Thought-Provoking Billboards for Sam Harris Events Rejected in Australia

First topic message reminder :

Sam Harris will be speaking in Australia this January for a group called Think Inc., and advertising has already begun. The group created billboards featuring lines from some of Harris’ books… only to have them rejected for being too discriminatory.
Here are the billboards. Good luck trying to figure out who’s being discriminated against.

Our recent posters promoting the upcoming tour of An Evening with Sam Harris appear to have garnered a shortage of favour from APN Outdoor, who have refused to advertise a series of these posters as billboards. APN’s justification for this has been based on the perception that Think Inc. has violated section 2.1 of the Outdoor Media Association’s (OMA) code of ethics: “Advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.”
While the Think Inc. team wholeheartedly acknowledges, appreciates and respects this section of the code of ethics, and agrees that all prospective companies seeking to advertise publicly should adhere to this code, we strongly disagree that our series of posters is in breach of it. We would like to publicly state that with them it is not at all our intention nor our mission to promote what has been perceived by APN as any kind of vilification, discrimination or bigotry towards any specific social group; what we do promote, however, is a rational and critical discourse of ideas, and the opening up of an intellectual dialogue that must be had.
To reject these posters is to censor free speech — pure and simple. Especially when other advertising agencies, such as Facebook, Google and Rock Posters have done so with no issue whatsoever.

I couldn’t agree more. What Harris said about Jesus is what Catholics actually believe. His other comments are either legitimate comments or fair questions. There’s no discrimination taking place. People are just uncomfortable having their sacred cows challenged.
Harris himself was surprised by the rejections, telling me this via email:

“Although I didn’t play any part in designing those billboards, it is fairly alarming that APN Outdoor feels that the public must be protected from them. I suppose I’ll have to go down there and tell them why they are wrong about this. I recommend that everyone eat a healthy serving of Jesus crackers before the event.”

Remember: These are topics that need to be addressed precisely because so many people prefer to avoid them entirely.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/29/thought-provoking-billboards-for-sam-harris-events-rejected-in-australia/

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I think the barbaric ignorance of new atheists like Didge and Les has been exposed.

I think your ability to defend the cuae and problems of religion and then ignoring them, is why we still persist to have problems within religion today.
So the only ignorance comes from those who think a minor warlord who held barbaric views that allowed child marriage and rape and slavery and murder was in anyway a person to emulate

Cachulin you are boring us now.Go away & leave the debating to us.You're a loser.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


I think your ability to defend the cuae and problems of religion and then ignoring them, is why we still persist to have problems within religion today.
So the only ignorance comes from those who think a minor warlord who held barbaric views that allowed child marriage and rape and slavery and murder was in anyway a person to emulate

Cachulin you are boring us now.Go away & leave the debating to us.You're a loser.

Wow did you think that all up by yourself or did you need to ask for help from teacher?

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

Oh dear....another epic fail by Cachulin.Poor poor Cachulin couldn't engage in a conversation & resorted to point scoring instead.

Some things never change.

Who cares shady, you are not here to debate, so just fuck off, its that simple

I can out debate you without even thinking.

Going off on a tangent,please entertain me with your action plan for solving the Syrian/refugee crisis.

In particular,tell me again about your military strategy for the region....It was such fun to read last time.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who cares shady, you are not here to debate, so just fuck off, its that simple

I can out debate you without even thinking.

Going off on a tangent,please entertain me with your action plan for solving the Syrian/refugee crisis.

In particular,tell me again about your military strategy for the region....It was such fun to read last time.

Well a colloboration of Arab nations is needed with the backing of UN force to defeat ISIS.
Then to allow when peace has been brought about elections and proper fair elections which would see the end of Assad.

I love a grunt thinking he knows strategy when the best he has read is mayfair.

Eilzel wrote:Your last post Eddie and you completely ignore the horror of murder. Maybe you've become desensitised, since murder is not taboo and on TV all the time.

A sad product of modern society- murder isn't that bad.

What the fuck.

Les, I've returned to answer this despite logic telling me not to.

I never said murder wasn't bad - I'd have to be mad wouldn't I? And I'm not mad.

In fact, I'd never, ever compare one horrific act against another and presume to know which was worse, that was always kinda my point against you and didge.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Your last post Eddie and you completely ignore the horror of murder. Maybe you've become desensitised, since murder is not taboo and on TV all the time.

A sad product of modern society- murder isn't that bad.

What the fuck.

