Believers Vs Non-believers

midlandsmissus

caseyann wrote: »

They are letting the old prejudice influence their minds.It has nothing to do with their faith.Faith and belief is something much deeper than a book of words.That is misinterpreted and can mean so many different things.To make those prejudice satisfy their own personal needs or fears.Not what faith or god teaches at all.

Ah CaseyAnn - another woman after my own heart

The Mad Hatter

caseyann wrote: »

Those backward scribblings in them have alot of truth and love and good in them.But then there is always going to be someone who write their own opinions in on top of the book.As Jesus or god didnt write it himself.
Lets say for instance one person who wrote on part decided i dont like gays so i will stick it in the book not allowed.Condoms werent even around then so i dont know how that is in the book.I havent read the bible.But can you show me were gay marriage is frowned upon?

Homosexuality is frowned upon generally.

Ickle Magoo

caseyann wrote: »

I am talking about the down right rudeness of people who dont believe and attack someones belief which is fundamentally very important to them on a personal level.
I could care less who believes or who doesn't, doesn't mean you call it fairytales and rubbish and ignorant.I dont find it offensive here where did i say that????

So why are you in the A&A forum telling people how they should discuss their own views? Why should someones belief in a god be held in greater esteem or given more respect than someones disbelief - especially on a forum dedicated to religious skeptics? Why can someone on other forums hail their beliefs on their designated forum and skeptics can't call it fairytales on theirs? If people don't want their beliefs challenged or read things that they find offensive or that attacks their important beliefs then perhaps they'd be better off in christianity or the lollipops and rainbows forum than a forum dedicated to religious skeptics?

If there was anything against the rules going on, the mods would have their ban-sticks out - as you should well know...if you don't like what someone has written then report their post but I really quite resent it when people deliberately come onto a forum for religious skeptics and start bemoaning that the posters dare to be skeptical about religion!

caseyann

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Homosexuality is frowned upon generally.

Exactly my point,Traditional Jewish and Christian societies have interpreted these passages as moral imperatives forbidding all forms of homosexual activity, but some modern biblical scholarship tends rather to attempt to understand them within the context of the societies which produced them.

Its like i said,someone stuck it in because they didnt like homosexuality,doesnt mean word of god.Just how they wanted it to be.Like controlling women.Men added their fears and prejudice not god or Jesus.
The real true nature of gods word is to love thy neighbour and treat those as you wish to be treated.

Sam Vimes

caseyann wrote: »

They are letting the old prejudice influence their minds.It has nothing to do with their faith.Faith and belief is something much deeper than a book of words.That is misinterpreted and can mean so many different things.To make those prejudice satisfy their own personal needs or fears.Not what faith or god teaches at all.

And you are letting your own prejudice influence your mind. As New Scientist has found people use the god concept to confirm and reinforce their own beliefs. You have a live and let live approach so this is your view of faith but others don't and they would say that you are satisfying your own personal needs and are not following what faith and god teach. And to be honest in this case I think they're closer to what the christian god teaches than you are since he quite clearly describes homosexuality as an abomination worthy of the death penalty.

Rather than going at us for "attacking" faith you should be over on the other forum telling all the people who you think have it wrong that they are wrong. Unfortunately none of you have the slightest bit of evidence to support your beliefs and almost any viewpoint can find some support within christianity so it will be an endless and tedious battle of everyone declaring that everyone else isn't following true faith and god's true teachings

caseyann

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So why are you in the A&A forum telling people how they should discuss their own views? Why should someones belief in a god be held in greater esteem or given more respect than someones disbelief - especially on a forum dedicated to religious skeptics? Why can someone on other forums hail their beliefs on their designated forum and skeptics can't call it fairytales on theirs? If people don't want their beliefs challenged or read things that they find offensive or that attacks their important beliefs then perhaps they'd be better off in christianity or the lollipops and rainbows forum than a forum dedicated to religious skeptics?

If there was anything against the rules going on, the mods would have their ban-sticks out - as you should well know...if you don't like what someone has written then report their post but I really quite resent it when people deliberately come onto a forum for religious skeptics and start bemoaning that the posters dare to be skeptical about religion!

