Tolerating the intolerant

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 09:00AM #1

Tolerance, the most fundamental precept of the liberal, and I consider myself to be one. Let everyone have their say, let opposing views be heard. Consider all arguements equally and fairly. That's what's ultimately led to my belief in Agnosticism (as opposed to Aethism).

But is tolerance also our greatest weakness? How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

Thursday night on BBC question time, there was a debate on the issue of sex education in faith based schools. The issue being that schools run by the Church should not have to discuss homosexuality or related issues while teaching sex education to children. Or that they could paint it in a negative light in line with their beliefs and that of the parents whose children attend. The Shadow conservative home secratary (with a good chance of being in power in the UK in a few months) said(and I'm paraphrasing here), that not only does he effectively support faith based schools spewing whatever nonsense they want to about sexuality (including advising against condom use...) but that if they wanted to teach creationism in science class as a theory they should be allowed to do so, under the guise of the tolerance of other people's views.

He said, "We can say that there are other people who have these views, and they are against the majority of scientific opinion, but these are their views and we should respect their difference of opinion." Am I the only one scared by this kind of talk? Discussing creationism in science class as some kind of scientific theory.

I'd like to present the following quotes.

Creationism is pure fact... Our kids are being brainwashed by people who have no grip of reality. Reality is a world where athiests and those who support evolution surely dont live. It is ashamed at how kids are lied to being told that they evolved from a monkey... Evolution is one of the biggest frauds of our time. It truly is so sad how people are so far from reality. If you want to live in lala land then go ahead but there are some of us who choose to be in tune with reality. The reality is found in Genesis... It will do you some good if you just trust what it says as pure fact. Evolution comes from pure ignorance to the facts of how we got here.

JEREMY O'ROURKE, Christian Forums 11 Comments [10/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]

You people do realize that according to the law of God homosexuals should be put to death, so I think we are being very tolerant by allowing them to live. This said according to the word of God homsexuals are equal to murder and therefor have no civil right.

Seperation of Church and state is meant to keep the state out of church buisness and to ensure the Churches free reign, not the state free reign. I beleive many have it backwards.

RobinD69, City-Data 63 Comments [2/23/2010 12:59:41 PM]

No. I have no reason to believe gravity as we know it existed. The forces and balance of forces may have been quite different. Ever wonder how they built the early pyramids?

No evidence exists for gravity as we know it, to have existed, why would I need to disprove it???

dad, Christian Forums 70 Comments [2/25/2010 6:12:41 PM]

All of the above were taken from www.fstdt.com. I spent a long time laughing at these people, but when I stopped laughing, the scary reality emerged that these people get to VOTE for WHO has their finger on the friggin nuclear football.

IMO This is the result of letting religion and religious agenda interfere with education. SECULAR STATE education should be MANDATED. Religious teaching apart from an exploration of religion as a philosophy and practise (and that of all religions) should be forbidden. Home schooling should be illegal. I would go so far as to say that ALL CHILDREN should be taught about the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the actions of religious fanatics throughout history.

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

It's time to stop tolerating the intolerant.

Sam Vimes · 27-02-2010 10:15AM

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds.

No we shouldn't

Karl Hungus · 27-02-2010 10:23AM

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds.

Who exactly is the 'we' here, and how would 'we' be in a position to stop people from practicing religion until they are 18? I'm assuming you mean we as in Atheists and Agnostics, so it would be pretty unlikely for lets say any atheists or agnostics who are in power in government not only to be in a position to enact such change, but also that all of them would have such an agenda? That sounds pretty far fetched.

People making choices for themselves in terms of religion once they reach adulthood is a lovely thought, but to be blunt, it's nothing but pure fantasy and something we will never see on a large scale in this lifetime. Belief is an extremely powerful thing, people lead their entire lives, make every moral judgment and decision based on their faith. I can't imagine that a religious couple would ever allow a child of theirs to be raised without religion, can you? So how could children possibly be raised without religion, successfully, without conflicts of interest between the parents and the law? I can't even begin to imagine how that would be enforced, or made possible. Do we have bouncers asking for ID outside church entrances?