Les, I've returned to answer this despite logic telling me not to.

I never said murder wasn't bad - I'd have to be mad wouldn't I? And I'm not mad.

In fact, I'd never, ever compare one horrific act against another and  presume to know which was worse, that was always kinda my point against you and didge.

You mean just like asking people to make a racial decision over who to save?
You see some people find such choices wrong.
I do not think any of us would ever want to make such decisions, because people would still suffer.
Maybe now you are starting to see the point, but the point made was on the fact billions have suffered because of religious beliefs.

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

I can out debate you without even thinking.

Going off on a tangent,please entertain me with your action plan for solving the Syrian/refugee crisis.

In particular,tell me again about your military strategy for the region....It was such fun to read last time.

Well a colloboration of Arab nations is needed with the backing of UN force to defeat ISIS.
Then to allow when peace has been brought about elections and proper fair elections which would see the end of Assad.

I love a grunt thinking he knows strategy when the best he has read is mayfair.

No that's not quite what you said last time as you presented specific plans for specific regiments.Those are the ones I'm interested in.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well a colloboration of Arab nations is needed with the backing of UN force to defeat ISIS.
Then to allow when peace has been brought about elections and proper fair elections which would see the end of Assad.

I love a grunt thinking he knows strategy when the best he has read is mayfair.

No that's not quite what you said last time as you presented specific plans for specific regiments.Those are the ones I'm interested in.

Find the thread so I can then recap, otherwise its a tad pointless.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Your last post Eddie and you completely ignore the horror of murder. Maybe you've become desensitised, since murder is not taboo and on TV all the time.

A sad product of modern society- murder isn't that bad.

What the fuck.

Les, I've returned to answer this despite logic telling me not to.

I never said murder wasn't bad - I'd have to be mad wouldn't I? And I'm not mad.

In fact, I'd never, ever compare one horrific act against another and  presume to know which was worse, that was always kinda my point against you and didge.

You mean just like asking people to make a racial decision over who to save?
You see some people find such choices wrong.
I do not think any of us would ever want to make such decisions, because people would still suffer.
Maybe now you are starting to see the point, but the point made was on the fact billions have suffered because of religious beliefs.

Your post makes no sense to the topic.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

No that's not quite what you said last time as you presented specific plans for specific regiments.Those are the ones I'm interested in.

Find the thread so I can then recap, otherwise its a tad pointless.

That's exactly what Sassy said to me recently & another poster produced the thread........then Sassy went all quiet.

I wonder why?

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


You mean just like asking people to make a racial decision over who to save?
You see some people find such choices wrong.
I do not think any of us would ever want to make such decisions, because people would still suffer.
Maybe now you are starting to see the point, but the point made was on the fact billions have suffered because of religious beliefs.

Your post makes no sense to the topic.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

Its makes perfect sense, where people do not like certain choices, this being one, where in reality given the choice I think people would be hard pressed to decide, because no matter the decision people would still suffer though fare more have under religion
So if you want to be obtuse, be my guest, it seems to be a recurring fashion for you these days

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


Find the thread so I can then recap, otherwise its a tad pointless.

That's exactly what Sassy said to me recently & another poster produced the thread........then Sassy went all quiet.

I wonder why?

Well its a daft question if you cannot be more specific.
Which means that is up to you to bring up to speed what exactly was debated.
All you have said so far is a claim to things you reckon I said.
You will forgive me if I do  not believe a word that comes out of you

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

That's exactly what Sassy said to me recently & another poster produced the thread........then Sassy went all quiet.

I wonder why?

Well its a daft question if you cannot be more specific.
Which means that is up to you to bring up to speed what exactly was debated.
All you have said so far is a claim to things you reckon I said.
You will forgive me if I do  not believe a word that comes out of you

Okay.

Eilzel wrote:You make it sound like I cannot comprehend how bad rape is. That is insulting.

Pretty much anyone would rather be alive than dead, however bad things got. And whatever our loved ones suffered we would rather they were here with us than not.

By that logic murder is worse than rape- to say otherwise is to say if someone has been raped they might as well be dead- which is a damning claim on rape victims.

No one says all religious people are bad- that is your lack of understanding.
No one, including Harris, says rape is not terrible- that is your misunderstanding.
Wishing someone to be raped is appalling.

You have NO idea the extent of suffering in this world that is caused by religious beliefs. Either because you have never looked or because you don't care.

"Pretending to know things you do not know is the lifeblood of religion". Sam Harris.

