Comments on: Jesus: It’s Not All About Free Speech!

By: web surfer

web surfer — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:02:40 +0000

I couldn't have put it better myself,

By: Gee Suss

Gee Suss — Tue, 25 May 2010 08:15:24 +0000

Do you also believe in leprechauns?

I love how you call me "selfrighteous and the arrogant" by "hiding behing 'satire' ", while using all that very same invective yourself, … hypocrite :p

"Critical Review and parody site of the JAAL campaign" is quite prominently in the header. You are all pissed because you see folk confronting your claims that your ilk should have status, rights and privileges above other Australians. Of course you are going to call the waaaa-mbulance over it. Poor old sod.

Your beliefs are perverse, not logical and lead to violent actions in the name of your god, something that is by far a logical impossiblility.

You are offensive and your beliefs have no right to stand on top of others just because you claim your sky fairy exists.

If you don't want to be laughed at, don't have such laughable beliefs. :p

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 25 May 2010 06:34:10 +0000

Weez, like most of the omniscients, likes to quote law. You'll find dear laddie, if there was actionable material published on this site; it is under the purvue of the jurisdiction in which it is broadcast. Not where it is transmitted. While it may have occured that way in the US; you'll find it an interesting exercise here.
Whilst Weez may take some delight in quoting Hustler v Falwell; it doesn't equate to copyright infringement of libel or slander being non-actionable in another juridiction. Yes, satire may be a form of free speech but one has to wonder at the motivations and integrity (dare I use the word here) of the individuals pressing the point.
However, the selfrighteous and the arrogant actually believe, by hiding behing 'satire' that they are beyond common decency. And I don't mean the prissy, cringing type of decency that the slaggers here baulk at.
Finally, what will you all say when the Creator comes back again? Will you deny him then?

By: @sonny1408

@sonny1408 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:23:42 +0000

The dude who sent you that email requesting you shut down was totally trolling lol. The fact that he mis-spelt 'site', among other things, suggests to me it's either an angry Christian pretending to be official, or another atheist having a laugh. Either way, the Jesus All About Life guys knew these kind of sites would be set up and I'm sure they're not opposed to open dialogue!

By: Gee Suss

Gee Suss — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:12:04 +0000

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

You like many, don’t understand what moral absolutes are yet try and use it in terminology discussing morals and ethics.

Moral absolutes means things are absolutely ‘right’, or absolutely ‘wrong’.

Right and wrong is a perspective, it is not an absolute. We have a level of ethics and morality because we are social animals, we have empathy.

What’s so hard for you to understand? Why do you think we have laws and structures etc within secular social situations?

Buddhism, humanitarianism, christian atheists (look it up), morality and social cohesion within all animals has existed before religion, without religion, and after religion is gone.

Whats this dog doing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_35g

Why are the other elephants helping save the baby?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-LtWtNvDw

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

I can’t believe you are having such a hard time dealing with the concepts of right and wrong, and that you only get them from your book.

Are you saying without your god, if it was proved there was no god tomorrow for aguments sake .. you would go out raping, murdering, stealing etc etc?

sad

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:37:01 +0000

My point is that if I believe I have the right to take other people’s money without their permission, why is that ‘wrong’? You’re saying it’s because we’re social beings – suddenly you have the authority to tell me I’m wrong because of your worldview is better than mine? If my belief is that I don’t want to be involved in the social good of my species, but instead do whatever I like, you’re saying that that belief is wrong (or at least inferior) to yours and many others like you, so it’s fine to put me in prison and remove my independence, simply because your moral values are more correct than mine. What’s not absolute about deciding to incarcerate someone?

By: Gee Suss

Gee Suss — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:52:06 +0000

What? Because we as social beings organise together for the common good and mutual aid. We work together as social beings. Our morals are not absolute decided by some supernatural entity, they are a process of our social evolutionary selfs.

Why do monkeys work together in social groups? Same thing.

what’s this dog doing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_35g

What are you saying your not making sense. Get to your point. More importantly, prove that your god exists, let alone divinely dictates moral absolutes.

By: Graham

Graham — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:32:52 +0000

Exactly what happens? No, not really. Yes we all have variations in what we believe to be right and wrong, but if I go out and rob a bank, I’m pretty sure the police will arrest me. So somewhere along the way, someone’s decision about right and wrong in relation to theft has become more important than mine. Why?

By: Gee Suss

Gee Suss — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:41:55 +0000

Well your understanding is wrong. Macroevolution is change that occurs above the level of species. Yes for sure, given the vast amounts of time, this results in radically different looking life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution

It’s not a hypothesis, Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is how it occurs.

If you are disputing that micro-evolution can result in speciation, please provide evidence for what stops it from doing so. I have given a number of examples of speciation. That’s a pretty darn good bit of evidence, amongst a huge amount more.

The whole ‘macro-micro’ thing is all part of evolution. Your just stating evolution stops at speciation. Where is your evidence for this.

Morality, what are you talking about? What you are explaining is exactly what happens. You claim one morality, another christian claims another. What authority does either have to say each others morals are right or wrong? perspective of course, and the situation. Our morals are built on us being socially evolved animals, they are not defined by your scripture, nor protected by it. Morals existed before your god came to earth, and will exist after it has left.

By: Graham

Graham — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:09:19 +0000

My understanding of macroevolution is more macro than that – when one animal effectively becomes a totally different one over time, in that it has a whole new structure and barely resembles the animal it came from. By this definition I can’t see how microevolution is any basis for accepting macroevolution. It’s a hypothesis that has no concrete proof.

Re absolute morality. I simply mean what is to say that if I believe one thing is morally acceptable that no one else agrees with, how can anyone say I’m wrong. What authority does anyone have to dispute my morality?