How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

We don't. Ever. If 'we' ever try forcing our opinions on people, start raising their children to our standards, then 'we' do become as bad as the catholic church in this country. Atheism and agnosticism should never ape the practices of a religious organization, ever.

What would be next, instead of Jesus Camp, we have Atheist Camp?

Dades · 27-02-2010 11:16AM

I would be concerned if the same things were mooted for the Irish system.

(Somebody tell me none of that crap happens here...)

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 11:35AM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Who exactly is the 'we' here, and how would 'we' be in a position to stop people from practicing religion until they are 18? I'm assuming you mean we as in Atheists and Agnostics, so it would be pretty unlikely for lets say any atheists or agnostics who are in power in government not only to be in a position to enact such change, but also that all of them would have such an agenda? That sounds pretty far fetched.

People making choices for themselves in terms of religion once they reach adulthood is a lovely thought, but to be blunt, it's nothing but pure fantasy and something we will never see on a large scale in this lifetime. Belief is an extremely powerful thing, people lead their entire lives, make every moral judgment and decision based on their faith. I can't imagine that a religious couple would ever allow a child of theirs to be raised without religion, can you? So how could children possibly be raised without religion, successfully, without conflicts of interest between the parents and the law? I can't even begin to imagine how that would be enforced, or made possible. Do we have bouncers asking for ID outside church entrances?

We don't. Ever. If 'we' ever try forcing our opinions on people, start raising their children to our standards, then 'we' do become as bad as the catholic church in this country. Atheism and agnosticism should never ape the practices of a religious organization, ever.

I suppose by we, I mean we as a society. And I mean this in a purely philosophical sense. I understand the practical difficulties associated with the idea and the even greater difficulty of ever enforcing such a law/attitude.

It's quite probable that most people are indoctrinated into religion at an age where they aren't able to make informed decisions. So it stands to reason that the best way to combat the spread of ignorance and doctrine is to prevent the brainwashing of impressionable children.

How do we stop parents from instilling their beliefs in their children, I don't know. What can we practically do?

Well, I think we can practically prevent anyone under 18 from attending a religious institution.

Shops are required to check IDs before they sell tobacco or alcohol. Similarly churches could be required to ensure that no one under 18 attends. Either that, or face a heavy fine. Those in power in religious institutions do everything to ensure that they indoctrinate people before they can really make a choice, which makes the entire concept of freedom of religion a flagrant hypocrisy. There is NO real freedom here, since most never get a chance to chose.

It is illegal to advertise alcohol and tobacco to children. We prevent them from accessing inappropriate sexual or violent content. We don't want fast food companies advertising to them. Yet we tolerate wholesale the brainwashing and indoctrination of religious dogma.

Secondly, I think as part of the school curiculum, relgion and religious myth should be systematically and logically debunked and children encouraged to question dogma and doctrine.

"Aethist camp," would be going too far. All I want is a chance for people to make up their own minds.

Where does the line get crossed between forcing your opinion on people, and PREVENTING relgious institutions from forcing their opinion upon others. The danger is that should we allow relgious organisations to grow unchecked, we're going to end up with the kind of situation they have in the states, with creationism getting taught in schools as a valid alternate theory to evolution and where carbon dating is considered to be a questionable and vague science.

Zillah · 27-02-2010 11:41AM

There's nothing wrong with intolerance.

Hear me out: There's no reasonable member of society that is not intolerant of things such as rape, theft and murder. So in principle we agree that intolerance is not necessarily bad. Where we need to have a discussion is on what is appropriate to be intolerant of.

I for one am quite happy to admit that I am entirely intolerant for allowing the insane ramblings of the faithful to enter schools, especially places where they insist upon absurd and irrational views, such as sex education and science class.