Read the thread op again then re-read what i said.

The Mad Hatter

caseyann wrote: »

Exactly my point,Traditional Jewish and Christian societies have interpreted these passages as moral imperatives forbidding all forms of homosexual activity, but some modern biblical scholarship tends rather to attempt to understand them within the context of the societies which produced them.

Its like i said,someone stuck it in because they didnt like homosexuality,doesnt mean word of god.Just how they wanted it to be.Like controlling women.Men added their fears and prejudice not god or Jesus.
The real true nature of gods word is to love thy neighbour and treat those as you wish to be treated.

That's your interpretation.

Ickle Magoo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Is it a forum to be skeptical about religion though? I thought it was a forum for non-believers in God?

Agnostics are not non believers and I do believe the forum is actually named "Atheism and Agnosticism" - religious skeptics would be a more accurate description, in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

caseyann wrote: »

Read the thread op again then re-read what i said.

Same applies, to the OP and to you and anyone else who thinks they should be moderating what is said on the forum rather than the charter and the A&A moderators. :cool:

Sam Vimes

caseyann wrote: »

Those backward scribblings in them have alot of truth and love and good in them.But then there is always going to be someone who write their own opinions in on top of the book.As Jesus or god didnt write it himself.

Yes there is a lot of good in the bible but there is also an awful lot of bad. We don't need the bible to be good people and it allows bad people to justify their prejudices and the most horrific crimes. The golden rule of morality "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be found in Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology. Christianity is neither the only source of morality nor is it a particularly good one

caseyann wrote: »

Lets say for instance one person who wrote on part decided i dont like gays so i will stick it in the book not allowed.Condoms werent even around then so i dont know how that is in the book.I havent read the bible.But can you show me were gay marriage is frowned upon?

Leviticus 18:22 among others

Zillah

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.



Except instead of heat being the problem it is irritation.

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the gay marriage thread. One of many issues where religious people try to impose the prejudices of bronze age primitives on 21st century society because they believe these backward scribblings are the word of god.

I hate to break this to you but marriage is a religious institution whether you like it or not. I don't think religious people have a problem with gays. The have a problem with people who don't believe in their religion getting married in their church. Do you think Catholics should let Pagans hold ceremonies in their church? No, of course not.

Laws pertaining to marriage should be changed to include civil unions, but churches should not be forced to allow non-religious to hold ceremonies there. Let them build their own big gay churches.

The Mad Hatter

Impressive - I believe you're wrong in every sentence here.

demonspawn wrote: »

I hate to break this to you but marriage is a religious institution whether you like it or not.

No it isn't, it's a state institution. Atheists can get married too.

I don't think religious people have a problem with gays.

I can think of quite a few religious people who would disagree with that.

The have a problem with people who don't believe in their religion getting married in their church.

No, they also have a problem with - wait, what? We were talking about gay people. They have a problem with gay people, of their religion or not, getting married anywhere.

Do you think Catholics should let Pagans hold ceremonies in their church? No, of course not.

No-one's asking them to.

Laws pertaining to marriage should be changed to include civil unions, but churches should not be forced to allow non-religious to hold ceremonies there.

No-one's asking them to.

Let them build their own big gay churches.

What, the RCC isn't flamboyant enough? Also, why should they have to? What's wrong with the registry office? Or a beach?

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

I hate to break this to you but marriage is a religious institution whether you like it or not. I don't think religious people have a problem with gays. The have a problem with people who don't believe in their religion getting married in their church. Do you think Catholics should let Pagans hold ceremonies in their church? No, of course not.

Laws pertaining to marriage should be changed to include civil unions, but churches should not be forced to allow non-religious to hold ceremonies there. Let them build their own big gay churches.

I think you're confused mate. Marriage is an institution within religion and outside of it. I have never heard a single person say that they want the church to allow gay people to get married within church buildings. Gay people and the sensible, equality valuing people who support them want the state to recognise their marriage, not the church.

