "morally correct," they did it because it was most expedient for their own political, economic and societal power. It was literally just about keeping wealth, power and position concentrated within the family.
But, like, what if my sister is hot? Like, Kim Kardashian hot? I think that as hotness increases, moral depravity decreases. So, it's definitely relative, especially if that relative looks fine as hell in booty shorts.
From your comments, I understand that this video generated a lot of controversy. It is important to note that the ethics of incest has a long historical pedigree. Similarly, we're now seeing academics argue for the ethics of sex for "minor attracted persons." Not understanding why people believe what they believe about this topic does not make it go away. It is the same as every other topic—it is vital to probe the reasons people have for their beliefs and see if that aligns with the best available evidence.
Every woman I have ever known who has experienced even a mildly incestuous advance has never really recovered from the pain, confusion, disgust, and wrongness they feel. No-one had to define it as wrong intellectually or teach us it was wrong.
A common response by religious people to almost any discussion with atheists is "Without God morality doesn't exist".
This used to irritate me as an obvious over-generalization. But the more I have thought about it the more I agree that it's a argument that is hard to refute.
If you eliminate God, then there is no cosmic morality. What is left is man-made morality, which is hard to differentiate from LAW. The law can be subjectively good or bad, and that changes over time. Homosexuality used to be a crime. Slavery used to be legal. We might say "those were bad laws" - but based on what? Mostly it comes down to a claim that they were immoral. Without any morality it's merely a matter of taste (or utility, or power) whether something is legal or not.
Essentially we are living through the age that Nietzsche foresaw in his later writings were average people no longer believe in God, and therefore no longer feel bound by morality ("beyond good and evil"). He predicted it would be an age of horrors, and the 20th century surely was. Has anything changed since then?
It's interesting that the New Atheists mostly shy away from discussing morality. The 10 Commandments were objectively useful, but they are (in New Atheist Land) nothing anyone has to pay particular attention to. Just obsolete claptrap. And they are replaced with --- nothing.
Is that really progress? We used to have aspirations towards goodness based on a (possibly) false construction (God). Now we have no standards at all, buy at least we don't believe in the false construct. Judged from "is society getting better or worse" I'd say it's not a good thing.
I have a few thoughts on incest in the Bible. Operating within the biblical historical narrative, the problem reduces to the problem of data corruption. We know from information technology, that data corruption is unintended changes to data and that it always results in a loss of functionality. Though most people wouldn't refer to it in those terms, we have all seen examples of this.
Before you perform any update on your cellphone, every time, it warns you to not turn your device off while the update is applied. iPhones will not even attempt to perform an update, if the phone has insufficient battery life for the update to complete before losing power and/or being connected to a power source. This is to prevent the device from losing power and failing to complete the copy of new code (functionality) to the device, resulting in data corruption. This would be data corruption because it is an unintended copying error, which is what genetic mutations are, by definition.
This is why it would be expected that "mutations having negative or negligible effects on fitness are more common and thus easily studied, while those having positive effects on fitness are far rarer and thus studied only with difficulty." doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0282 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871816/pdf/rstb20090282.pdf
It is expected, not surprising, that scientists are stumped how data corruption, accumulating over time, could produce new functionality. It is something that one could only imagine, and it was “far easier to envision and defend the concept of a universal tree of life before we had data from genomes." doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-34
So what does this have to do with incest and the Bible? In Genesis, it claims God made everything good (Genesis 1:31). Combining what we know from the field of genetics, information technology, and the biblical narrative, if Adam was created as a human, his DNA would not contain mutations or copying errors at the time of his creation, nor would Eve's. When their offspring bred with each other, there were very few, if any, mutations to be concerned with, so incest was not a biological problem. Thousands of years later, mutations (copying errors) had time to accumulate, and the danger of expressing a mutation (and losing the corresponding function) rose accordingly. So, one could argue that the Biblical view of incest, only becoming a problem later in history, is consistent with a modern understanding of genetics and information technology.
Huh? WTF? Ask incest survivors.
The far left is advocating for incest, pediaphilia and other taboos. Woke university professors now promote these practices in their journals and publications. Their purpose is to destroy the nuclear family. To learn more about the "Top 7 Marxism Clues," see my Substack article at https://2026.substack.com/p/top-7-marxism-clues
This earned you an Unsubscribe, for letting the MAPS push you backwards into thinking that "just asking the question" was worth posting about. No, no, no, no. What you choose to write about matters. This is not something to be proud of.
T is a Deluxe Class citizenship that comes w/unlimited taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery, the right to impose your sexual fetishes, neologisms & delusions on lesser-class citizens and to have them punished for insults, real or imagined, to your hallowed trans feelings.
Kings & Queens did not employ incest because they thought it was "morally correct," they did it because it was most expedient for their own political, economic and societal power. It was literally just about keeping wealth, power and position concentrated within the family.
Yes. It's morally wrong & repugnant. Completely repugnant. Incest has nothing to do with human rights. Incest violates nature & humanity.
But, like, what if my sister is hot? Like, Kim Kardashian hot? I think that as hotness increases, moral depravity decreases. So, it's definitely relative, especially if that relative looks fine as hell in booty shorts.