You people had thousands of years to try guiding the ship of humanity and you constantly screwed it up. It took the enlightenment to get to where we are now and I think we should keep that captain at the helm rather than letting crazy Joe the sooth sayer take over again.

Fuck Chris Grayling and the retarded horse he rode in on.

Zillah · 27-02-2010 11:43AM

Banning the practice of religion for anyone at any age is a very dumb idea however. I'll oppose any tyrant, whether he's a fascist or a prophet.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 11:47AM

But the problem is that religion does not work that way. You say you want to ban/prevent the teaching of religious doctrine in schools.

Yet if enough people are brainwashed and there's a switch in demographics to where the relgious become the majority population then that is exactly the kind of thing you will see being brought back.

One leads to the other. The only way to protect science, logic or truth is the stop/prevent the spread of dogma and doctrine. Because once the religious are in power(as they have been before), they have no compunctions about enforcing THEIR opinions upon you. At the point of hot steel if need be.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 11:48AM

Zillah wrote: »

Banning the practice of religion for anyone at any age is a very dumb idea however. I'll oppose any tyrant, whether he's a fascist or a prophet.

So it's not tyranical to brainwash/force children into following religion? Where do you think suicide bombers come from?

Goduznt Xzst · 27-02-2010 11:54AM

OP, I used to have similar musings to you, but I've since re-evaluated them and come to the conclusion that they are wrong.

The problem with your proposed policy is that it doesn't take into account your own mortality. If you institute a system whereby the religious are castigated and controlled and their freedom to raise their children as they see fit is removed, it may very well work for your generation, it may work during your childs generation also. But, somewhere along the line, after a couple of generations have died off, it will be abused by people long after your dead, and you will have instituted.

I'm sure Jesus was a decent bloke (if he did exist) and thought his whole scheme of worshiping a God and giving people hope was a great idea back then. But look at it now.

The only system that works for humanity is chaos, held in place by temporary rules and policies that can disintegrate and be abolished should the living generation see fit.

Often people confuse the certainty of a mathematical constant with the impermanence of human existence. What works for one generation can not be assumed to work, or even be relevant for a future generation.

Karl Hungus · 27-02-2010 12:01PM

Memnoch wrote: »

How do we stop parents from instilling their beliefs in their children, I don't know. What can we practically do?

Nothing, and neither should 'we' as a society try do anything in that regard either either. We can't really interfere with parents raising their children unless the parents are abusing those children, and if you're going to try argue that introducing a child to religion is abuse then you're taking things too far in my opinion. I was raised catholic (as I'm sure were many other people posting here) and came to my own mind about it being a load of old wives tales, so I'd hardly call that abusive at all. Quite a lot of people I know who were raised catholic grew up and would share my atheistic outlook today, so to be honest, I don't really see a huge danger in parents instilling their beliefs in their children, as I don't think it's even guaranteed to stick.

And come on, nobody under 18 can enter a church? I said 'bouncers looking for ID outside churches' as a parody of how ridiculous an idea it would be, not as a serious suggestion. Whatever about children attending mass regularly, what about weddings and funerals? Sorry Julie, you can't see your big sister getting married, you're not old enough to enter the church. Sorry Timmy, can't come in and say your final goodbye to granddad, you're not old enough. I can see that working out well.

Memnoch wrote: »

So it's not tyranical to brainwash/force children into following religion? Where do you think suicide bombers come from?

Nonsense strawman argument that's nothing more than an extreme example. I was raised catholic, I'm not a suicide bomber.

Or am I?

Zillah · 27-02-2010 12:06PM

Memnoch wrote: »

One leads to the other. The only way to protect science, logic or truth is the stop/prevent the spread of dogma and doctrine. Because once the religious are in power(as they have been before), they have no compunctions about enforcing THEIR opinions upon you. At the point of hot steel if need be.