One example of how state marriage is different to religious marriage is that if you get divorced in this country you're still married as far as the church is concerned. They're not the same thing

demonspawn

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No it isn't, it's a state institution. Atheists can get married too.

Church marriage with a priest etc.

I can think of quite a few religious people who would disagree with that.

That's more to do with them being a**holes than what religion they are.

No, they also have a problem with - wait, what? We were talking about gay people.

You know many homosexual Catholics do you? Err...scratch that.

What, the RCC isn't flamboyant enough? Also, why should they have to? What's wrong with the registry office? Or a beach?

Nothing's wrong with the registry office. As far as I know, some gays are pissed off because they can't get married in the church. They shouldn't expect to tbh.

Ickle Magoo

I am the proud owner of one certificate of marriage - and I didn't set foot in a church.

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One example of how state marriage is different to religious marriage is that if you get divorced in this country you're still married as far as the church is concerned. They're not the same thing

Dude, that's the point I'm trying to make. Some gays want a religious marriage, Church says no, they get all pissy. Nothing to be done about it.

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

Nothing's wrong with the registry office. As far as I know, some gays are pissed off because they can't get married in the church. They shouldn't expect to tbh.

Then I'm pretty sure you've been misinformed. They don't expect to get married in a church. A registry office will do them just fine as soon as religious people stop trying to deny them their human rights.

The Mad Hatter

demonspawn wrote: »

Church marriage with a priest etc.

Yes, but that's not the issue. The issue is that gay people can't get married at all.

That's more to do with them being a**holes than what religion they are.

Not really - they'll say they're doing it in the name of their religion. Honestly, you don't even have to look hard to find people like this.

You know many homosexual Catholics do you? Err...scratch that.

You ask in jest, but a few, as it happens. I don't know what would cause someone to be part of a religion that condemns them for who they are, but there it is.

Incidentally, from the way you phrase that, you seem to be equating pederasty with homosexuality. Don't do that.

Nothing's wrong with the registry office.

Grand - problem solved. Now go tell the catholic church that gay people should be allowed to get married in the registry office. I'm sure they'll listen to you.

As far as I know, some gays are pissed off because they can't get married in the church. They shouldn't expect to tbh.

Where are you getting this from?

Ickle Magoo

Gay people want to get married by the people who call them an unnatural abomination? I think they must be very much in the minority - most just don't think heterosexuals should have dibs on the word "marriage".

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

Dude, that's the point I'm trying to make. Some gays want a religious marriage, Church says no, they get all pissy. Nothing to be done about it.

Who? Where? When? I have never heard of this. You might well be able to dredge something up from the internet somewhere but that is not what the gay marriage debate is about. It's about state recognised marriage totally separate from religion

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then I'm pretty sure you've been misinformed. They don't expect to get married in a church. A registry office will do them just fine as soon as religious people stop trying to deny them their human rights.

Not religious people, a**holes. They just use the religion as an excuse to vent their hatred.

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Who? Where? When? I have never heard of this. You might well be able to dredge something up from the internet somewhere but that is not what the gay marriage debate is about. It's about state recognised marriage totally separate from religion

Well the State is something different entirely. Straight married couple get tax breaks because it is assumed they will have children and will need the extra cash. Gays obviously can't have children unless they adopt. The law needs to be changed so that only couples with children, natural or adopted, receive tax breaks.

Also the whole next of kin thing needs to be changed too. A gay person can't legally claim the body of their partner in this country. That's bulls**t and should be changed. Lots of other little things like that.

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

Not religious people, a**holes. They just use the religion as an excuse to vent their hatred.

What? You mean the quoting of scripture to back up their homophobia and the whole church demanding that homosexuals not be allowed to marry malarky? And the whole reams of religious homophobics, that's just a coincidence? Hmmm.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Could you point me towards some respectable publications that show their evidence for alien involvement in our history?

In religion class, I think in second year, our priesty teacher asked to draw Jesus' tomb just before the resurrection. So I drew a picture of a cave with a rock in front of it and a stick figure being beamed up into NCC-1701, floating just above.

