LG

We can play the exception game with just about any word.

Playing is exactly what I was doing, Raf.

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

It's sunlight, Pond.

I can't imagine going to Wal-Mart to buy a ..... gun!

That just doesn't seem right - I'm sure they have decent guns, etc., but just the same.... I'd think someone would have to go through a gun dealer to get one - not go to Wal-Mart...

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.

LG- your link is dead.

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.

Welcome, all, to the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika.

Geez.

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.

Just don't trash it all...two different times is what I want folks to see. Can't incorporate the two different times.

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.

LG,

Why does it bother you?

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.

LG: Look again. Garth and Oakspear did so, at least. 2 != 0.

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.

As for flexible interpretations of the First Amendment, I was being facetious to make a point. Sorry if it was lost on you. The establishment clause cannot justify establishing atheism as the state religion any more than Catholicism.

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.

_______________

Now, it should be obvious that "a belief system containing n or more Higher Powers" will therefore be descriptive of any religion, even if n is zero.

...

Atheism is a religion.

"Descriptive" is not "definitive." Even if it were, atheism is not a belief system.

_______________

Zix,

If you are strictly talking from a numerical standpoint (ie., number of gods: range 0 - n) then you'd be correct in atheism being a religion.

No, he wouldn't. There are religions, including Buddhism, that have zero gods but "zero gods" does not constitute a religion.

Not zealous? (looks at the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma) ROFLMAO!

That number would be zero, Zixar.

But, okay, let's humor the godless for a second. Suppose we do declare atheism as "not a religion". It would therefore lose any protection it might have had under the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, 'cuz, hey, it ain't no religion!

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.

It's ok to legislate and discriminate around atheism, 'cuz, hey, only religions are constitutionally protected! There are no legal grounds to sue any more over the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust", 'cuz you cain't insult no religion that ain't a religion!

You don't understand the establishment clause, do you?

Jesus, guys, grow up. Either atheism is a set of religious beliefs (albeit a degenerate one--and look up the mathematical definition of 'degenerate' before you get your panties in a wad) and you're just as free to think that way as anyone else, or it isn't, and therefore completely irrelevant to any matters involving religion.

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.

Atheism is not a religion, nor a specific philosophical system. However, some religions are substantially atheist in nature. Atheist philosophical systems are at least as intellectually adequate as religious belief systems. There are many atheist philosophical systems, but the only thing they have in common is non-belief in God(s).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/intro2.shtml