You could say the same about any ideology you oppose. The awful men running China and North Korea think like you. Stalin and the Inquisition thought like you. The men behind Big Brother in 1984 think like you. You hold poor company my friend. Just because you think an ideology is bad does not give you carte blanche to strip people's rights, dictate how they raise their children and to literally tell them what they are allowed to think.

I too would like to see religion go away, but not at the price you propose. We can engage them publicly, spread criticisms of their beliefs with TV, the internet and by published works. We can foster education and sceptical thinking. I suspect that with these things we're going to win in the end. Religion may be becoming more extreme in recent years, but it's also never been so unpopular. We may be seeing the reactionary death throes of a corrupt way of thinking.

But if they do win, so be it. There is no fundamental limitation on how many generations of humanity shall exist, the enlightenment will come again.

I'm not willing to become a tyrant to stop them. I'm also not willing to let you, or anyone, become a tyrant to stop them either.

old_aussie · 27-02-2010 12:17PM

Yes tolerance and PC is our greatest weakness.

Just using hitler as an example.

People tolerated hitler for a while and when they cound no longer tolerate him any more they had to use the same force and tactics(as hitler used) to wipe him out.

You can only tolerate something for so long before you have to revert to their tactics and say "hey we've had enough".

Fight force with greater force. It's the only way in the end.

Turning the other cheek or ignoring it will get you no where but deeper into misery.

Zillah · 27-02-2010 12:23PM

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

krudler · 27-02-2010 12:38PM

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

No, however I do think baptism should not be initiated at birth, but as an adult, I hate the idea I'm part of an organisation that I cant get out of , even if you do the countmeout.ie thing, the church still considers you one of theirs as baptism cant be reversed afaik. Baptism these days is rarely ever for the religious side of it anyway its more to do with a celebration of a new baby,and cake, lots of cake

Antbert · 27-02-2010 05:39PM

Well, I do agree that all schools should be secular (I see no reason why education and religion need to go together, regardless of the religious orientation of the parents) but regards the rest... It's quite scary. Aside from the fact that you want to impose some sort of tyrannical oppressive rule on society, it's completely impractical. If you did by some bizarre series of events find yourself in a position of power to do this, you'd only make religion stronger. It thrives under oppression.

People complain about militant atheists and it annoys me. Then YOU come along and prove them right.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 08:54PM

Okay,
Firstly, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic, though I am very strongly anti-religion, while still accepting the possibility of a supernatural force/being. Just not accepting any explanation or description provided by man i.e. bible/Quran etc of this possible phenomenon.

Going to take a step back here. I'm not a militant and I'm not interested in being militant. I was just trying to think of a way of preventing the indoctrination of children and this is something that practically is probably very difficult to do and so the idea I suggested in that regard might not work and seem on the extreme side.

But let's get back to basics, to the core of what I'm trying to say. We, as a society deem all sorts of things and exposures as being inappropriate for children. Alcohol, cigarettes, driving, voting. It's generally recognised that they have not fully developed a strong enough decision making capacity and there are certain things they need to be protected from.

What I don't understand is why is it considered perfectly acceptable to systematically brainwash generation after generation into believing something that suits the agenda of what are really political organisations out only to look after themselves (i.e. organised religion). People keep talking about tyranny and militancy. I'll re-iterate. If a human being is never given a CHOICE about whether to follow religion or not, because they can get so completely brainwashed at an early age, then is that NOT tyranny?

I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again.

And the scenario of the quotes I posted in my OP in this thread transferring to Ireland is really quite unpaletable to me.

Ickle Magoo · 27-02-2010 09:03PM

People teach their children all manner of things, not to kill, study hard, be nice to other people, etc, etc. What gives you the right to say that one specific form of teaching is WRONG while the other "moral" guidance we all give to our kids is perfectly acceptable?

