LG

I believe that Mars is a planet. What action does that connote?

It's sunlight, Pond.

Walmarts that sell guns ARE gun dealers. They are governed by the same laws as any specialty gun shop.

I don’t want to pull this joke thread any further off course, Ron, but I’ll comment on three of your statements. “Science is essentially the recording of observations.” It’s much, much more than that. “If something hasn't been observed, then it's just a theory or hypothesis.” That’s horribly misleading. A theory does not indicate that something has not been observed. A theory is an explanation of things we observe (directly or indirectly) in nature. “Since no one has ever OBSERVED evolution or creation, then they are both theories. Science can't possibly prove or disprove either one.” Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. That’s just a fact. The theory is the explanation for the changes. The theory originally proposed by Darwin, as modified through the years, offers an excellent explanation, is the basis for reliable predictions, and is supported by voluminous evidence.

Nonsense. If you want to learn about something, you go to folks who know and will honestly give out the information. Ron apparently didn't. It's fine that you say "Just my IMO," which, btw, means "just my in my opinion," but if your opinion is not an informed opinion, I don't see how it does you or anyone else any good.

Who or what do you think are "cut from the same cloth?"

Ron, every sentence of your post is wrong. You'd do well to learn what science is and what theories and hypotheses are from actual scientists, rather than from religious people with a religious mission.

I'd be mad, but at myself.

Rejection from a private seminary for doctinal cause would not be comparable to barring children from certain public schools solely on racial grounds. But Cynic advocated a stronger disclaimer, not rejection, so Garth's whole argument is against a strawman of his own construction.

Oops. I fixed it. BTW, it's not "should of." It's "should've," a contraction of "should have." It's the same with "would've" and "could've."

The alcohol prohibition and several other statements are false. See this FAQ.

Another reason I love Firefox. I blocked those images, and never have to see them again.

Would you oppose state intervention if a 16-year-old, with parental consent, wanted to use heroin? If not, then your "Amerika" is essentially the same as the one you're so dramatically opposing.

The reason it's a bad analogy is that your "what if" is unrealistic. The circumstance won't arise.

jkboehme, You can think what you want, but I'll take the courts at their word when they state their reasons for dismissal of the Peeler case and similar cases.

If someone managed to file such a suit, it wouldn't make it to trial. It would be thrown out for the same reasons the Peeler suit was. The courts are not going to consider doctrinal matters.

You sure are touchy about things that don't have anything to do with you. You're right. The old TWI was screwed up in a somewhat different way than the more recent TWI.

I disagree, krys. IMO, Hills did nothing wrong.

What bothers me isn't the size of the font, but the change in font size in a thread. If all posts use the same size font, whether large or small, it's easy to adjust the viewing size for easy reading. If some posts use large fonts and others use smaller fonts, then no matter what, something on the page will display wrong. Accenting something, like you did with "LG," is different. It's not a whole post. Anyway, it's not that big a deal. It just came to mind and I thought I'd mention it.

I don't mean all posts in a thread being in large fonts. I mean almost all posts being in the normal font, then a post in a font two or three times larger, in a different color. I find this quite annoying, so much that I often skip such posts without reading them, which I suspect is not the effect the poster intended.

You're saying that Garth and Oakspear are among what you earlier called "the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma," which number I said was zero. Neither they nor any atheist has posted a word to this thread that remotely resembles dogma. No atheist has even stated an opinion about the existence of god(s). 2 != 0, but 0 = 0. You were not previously arguing the point you just claimed you were. Also, no one has suggested that the state should promote an atheistic position on anything, much less establish atheism as a "state religion." To my knowledge, no one at GreaseSpot has ever suggested such a thing, much less argued in favor of it._______________ "Descriptive" is not "definitive." Even if it were, atheism is not a belief system. _______________ No, he wouldn't. There are religions, including Buddhism, that have zero gods but "zero gods" does not constitute a religion.

That number would be zero, Zixar. There is no freedom of religion clause. There are the establishment and free exercise clauses. Neither has a thing to do with whether or not atheism is a religion. You don't understand the establishment clause, do you? For someone who claims to be so smart, you sure can be dense. Atheism not being a religion is completely irrelevant to an issue of government respecting an establishment of religion, not to "any matters involving religion." The protection afforded by the establishment clause extends to religious and non-religious people.

I'm not much of a sports fan either, George, but I'll usually watch and root for local teams in playoff or championship games. "Local" can mean anything from my small town to the State of Texas.

I think BBC has this right. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/intro2.shtml

The finals started Thursday, George. The "final" final will be the Mavs' 4th win in this series of 7 games. One down, three to go.