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

"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.