You should listen to your prophet Les, you may be more religious than you think.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You make it sound like I cannot comprehend how bad rape is. That is insulting.

Pretty much anyone would rather be alive than dead, however bad things got. And whatever our loved ones suffered we would rather they were here with us than not.

By that logic murder is worse than rape- to say otherwise is to say if someone has been raped they might as well be dead- which is a damning claim on rape victims.

No one says all religious people are bad- that is your lack of understanding.
No one, including Harris, says rape is not terrible- that is your misunderstanding.
Wishing someone to be raped is appalling.

You have NO idea the extent of suffering in this world that is caused by religious beliefs. Either because you have never looked or because you don't care.

"Pretending to know things you do not know is the lifeblood of religion". Sam Harris.

You should listen to your prophet Les, you may be more religious than you think.

Well at least Eilzel has a choice whether to agree or not with sam.
You do not have that luxery with being able to disagree with the the Quran which places people killing themselves of more value than people working hard all their lives.
If anything that is a blood sacrifice cult

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

"Pretending to know things you do not know is the lifeblood of religion". Sam Harris.

You should listen to your prophet Les, you may be more religious than you think.

Well at least Eilzel has a choice whether to agree or not with sam.
You do not have that luxery with being able to disagree with the the Quran which places people killing themselves of more value than people working hard all their lives.
If anything that is a blood sacrifice cult

Make sure you have the guts to repeat that to SM when she returns.

I'll enjoy that. ;-)

I've seen your personal hysterical thread about Eddie - some friendly advice: calm down before you spazz out again and leave for a few data and come back as a new user.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well at least Eilzel has a choice whether to agree or not with sam.
You do not have that luxery with being able to disagree with the the Quran which places people killing themselves of more value than people working hard all their lives.
If anything that is a blood sacrifice cult

Make sure you have the guts to repeat that to SM when she returns.

I'll enjoy that. ;-)

I've seen your personal hysterical thread about Eddie - some friendly advice: calm down before you spazz out again and leave for a few data and come back as a new user.

Why do you keep bring SM up?
I would tell her the same, because this is the reality your religion teaches and the fact you bring her up is the most lamest deflection to try and deny this fact

As to your advice, the last thing I need is advice from a sheep

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Make sure you have the guts to repeat that to SM when she returns.

I'll enjoy that. ;-)

I've seen your personal hysterical thread about Eddie - some friendly advice: calm down before you spazz out again and leave for a few data and come back as a new user.

Why do you keep bring SM up?
I would tell her the same, because this is the reality your religion teaches and the fact you bring her up is the most lamest deflection to try and deny this fact

As to your advice, the last thing I need is advice from a sheep

I hope so.

You and even Les were a bit cowardly when she last returned. A lot less of the Muslim bigotry.

I'm glad you are finally accepting you are a religious bigot.

But calm down and don't get wound up. Sam (pbuh) would not think that's rational.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do you keep bring SM up?
I would tell her the same, because this is the reality your religion teaches and the fact you bring her up is the most lamest deflection to try and deny this fact

As to your advice, the last thing I need is advice from a sheep

I hope so.

You and even Les were a bit cowardly when she last returned. A lot less of the Muslim bigotry.

I'm glad you are finally accepting you are a religious bigot.

But calm down and don't get wound up. Sam (pbuh) would not think that's rational.

Its nothing to do with Muslim bigotry, I would never deny you any equal rights, this is why you get so easily worked up and get it wrong so often.
What I do challenge is poor beliefs, which are found in your faith, which again the easiest way into heaven for a Muslims is to give his life in defense of islam.
That is a blood sacrifice.
So if it means I am a bigot for speaking out on wrongs in your religion, i wera that badge with pride, because it mainly effects other people, who I wish to not see suffer.

What worries me about the new anti-theist movement, and that is what it is, is that they don't realise they are now sounding exactly as strident as any fervent believer and follower of any faith.  Their 'teacher' be it Harris, Dawkins or any of the others, are leading them by the nose just as much as any priest, padre, iman does.

As for it promoting peace, it's gone way beyond that.  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.   Both Harris and Dawkins agreed with Bush and Blair, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently 'religion' has done that, not the neo-con ideas that they espose to.


Anti-theists are just as judgemental, just as irrational about religion, as any religion is.