I don't remember getting a very good mark in religion that year.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What? You mean the quoting of scripture to back up their homophobia and the whole church demanding that homosexuals not be allowed to marry malarky? And the whole reams of religious homophobics, that's just a coincidence? Hmmm.

Yeah, some Muslims quote scripture to hack people's heads off too. It doesn't mean all Muslims agree with it. Stop throwing everyone into the same group, it's as ignorant as you claim they are being.

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What? You mean the quoting of scripture to back up their homophobia and the whole church demanding that homosexuals not be allowed to marry malarky? And the whole reams of religious homophobics, that's just a coincidence? Hmmm.

I'm not religious and I don't agree with homosexuality. But it's their buttholes, let them do what they like with them.

Edit: Sorry for the double post, eating and typing at the same time. I lost concentration for a split second.

The Mad Hatter

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not religious and I don't agree with homosexuality.

Well, she's not talking about you, then.

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

Not religious people, a**holes. They just use the religion as an excuse to vent their hatred.

Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

They are not using their religion as an excuse. Christianity clearly and unequivocally condemns homosexuality. They are being consistent in their beliefs, unlike the people who try to "reinterpret" the bible to try to make out that it's not as barbaric as it actually is.

And while I much prefer the company of the inconsistent people, I wish they would stop saying things like "there's a lot of truth and love and good in the bible" while making excuses for the bad parts. I wish they would realise that they are not actually getting their morality from their religion but are actually picking the bits from their religion that match the morality they already have and discard the bible, thereby doing away with that book that the bigots use to justify their prejudices.

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

Well the State is something different entirely. Straight married couple get tax breaks because it is assumed they will have children and will need the extra cash. Gays obviously can't have children unless they adopt. The law needs to be changed so that only couples with children, natural or adopted, receive tax breaks.

Also the whole next of kin thing needs to be changed too. A gay person can't legally claim the body of their partner in this country. That's bulls**t and should be changed. Lots of other little things like that.

Yeah, and those are some of the main reasons that they want state recognised marriage.

lmaopml

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would actully think sceptical scientific people such as yourselves would not see the idea of extra-terrestrial life as crazy.

Scientifically, there's an extrememely high probability, there's an awful lot of evidence...

Here's a nice article on our current understanding of the possible existence of E.T. life, and also to underscore probability of 'intelligent' E.T. life...according to what we really 'can' know or understand based on our own experience..

http://astronomyspace.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-fermi-paradox-on-alien-life

I love the last sentence,

“Sometimes I think we’re alone. Sometimes I think we’re not. In either case the thought is staggering.” Totally agree

Anyways, either way, the answer when one looks at the evidence soley is that, 'We don't know'..

I agree with the Atheists that our individual faith choices shouldn't impede their freedom and I guess that's the way we're headed all going well....

Actually, I don't think most Christians are opposed to free choice, it's a strawman in some cases and a misconception in others that 'freedom of conscience' is something we undervalue as 'Christians'...

However, as one of those people of faith, I also understand the whole idea of religious freedom too, and don't particularly like the 'stfu' mentality myself..lol....I feel it's kinda coming at things from an immature and reactive angle....although I have been known to want people to just stfu myself too..

Maybe one day we'll meet somewhere acceptable to both and not blow ourselves out of existence beforehand, and long enough to let others stand on the shoulders of 'other' Giants!....;) I see some wisdom in the op's point from this particular perspective...

Interesting read!

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

In fairness, it is kinda gross but that's just my personal opinion.
Lots of Christians are reasonable enough to know what to take seriously and what's not that important anymore. Personally I think homosexuality is an urge that some people get that should be resisted, like my continuous urge to have sex with dolphins. I can't explain it, I just think they're sexy. You don't see me going around bumming dolphins though.

The Mad Hatter

demonspawn wrote: »

In fairness, it is kinda gross but that's just my personal opinion.
Lots of Christians are reasonable enough to know what to take seriously and what's not that important anymore. Personally I think homosexuality is an urge that some people get that should be resisted, like my continuous urge to have sex with dolphins. I can't explain it, I just think they're sexy. You don't see me going around bumming dolphins though.

...