I have a much stronger wish for free will and equality than I do for anti-theism. I accepts that the lines are blurred in some instances when certain religions or religious politics stand in the way of free will and equality but that doesn't mean that theism as a whole should be banned, or you are no better than those you seek to destroy.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 09:06PM

Zillah wrote: »

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

The allies did indiscrimnately bomb the german civillian population in order to sow unrest and to demoralize the enemy. In that, they were quite ruthless.

Democratic nations have supported and participated in tyrany. The West's support of Saddam for example. Or supporting Pakistani dictators. The tolerance and protection of Israeli tactics in palestine. The wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan, the blatant circumventing of human rights. Torture, Guantanmo bay, and this is just in the past couple of decades. The list goes on.

The tyranny of democracy can be and is just as bad as the tyranny of the dictators you mentioned, except that kind of tyranny is intelligent enough to focus outward rather than inward.

Also, please feel free to debate my posts, but I don't appreciate being called names, ala Tyrant etc.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 09:12PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

People teach their children all manner of things, not to kill, study hard, be nice to other people, etc, etc. What gives you the right to say that one specific form of teaching is WRONG while the other "moral" guidance we all give to our kids is perfectly acceptable?

I have a much stronger wish for free will and equality than I do for anti-theism. I accepts that the lines are blurred in some instances when certain religions or religious politics stand in the way of free will and equality but that doesn't mean that theism as a whole should be banned, or you are no better than those you seek to destroy.

Free will, that's exactly what I'm also gunning for.

There is no free will for a person who is brainwashed and indoctrinated from a very early age. This is why we prohibit advertising of tobacco and alcohol to kids and even fast food.

Religion is no different. It's something that people should be able to understand and make a FREE CHOICE about. Most children that are indoctrinated into it are not given that choice. It is taken away from them before they have even developed the capacity to think critically about the subject.

The result is that you get people who question the science of carbon dating, who argue that evolution is a theory that has no lesser or greater merit than creationism. Who then go and vote for someone based on these twisted beliefs and give that person power over ALL of us.

Sarah Palin with the nuclear trigger. Wohoo, can't wait.

And when was the last time you had an agnostic suicide bomber.

Ickle Magoo · 27-02-2010 09:21PM

People have been murdering each other for as long as homo sapiens first evolved, it would be completely naive to think without religion there would be no violence.

If there is no such thing as free-will for people who have been religiously indoctrinated, how do you explain all the people who were raised with religion and consider themselves atheist or agnostic?

Karl Hungus · 27-02-2010 09:36PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Sarah Palin with the nuclear trigger. Wohoo, can't wait.

And when was the last time you had an agnostic suicide bomber.

Well done, you're spouting more hyperbole than the more extreme theists who post here do, so if you plan to beat them at their own game, pat yourself on the back.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 10:58PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

People have been murdering each other for as long as homo sapiens first evolved, it would be completely naive to think without religion there would be no violence.

When did I say there would be no violence without religion? My goal isn't the elimination of religion, it's that EVERYONE should have the FREEDOM to chose whether they end up as part of a religious faith or not. An option many children who are indoctrinated, do not have and will never have as adults.

If there is no such thing as free-will for people who have been religiously indoctrinated, how do you explain all the people who were raised with religion and consider themselves atheist or agnostic?

I already answered this in a post above so will simply re-quote myself.

"I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again."

I'll also add... we've had a backlash in this country because of the church's behaviour during the famine and continuing on from that, eg the recent scandal involving clerical abuse. This has helped to break the hold that the religious institutions had over the populace. However, there is nothing to say that given enough time this hold will not be reestablished unless there is constant education about what religious organisations really stand for.

Memnoch · 27-02-2010 11:08PM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Well done, you're spouting more hyperbole than the more extreme theists who post here do, so if you plan to beat them at their own game, pat yourself on the back.

Fine, perhaps they are hypoerbolic examples, at the extreme end of the scale in some respects. My main points still stand, and tbh, so do these examples.