So you are saying I should not challenge religious beliefs that effect r
the well being and equality of others then Sassy?
We should ignore them whilst countless suffer?
Any belief that effects people, whether it being racism, homophobia or religious based should have no such protection, when it effects others. To say this is wrong, when I would never deny equality to anyone religious, is nothing short of protecting religious views that discrminate.

You can challenge what you like, but don't work on the assumption that your 'unbelief' is any more provable than their 'belief' is, or that you don't sound just as fanatical as they do, or that your 'teachers' are any better.

sassy wrote:What worries me about the new anti-theist movement, and that is what it is, is that they don't realise they are now sounding exactly as strident as any fervent believer and follower of any faith.  Their 'teacher' be it Harris, Dawkins or any of the others, are leading them by the nose just as much as any priest, padre, iman does.

As for it promoting peace, it's gone way beyond that.  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.   Both Harris and Dawkins agreed with Bush and Blair, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently 'religion' has done that, not the neo-con ideas that they espose to.


Anti-theists are just as judgemental, just as irrational about religion, as any religion is.

Spot on Sassy.

The OP could quite easily be HF quoting bible verses. Not sure what I love more, that irony or the fact that these new atheists cannot spot the irony.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:What worries me about the new anti-theist movement, and that is what it is, is that they don't realise they are now sounding exactly as strident as any fervent believer and follower of any faith.  Their 'teacher' be it Harris, Dawkins or any of the others, are leading them by the nose just as much as any priest, padre, iman does.

As for it promoting peace, it's gone way beyond that.  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.   Both Harris and Dawkins agreed with Bush and Blair, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently 'religion' has done that, not the neo-con ideas that they espose to.


Anti-theists are just as judgemental, just as irrational about religion, as any religion is.

Spot on Sassy.

The OP could quite easily be HF quoting bible verses. Not sure what I love more, that irony or the fact that these new atheists cannot spot the irony.

Absolutely agree.

sassy wrote:You can challenge what you like, but don't work on the assumption that your 'unbelief' is any more provable than their 'belief' is, or that you don't sound just as fanatical as they do, or that your 'teachers' are any better.

My unbelief has nothing to do with challenging beliefs that effect others, what is important is when you defend those beliefs out of a misguided belief, which i once did also. It achieves nothing but actually helps those religious beliefs be valid.
Religions need to progress with time and if they do not then everyone that has a decent bone in their body should challenge them, not protect them,
So if I am fanatical to help save people from discrmination, then so be it, I would rather be called a fanatic that helped stop prejudice discrmination beliefs that have no evidence that were formed from books written by men centuries ago.
Again I would never deny anyone their equal rights under law, but I will not stand idle when beliefs taught effect the well being and equality of others.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:What worries me about the new anti-theist movement, and that is what it is, is that they don't realise they are now sounding exactly as strident as any fervent believer and follower of any faith.  Their 'teacher' be it Harris, Dawkins or any of the others, are leading them by the nose just as much as any priest, padre, iman does.

As for it promoting peace, it's gone way beyond that.  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.   Both Harris and Dawkins agreed with Bush and Blair, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently 'religion' has done that, not the neo-con ideas that they espose to.


Anti-theists are just as judgemental, just as irrational about religion, as any religion is.

Spot on Sassy.

The OP could quite easily be HF quoting bible verses. Not sure what I love more, that irony or the fact that these new atheists cannot spot the irony.

Ignorance at its best.
The fact is there are religious people out there more so Muslims I might add that do take literal or interpretaion view of these texts and no matter how many times you ignore this it is a problem.
How long are you going to sit back and do nothing about this while people suffer under religious oppression?
Religious beliefs are just beliefs, just like racism, they have no validity and are based on faith alone.
The fact is what is being pointed out is there are idiots that take them literally and you beuing the idiot take the defensive not caring one fuck that it does effect others,
When are you going to grow up and realise this?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Spot on Sassy.

The OP could quite easily be HF quoting bible verses. Not sure what I love more, that irony or the fact that these new atheists cannot spot the irony.

Ignorance at its best.
The fact is there are religious people out there more so Muslims I might add that do take literal or interpretaion view of these texts and no matter how many times you ignore this it is a problem.
How long are you going to sit back and do nothing about this while people suffer under religious oppression?
Religious beliefs are just beliefs, just like racism, they have no validity and are based on faith alone.
The fact is what is being pointed out is there are idiots that take them literally and you beuing the idiot take the defensive not caring one fuck that it does effect others,
When are you going to grow up and realise this?