Right, that's it, I'm calling troll.

And I'm going to bed. Can't believe I wasted a whole evening on this worthless thread *mutter mutter*

demonspawn

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...

Right, that's it, I'm calling troll.

Sorry, just trying to inject a bit of humor. I don't agree with homosexuality but it's none of my business what two people do to each other.

Edit: Dolphins are pretty sexy though, you gotta admit.










brb

Ickle Magoo

demonspawn wrote: »

Yeah, some Muslims quote scripture to hack people's heads off too. It doesn't mean all Muslims agree with it. Stop throwing everyone into the same group, it's as ignorant as you claim they are being.

The church calls it a sinful abomination - that some choose to ignore that and not be homophobic hardly absolves the religion, does it?!

demonspawn wrote:

I'm not religious and I don't agree with homosexuality. But it's their buttholes, let them do what they like with them.

You don't agree with it? I don't even know what that means, regardless, that there are homophobics out-with religion doesn't absolve religion either. I'm pretty sure a bit of a rummage in most homophobics' past would reveal either a closet or a bible - and in some well known cases, both. :pac:

Sam Vimes

demonspawn wrote: »

Lots of Christians are reasonable enough to know what to take seriously and what's not that important anymore.

It's the word of god man, either it's all to be taken seriously or none of it is. People who pick and choose which bits to believe and which bits aren't important are just using the bible to justify to the opinions they already hold. They're not actually christians, they have invented their own religion where god believes the same things they do. And the people who do this allow the fundamentalists to use the bible to justify their own prejudices because they can pick and choose to and there's plenty to pick and choose from in the bible

demonspawn wrote: »

In fairness, it is kinda gross but that's just my personal opinion. Personally I think homosexuality is an urge that some people get that should be resisted, like my continuous urge to have sex with dolphins. I can't explain it, I just think they're sexy. You don't see me going around bumming dolphins though.

Why should they resist it? No one's asking you to partake. I think cucumber is gross but I would never dream of telling someone else they shouldn't eat it

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...

Right, that's it, I'm calling troll.

And I'm going to bed. Can't believe I wasted a whole evening on this worthless thread *mutter mutter*

I may well be a victim of Poe's law. Goodnight

demonspawn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The church calls it a sinful abomination - that some choose to ignore that and not be homophobic hardly absolves the religion, does it?!

Well the Catholic Church is a law unto itself...literally. They're just a bunch of evil sadist bastards tbh and as soon as Christians see that the better.

You don't agree with it? I don't even know what that means, regardless, that there are homophobics out-with religion doesn't absolve religion either. I'm pretty sure a bit of a rummage in most homophobics' past would reveal either a closet or a bible - and in some well known cases, both. :pac:

Nope, I don't agree with it. I'm not a homophobe, my aunt's gay and knows how I feel. I don't hate her or any other gay people. Nothing wrong with it, I would just never do it myself.

demonspawn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the word of god man, either it's all to be taken seriously or none of it is. People who pick and choose which bits to believe and which bits aren't important are just using the bible to justify to the opinions they already hold. They're not actually christians, they have invented their own religion where god believes the same things they do. And the people who do this allow the fundamentalists to use the bible to justify their own prejudices because they can pick and choose to and there's plenty to pick and choose from in the bible

A lot of Christians realize we've come a long way over the last 2000 years. They can see that some stuff just isn't relevant anymore. Fundamentalists will always be the same though, not much hope for them.

Why should they resist it? No one's asking you to partake. I think cucumber is gross but I would never dream of telling someone else they shouldn't eat it

It's just my personal belief that I usually keep to myself. I've never told a homosexual they shouldn't be doing this or that, it's not my place. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on it though.

demonspawn

And with that I'm off to do something else for a bit. Too much typing for one day. Pretty good thread seeing as it's not even a day old.

Thanks for the chat, you guys are a lot cooler than those uppity Christians.

Sam Vimes

I'm still here, I'm prepared to give demonspawn the benefit of the troll doubt for the moment

demonspawn wrote: »

A lot of Christians realize we've come a long way over the last 2000 years. They can see that some stuff just isn't relevant anymore. Fundamentalists will always be the same though, not much hope for them.

