The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Barbara 15,149]

For Protestants Genesis is quite literal, but no incest happened except much later in Noah times - or a bit after it (and it was considered a sin). I don't quite remember because of all things I try to keep in mind the first incest registered on Bible isn't one of them... but I'm positive it was Noah's time - after Genesis' flood...

and I believe no one knows better Christian's Bible Old Testament than Jews... it's their history after all.

[Hutcho 8,443]

[Tiwaz 539]

Haha, so true.

Pub lately:

Talking about weather --> talking about food --> some more weather --> full on religion --> ??(weather?)?

And random crap thrown in between

[Stingray 9,441]

See what happens when im gone!!!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Well thats not for us. I dont know how long it has been an allegory but ive known my whole life that the book of Genesis are not always to be taken literally. The Bible is the probably the hardest book to interpret, what it conveys is very deep and complex. To convey its deeper meaning takes more than knowledge, so for me it doesnt matter that it became an allegory after science discovered evolution because we are not battling against science, as i mentioned science helps us to understand the how. And no, it did not became an allegory simply because of evolution, it may had a role but its not the sole reason. I dont think the church just goes "oh science has discovered evolution, lets change the meaning of Adam and Eve!"

If you still think its literal then thats your deal, but the church has said thats its not so.

Also dont forget that the Catholic church is the one that studies the bible in depth, so i would think that they would know more about the Bible than Muslims and Muslims to know more about the Al Quran than any other religious order.

First a small note: Adam and Eve(Hawwa in Arabic) are common between Islam and Christianity. They are mentioned in the Qura'an.

I do no wish to turn this debate into a Religion vs Atheism pointless discussion. All I was saying is that incest is mentioned in some religions. The story of Adam and Eve is true to millions of Muslima and Christian creationists, so incest is part of it. But if you are trying to argue that the church does not make mistakes and change its views on scientific matters then I'm afraid that that ship has long sailed my friend. Just think of the hundreds of scientists who were killed by the church for saying that the earth is round. If it is any consolation to you, it is possible that is not what God meant and that the church, who are mortals after all, interpreted it wrong.

I will answer when im home - i even parked my car to reply to this. Its just that because it is in plays doesnt mean it isnt rare. I base my opinion of anthropological material, not a guess or an imprsession as that is prone to many biases. There is an evolutionary reason to install an avoidance mechanism - if you do it there is SUBSTANTIAL risk for offspring. All recessive genetic deficiencies become active... There is no such reasons to avoid homo's. it doesnt alter your genetic fitness.

Yes, I understood that concept from the link you posted in the previous page. But that is a possibility and not necessarily true. Is it a fact that there is a gene for the avoidance of incest?

And of course there is an evolutionary reason to avoid homosexuality. Homosexuals obviously have no offsprings, so if everything is due only to natural selection, then only heterosexuals should still exist now.

[Barbara 15,149]

Haha, so true.

Pub lately:

Talking about weather --> talking about food --> some more weather --> full on religion --> ??(weather?)?

And random crap thrown in between

random crap isn't the main topic of conversation between drunk people in a pub?

as for the discussion going on between Nour x Tom:

[Beepu 1,714]

First a small note: Adam and Eve(Hawwa in Arabic) are common between Islam and Christianity. They are mentioned in the Qura'an.

I do no wish to turn this debate into a Religion vs Atheism pointless discussion. All I was saying is that incest is mentioned in some religions. The story of Adam and Eve is true to millions of Muslima and Christian creationists, so incest is part of it. But if you are trying to argue that the church does not make mistakes and change its views on scientific matters then I'm afraid that that ship has long sailed my friend. Just think of the hundreds of scientists who were killed by the church for saying that the earth is round. If it is any consolation to you, it is possible that is not what God meant and that the church, who are mortals after all, interpreted it wrong.

Yes, I understood that concept from the link you posted in the previous page. But that is a possibility and not necessarily true. Is it a fact that there is a gene for the avoidance of incest?

And of course there is an evolutionary reason to avoid homosexuality. Homosexuals obviously have no offsprings, so if everything is due only to natural selection, then only heterosexuals should still exist now.

Okay, I know there are a connection between Islam and Christianity as they are supposedly 'brothers' in root. Christianity through Isaac and Muslim through Ishmael, both sons of Abraham. I also know that Jesus is mentioned in the Quran although i heard Hes a prophet there

But just because people think that its literal doesnt make it literal. So i guess we can agree to disagree.

Ahaha I didnt know the church said the earth wasnt round and got scientists killed? when was this? Im not to well informed.

I agree though on your last line though, completely.

[Duppy Conqueror 1,543]

Mind listing some more?