Someone like Sarah Palin could NEVER get elected without the support of the fundamentalist Christian right in the U.S. You know the kind of people who advocate active discrimination against homosexuals, teaching of creationism as science. There is nothing hyperbolic about this, this is very much the reality.

When George Bush was re-elected in 2004 over John Kerry, I remember watching the coverage on CNN, FOX (shudder) etc. and they did exit polls. Out of the people who voted for Bush they found that for a large number, opposition to "gay marriage," was a major and central issue. Much more so than say, the wars in Iraq or Afghanasthan.

Religious institutions interfere in world affairs in ways that affect ALL of us, whether or not we chose to believe, and they are able to do so based on the seeds of ignorance they sow and through the support base they build up through systematic brainwashing and indoctrination, generation after generation.

Ickle Magoo · 27-02-2010 11:34PM

Memnoch wrote: »

When did I say there would be no violence without religion? My goal isn't the elimination of religion, it's that EVERYONE should have the FREEDOM to chose whether they end up as part of a religious faith or not. An option many children who are indoctrinated, do not have and will never have as adults.

You can't claim the free-choice card and then say it only applies to secularists...it works both ways. Free-choice gives parents the right to share their faith with their children as it gives their children the choice to declare themselves atheists.

Memnoch wrote: »

I already answered this in a post above so will simply re-quote myself.

"I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again."

Most stats suggest religion is very much on the decline, I don't think religion is ever going to have the degree of control it once had. Many aspects of what we would consider outward proclamations of faith, both in Ireland & Saudi, are as much cultural as religious, at this stage.

Memnoch wrote: »

I'll also add... we've had a backlash in this country because of the church's behaviour during the famine and continuing on from that, eg the recent scandal involving clerical abuse. This has helped to break the hold that the religious institutions had over the populace. However, there is nothing to say that given enough time this hold will not be reestablished unless there is constant education about what religious organisations really stand for.

If you really feel so strongly about human rights and the right-to choose, you'd be serving your cause much better concentrating on Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya, Burundi &/or DR of Congo than arguing for the emancipation of children from their well meaning parents.

Zillah · 28-02-2010 12:14AM

Memnoch wrote: »

The allies did indiscrimnately bomb the german civillian population in order to sow unrest and to demoralize the enemy. In that, they were quite ruthless.

Democratic nations have supported and participated in tyrany. The West's support of Saddam for example. Or supporting Pakistani dictators. The tolerance and protection of Israeli tactics in palestine. The wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan, the blatant circumventing of human rights. Torture, Guantanmo bay, and this is just in the past couple of decades. The list goes on.

The tyranny of democracy can be and is just as bad as the tyranny of the dictators you mentioned, except that kind of tyranny is intelligent enough to focus outward rather than inward.

Yes, there have been people who have taken what should be democracies with respect for human rights and turned them into violent aggressors. I criticize them as severely as I do you.

It's a bit like saying that because some doctors have raped their patients in the past you think it should be ok for you as well.

Also, please feel free to debate my posts, but I don't appreciate being called names, ala Tyrant etc.

Would you prefer fascist?

robindch · 28-02-2010 12:58AM

Zillah wrote: »

Would you prefer fascist?

Zillah -- cool it, please.

Zillah · 28-02-2010 01:12AM

Jawohl mein fuhrer!

Dades · 28-02-2010 02:36AM

Zillah wrote: »

Jawohl mein fuhrer!

A&A mods = Nazis?
Methinks you don't post in enough other forums.

Zillah · 28-02-2010 03:41AM

No no, I was just saying "sure thing boss!" but with a slight ironic twist.

eoin5 · 28-02-2010 04:53AM

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay,
Firstly, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic, though I am very strongly anti-religion, while still accepting the possibility of a supernatural force/being.

Sorry I'm going OT here but please realize that agnosticism is not option C after theism and atheism. You either believe in god or you dont, the "could he exist" question is different.