The problem is that then the only people who are actually christians are the fundamentalists and the rest are just taking the bits they like. Nowhere in the bible does it say "buffet menu". And as I said, these wishy-washy-not-really-christians who keep the bible around for the good bits are allowing the fundamentalists to use the bad bits to justify their prejudices. The not-really-christians are not actually getting their morality from the bible anyway so they should just stop trying to convince themselves they are and throw it away, leaving the fundamentalists with no justification.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's just my personal belief that I usually keep to myself. I've never told a homosexual they shouldn't be doing this or that, it's not my place. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on it though.

Well that's just fine then. I don't see why what other people get up to in their bedroom is of any concern to you but at least you realise that it's not your place to tell them they shouldn't do it or discriminate against them for wanting to do it.

MagicMarker

caseyann wrote: »

Those backward scribblings in them have alot of truth and love and good in them.But then there is always going to be someone who write their own opinions in on top of the book.As Jesus or god didnt write it himself.
Lets say for instance one person who wrote on part decided i dont like gays so i will stick it in the book not allowed.Condoms werent even around then so i dont know how that is in the book.I havent read the bible.But can you show me were gay marriage is frowned upon?

It amazes me that you continue to defend something which you don't seem to know anything about.

Dades

demonspawn infracted for borderline homophobic comments. You can of course hold an opinion but how you express it here is subject to the Charter.

Hopefully a new day will calm this thread down.

strobe

Hmmm long thread, no real interest in getting involved at this late stage. Just want to say I find it amusing that the OP started a thread complaining about people arguing over religious belief and then continued that thread for 13 pages in less than 24 hours arguing over religious belief. There's got to be some kind of irony in there somewhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

demonspawn wrote: »

Am I the only one who's sick to death of this debate?

A strange choice of forum to come to if you are. This is akin to going to a football ground and telling everyone you are sick of sport.

demonspawn wrote: »

Everyone say it with me: "I don't know." Now say it again to be sure: "I don't know." Now doesn't that feel better? One less thing to fight over.

I wish it were so easy. The problem is that it is not so easy. I for one would LOVE to leave the debate alone. I would love to wake up tomorrow and never think of, or talk about, religion again.

I simply am not let. The debate is brought to me, whether I like it or not, in all the realms of discourse I actually AM interested in. Sexuality, morality, science, education, politics, ethics, medicine, health... you name it I am confronted every day with people who say "There is a god, and because of this... here is how we have to proceed...."

caseyann

MagicMarker wrote: »

It amazes me that you continue to defend something which you don't seem to know anything about.

Eh what now? What do i not know exactly

caseyann

strobe wrote: »

Hmmm long thread, no real interest in getting involved at this late stage. Just want to say I find it amusing that the OP started a thread complaining about people arguing over religious belief and then continued that thread for 13 pages in less than 24 hours arguing over religious belief. There's got to be some kind of irony in there somewhere.

But what would atheists talk about if there is no god in their minds,and why they need a forum at all then?
Atheist 1: There is no god.
Atheist 2: I agree with you.
No one to disagree with yous.
And say same things again and again

Ickle Magoo

caseyann wrote: »

But what would atheists talk about if there is no god in their minds,and why they need a forum at all then?
Atheist 1: There is no god.
Atheist 2: I agree with you.
No one to disagree with yous.
And say same things again and again

Have you read the forum at all? Or is this just a time-wasting exercise while you wait out your AH ban?

caseyann

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Have you read the forum at all? Or is this just a time-wasting exercise while you wait out your AH ban?

lol i am permanently banned from AH I havent had time to read the forum and again answer was relevant to the post quoted.

Ickle Magoo

caseyann wrote: »

lol i am permanently banned from AH I havent had time to read the forum and again answer was relevant to the post quoted.

So it's Ok to get permanently banned from a forum for repeatedly being racist (I'm presuming that's what it was from the feedback thread you started) - but an atheist saying that religion is based on fairy-tales is a no-no? I've heard it all now.