Out of the older black n white ones:

Angels with dirty faces

The public enemy

Scarface ( the original and a lot different than the Al Pacino one)

Little Caeser.etc.

White heat (as previously mentioned)

Out of the colour ones:

Once upon a time in america (watch out for the 3 hour 49 minutes version. There was a shorter version made that cut nearly 1 and a half hours off it ,for the impatient faint hearted viewers.) It is similar to Godfather II and also stars R.D.N.

Casino

Miller's crossing.

Carlito' s way.

Donnie Brasco.

Mean streets.

Goodfellas etc...

There's others that feature other gangs but just included some that are the Italian mafia related..could kinda add the more modern Scarface I guess,even tho not entirely an Italian mafia film..

[Tiwaz 539]

random crap isn't the main topic of conversation between drunk people in a pub?

It isn't the random crap that is weird .

[Barbara 15,149]

It isn't the random crap that is weird .

and does it get more random than weather and science vs religion? I can't imagine something more random than that

Although some would prefer gif fests

I like a good discussion even if it's about weather. The gifs just add to the topic but when they're the topic itself I'm like

[Dion 2,476]

I will answer when im home - i even parked my car to reply to this. Its just that because it is in plays doesnt mean it isnt rare. I base my opinion of anthropological material, not a guess or an imprsession as that is prone to many biases. There is an evolutionary reason to install an avoidance mechanism - if you do it there is SUBSTANTIAL risk for offspring. All recessive genetic deficiencies become active... There is no such reasons to avoid homo's. it doesnt alter your genetic fitness.

The way you put it sounds a bit like Lamarckism, even though I get what you tried to say. The process would be more like: people who would be attracted to their brothers/sisters would have "defective" offspring more often, thus their children would have difficulties to pass on their genes (which didn't have a mechanism of repulsion for siblings) or even survive (due to problems result of recessive genes pairing) and in the long run the genes that "turned off" attraction to people with similar DNA to yours would prevail, because the offspring of these individuals wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

[Dion 2,476]

First a small note: Adam and Eve(Hawwa in Arabic) are common between Islam and Christianity. They are mentioned in the Qura'an.

I do no wish to turn this debate into a Religion vs Atheism pointless discussion. All I was saying is that incest is mentioned in some religions. The story of Adam and Eve is true to millions of Muslima and Christian creationists, so incest is part of it. But if you are trying to argue that the church does not make mistakes and change its views on scientific matters then I'm afraid that that ship has long sailed my friend. Just think of the hundreds of scientists who were killed by the church for saying that the earth is round. If it is any consolation to you, it is possible that is not what God meant and that the church, who are mortals after all, interpreted it wrong.

Yes, I understood that concept from the link you posted in the previous page. But that is a possibility and not necessarily true. Is it a fact that there is a gene for the avoidance of incest?

And of course there is an evolutionary reason to avoid homosexuality. Homosexuals obviously have no offsprings, so if everything is due only to natural selection, then only heterosexuals should still exist now.

Well, it is a fact that people are more attracted to people whose DNA differs from theirs substantially, or something in that sense (immunological/immune [?] system different). Everyone can assess that kinda of instinctively/unconsciously, by smell/pheromones. Even though we can't be sure of that consciously, I believe that's a big part of what people call chemistry in the relationship.

[Barbara 15,149]

The trailer is finally here!!!!! I really want to watch it. It's been a while since I really wanted to watch a movie

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Okay, I know there are a connection between Islam and Christianity as they are supposedly 'brothers' in root. Christianity through Isaac and Muslim through Ishmael, both sons of Abraham. I also know that Jesus is mentioned in the Quran although i heard Hes a prophet there

But just because people think that its literal doesnt make it literal. So i guess we can agree to disagree.

Yes in Islam, Jueses is a prophet called "Issa". Though they don't believe he is a God or that he was resurrected.

Tbh, my point was never whether or not it is literal, just that a lot of people think so, so it is part of society regardless if right or wrong.

Ahaha I didnt know the church said the earth wasnt round and got scientists killed? when was this? Im not to well informed.

Really? It is very well know facts. It was in the middle ages, or as they are often call the "Dark Ages" when the church said that the earth is flat and that all the planets and sun revolve around the earth and imprisoned and killed many scientists who said otherwise. Most famously the killing Giordano Bruno and the torture of Gallileo.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Well, it is a fact that people are more attracted to people whose DNA differs from theirs substantially, or something in that sense. Everyone can assess that kinda of instinctively/unconsciously, by smell/pheromones. Even though we can't be sure of that consciously, I believe that's a big part of what people call chemistry in the relationship.