And you have a belief there is no God.  You can't prove it, they can't prove there is.  I don't believe in a God, but that is just my 'belief'.    And for every person who uses their religion to cover the fact they are shits, there are thousands who use theirs for good deeds.   Shits are shits and will find excuses.  Dawkins and Harris are such islamaphobes they would be at home in an EDL meeting.  Dawkins goes on about what 'Islam' makes people do, then admits he has never read the Q'ran.  They are both charlatans, leading people by the nose with their new religion.

You think Saudi etc is about religion.  Stuff off is it, it's about power by a family and controlling the population by fear.

sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ignorance at its best.
The fact is there are religious people out there more so Muslims I might add that do take literal or interpretaion view of these texts and no matter how many times you ignore this it is a problem.
How long are you going to sit back and do nothing about this while people suffer under religious oppression?
Religious beliefs are just beliefs, just like racism, they have no validity and are based on faith alone.
The fact is what is being pointed out is there are idiots that take them literally and you beuing the idiot take the defensive not caring one fuck that it does effect others,
When are you going to grow up and realise this?

And you have a belief there is no God.  You can't prove it, they can't prove there is.  I don't believe in a God, but that is just my 'belief'.    And for every person who uses their religion to cover the fact they are shits, there are thousands who use theirs for good deeds.   Shits are shits and will find excuses.  Dawkins and Harris are such islamaphobes they would be at home in an EDL meeting.  Dawkins goes on about what 'Islam' makes people do, then admits he has never read the Q'ran.  They are both charlatans, leading people by the nose with their new religion.

You think Saudi etc is about religion.  Stuff off is it, it's about power by a family and controlling the population by fear.

What do I care if i can prove there is a god or not, that is irrelevant. I do not need to do so, that is up to those who do believe, as that is liek saying I have to prove something that I cannot prove exists.
Again all that is irrelevant, what is relevant is people take the view that something so intelligent would be so emotive and angry to issue and command such harm onto people as the Abrahanmic faiths do and if you think for one minute that such a diety is love, then you are sorely mistaken, because it is nothing short of evil. Yoy stand against torture, the death penalty etc all of which is endorsed in the after life of these faiths to  people, so how on earth can you defend any of that kind of beliuef, because it is barbaric.
The fact is people like you ignore your morals and ethics when you defend these beliefs that contradict your own and then you have the cheek to then question those of us who rightly challenge such beliefs.
Like I said to Zack, when are you going to grow up and stop defending such barbaric beliefs.
Religions that effect the well being and equality of others have no right to any defense.
If those religions change, so be it, but the realuity is at the moment many suffer because of them

If you have no need to prove anything, neither do they.  Works both ways.

And the most moral people I know, and I know many of them, are people who live by real Christianity, Quakers and Islam and other religions that teach love and peace, helping each other.

What's barbaric is preferring rape over religion.

That truly is a vile doctrine.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:What's barbaric is preferring rape over religion.  

That truly is a vile doctrine.

Once again I agree.

sassy wrote:If you have no need to prove anything, neither do they.  Works both ways.

It does need proving when they use those beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others.
Those beliefs again stand against every principle you have, one that wishes to endorse suffering onto those who do not believe.
So you tell me, why do you defend such beliefs, that create a belief of superiority and the worst harm to those who do not believe?
You seem to forget that it is rational reason that makes for a better quality of life, not man made bullshit.
So which do you choose sassy, something that has no rational reason to it based on myths, or something that treats people all as equal, no matter their beliefs?
If you fail to challenge such beliefs, then any of your morals and ethics count for nothing.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:What's barbaric is preferring rape over religion.  

That truly is a vile doctrine.

Religion teaches eternal suffering of torture.
There is nothing more barbaric.

What a load of rubbish.  If people misuse their religion to do harm, I will challenge it, because they are not practising their religion the way it should be pracitised.  The bravest people in wars are those that stand up and say I will not fight, very often they are Quakers.

sassy wrote:What a load of rubbish.  If people misuse their religion to do harm, I will challenge it, because they are not practising their religion the way it should be pracitised.  The bravest people in wars are those that stand up and say I will not fight, very often they are Quakers.

This is not misuse of religion, it teaches those who do not believe will suffer eternal suffering, for the crime of non-belief. That is a fundemental belief in the abrahamic faiths and its barbaric and we are asked to be,lieve this is in someway nice.
Stop defending barbatity
Do you believe in torture sassy?
If not, then you can never defend any abrahamic belief because this is what is claimed to await those who do not believe.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:What's barbaric is preferring rape over religion.  