You mean people are attracted to people with different traits and characters to them. That is completely different. We cannot be attracted to people with different DNA simply because we can't tell what their DNA is without scientific experiments. And even that is not entirely true. If you are a very organized person, it is less likely that you find someone who is messy attractive.

On any account, the theory that Tom is referring to (Westermarck Mechanism) states that you have a mechanism in your brain that makes you not get attracted to people who you spend a lot of your early life with.

[Dion 2,476]

You mean people are attracted to people with different traits and characters to them. That is completely different. We cannot be attracted to people with different DNA simply because we can't tell what their DNA is without scientific experiments. And even that is not entirely true. If you are a very organized person, it is less likely that you find someone who is messy attractive.

On any account, the theory that Tom is referring to (Westermarck Mechanism) states that you have a mechanism in your brain that makes you not get attracted to people who you spend a lot of your early life with.

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

[Stingray 9,441]

There is nothing weird or Lamarckian about my ideas.

1. Is incest wide spread? No. Check the HRAF database. The worlds biggest database on ethnographic, historical and anthropological material.

2. Is incest avoidance universal? Yes. Check Donald Brown's world renowned scietific list of human universals. Google is your friend.

3. Is the work of Debra Lieberman a - mere possibility? No, it is amongst the finest work in psychology the last decade and is also thus regarded among scientists. It is an empirical work that doesnt rely on a 'gene' for anything. That is a pure strawman attack. Instead, google Westermarck hypotheses if you want to know the mechanism in which pur brain deciphers our 'kin'. You don't need a gene. You have genes that build brains, brains that have computatinal algorithms. Algorithms that - yes - install an avoidance mechanism. Just because the mechanism is fast and frugal doesnt mean it cannot make errors. Some people actually live a sibling in a sexual way. This does not falsify the hypotheses.

4. You said avoidance of homosexuals ..... So i wanted to joke actually that the only reason to avoid them is to not get your butt hurt. Do we have a gene for homosexuality. No. It is an epigenetic thing. Somethingi expalined in here a long time ago. hutcho found it boring :-) so i will not repeat.

5. Is my reasoning Lamarckianist? No. That is quite the insult :-). It is a purely adaptationist way of thinking. One in which you use teleological language, but that is standard in the field.

Enough of this. I get annoyed.

Ps: ow ..... I just finished my last two days at work debatig evolution against fundamentalistic mulsims. So excuse me I dont feel all that happy about the subject. I am in the mood for some religion bashing though. Who takes it up? My tolerance level for dogmatic stupidity has reached a new low. Try me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DustinC 136]

Ummmmm.........

I think I clicked on the wrong thread. Sorry, I'll be off to The Pub now.

[Dion 2,476]

There is nothing weird or Lamarckian about my ideas. 1. Is incest wide spread? No. Check the HRAF database. The worlds biggest database on ethnographic, historical and anthropological material. 2. Is incest avoidance universal? Yes. Check Donald Brown's world renowned scietific list of human universals. Google is your friend. 3. Is the work of Debra Lieberman a - mere possibility? No, it is amongst the finest work in psychology the last decade and is also thus regarded among scientists. It is an empirical work that doesnt rely on a 'gene' for anything. That is a pure strawman attack. Instead, google Westermarck hypotheses if you want to know the mechanism in which pur brain deciphers our 'kin'. You don't need a gene. You have genes that build brains, brains that have computatinal algorithms. Algorithms that - yes - install an avoidance mechanism. Just because the mechanism is fast and frugal doesnt mean it cannot make errors. Some people actually live a sibling in a sexual way. This does not falsify the hypotheses. 4. You said avoidance of homosexuals ..... So i wanted to joke actually that the only reason to avoid them is to not get your butt hurt. Do we have a gene for homosexuality. No. It is an epigenetic thing. Somethingi expalined in here a long time ago. hutcho found it boring :-) so i will not repeat. 5. Is my reasoning Lamarckianist? No. That is quite the insult :-). It is a purely adaptationist way of thinking. One in which you use teleological language, but that is standard in the field. Enough of this. I get annoyed. Ps: ow ..... I just finished my last two days at work debatig evolution against fundamentalistic mulsims. So excuse me I dont feel all that happy about the subject. I am in the mood for some religion bashing though. Who takes it up? My tolerance level for dogmatic stupidity has reached a new low. Try me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's just because the way you spoke, it seemed like evolution went that way because it was needed, but evolution goes by "random" natural selection, not because something is or isn't needed. My Biology teacher hated when people made statements that way, he used to say that was a Lamarckist way of thinking. Even though I never saw a close relation to Lamarckism in that way of speech, I wanted to have a laugh at you by being picky

[CHOULO19 24,332]

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

Ah yes, I've read about this before. But like I said, the mechanism speaks about avoidance of people who you spend your early life with.