That truly is a vile doctrine.

Religion teaches eternal suffering of torture.
There is nothing more barbaric.

No less than a rapist deserves.

But you don't believe in eternity, so you condone rape as you believe you will not suffer eternal punishment. That's new atheism.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Religion teaches eternal suffering of torture.
There is nothing more barbaric.

No less than a rapist deserves.

But you don't believe in eternity, so you condone rape as you believe you will not suffer eternal punishment. That's new atheism.

So you believe in torture then, not prison and time served for such a crime?
I do nnot expect anything less from some blinded by religion

So once they used to hang children for stealing, I guess that is no less than they deserved to you?

It does not matter that I do not believe, it matters what the faith teaches in regards to suffering.

Can you not graps that even more so from your reply?

But you believe in killing children for throwing a stone and cannibalising their body parts.

sassy wrote:But you believe in killing children for throwing a stone and cannibalising their body parts.

Wrong, I believe in people defending against those who wish to commit murder.
Those who throw stones have committed murder.
There is such a thing as self defense

I also believe when the body is dead it is better served to help those who need life saving help

Maybe you can explain why a dead body should not be of help to the living

That's ok then, when I need new eyes I'll come round to your house, shoot you, say you threw a stone and remove your eyes.   That's what you think is ok after all.

I also love how you ignore every point made sassy.

So are you for eternal suffering for people who do not believe in the Abrahamic faiths or not?

Simple question.

Are you against eternal torture taught within these faiths, that actually lead to a belief that those who do not believe are thus inferior?

sassy wrote:That's ok then, when I need new eyes I'll come round to your house, shoot you, say you threw a stone and remove your eyes.   That's what you think is ok after all.

Tell that to the dead israeli's killed by Palestinains throwing stones at their cars, with the intent to kill them
I suppose the intent to stab them also is just playing to you, when innocent Israelis are the target of jewish hate?
As to removing the eyes to help someone see, again, you seem to think giving sight to someone blind is now wrong.

When the body is dead it has no use other than to help the living.

Why are you so against helping those lving that need help.

The body is of no use to the dead, only to the living

You should listen to yourself, your views are just as fervent, just as violent, as any fundamentalist.

sassy wrote:You should listen to yourself, your views are just as fervent, just as violent, as any fundamentalist.

So when as usual you cannot answer my questions, we have the standard sassy copout reply/

You are a hypocrite and defend religious barbarity, where views taught effect the wellk being and equality of others. There is nothing worse than the extreme left, they seek to defend the defensless and instead defend the oppressors with their religious beliefs.

Now unless you can answer my questions, stop wasting my times with your childish deflections

There you go again, you're a broken record and in all probablity, a broken man.

Plus you are lying.  Read what I said again.  When you get wound up you start reading things that aren't there.

sassy wrote:There you go again, you're a broken record and in all probablity, a broken man.

Plus you are lying.  Read what I said again.  When you get wound up you start reading things that aren't there.

Then answer my questiins and stop making pathetic excuses and deflections as you are doing now

I simply will say that stealing body parts of the dead is ok, because it isn't.  If they are given freely, that's fine.  In this case, most are from the bodies of children, many under the age of 18, that have been wounded and left on the ground to bleed out and die with medics stopped from going to them and in many cases there is proof that the knives were planted.   I will never agree that that is ok.

sassy wrote:I simply will say that stealing body parts of the dead is ok, because it isn't.  If they are given freely, that's fine.  In this case, most are from the bodies of children, many under the age of 18, that have been wounded and left on the ground to bleed out and die with medics stopped from going to them and in many cases there is proof that the knives were planted.   I will never agree that that is ok.

That is not the questions I asked.
As to the dead body, why is it wrong?
The body is dead, to deny saving others is in itself a criminal act not to use those parts, if it can save others.
You offer the most ridiculous morbid sensitivity over a dead body.
Its dead, it can serve no purpose but to help others
So what you are saying is you would rather a child dies who could be saved with the organs of a dead body who no longer needs them

That is barbaric and sick.

Didge wrote:I also love how you ignore every point made sassy.

So are you for eternal suffering for people who do not believe in the Abrahamic faiths or not?

Simple question.

Are you against eternal torture taught within these faiths, that actually lead to a belief that those who do not believe are thus inferior?

Bumped up for sassy to answer

What next que the sob story to deflect from the points at hand?