All we ask is that just one theist pr...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#455 Jun 15, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>I cornered dollarsbill on that question and all it can do is run and hide with non-sequential post.
No proof Just evil lies and hate.
Yep.
Lincoln LCN

United States

#456 Jun 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
If jesus is alive, where the f*ck is your proof you liar?
Same case with all theists who make stupid egotistical claims.
thak you for sharing your profanity :-)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#457 Jun 16, 2013
Lincoln LCN wrote:
<quoted text>
thak you for sharing your profanity :-)
No thank you for spamming the forum with creationist propoganda you lying troll with no morals.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#458 Jun 16, 2013
Lincoln LCN wrote:
<quoted text>
thak you for sharing your profanity :-)
By the way, changing your name will not stop you from being banned. You can learn the easy way or the hard way.
Lincoln LCN

United States

#459 Jun 16, 2013
Justices Take Case on Prayer at Town Board Meetings, and a Patent Dispute
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide cases concerning prayers at the start of town meetings and a patent dispute over heart monitors. It also issued an important administrative law decision that said the Federal Communications Commission was entitled to deference in determining the scope of its own jurisdiction.

LEGISLATIVE PRAYER The case concerning prayers, Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696, came from Greece, N.Y., a town near Rochester. For more than a decade starting in 1999, the Town Board began its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.” Town officials said that members of all faiths, and atheists, were welcome to give the opening prayer.

In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.

“A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.“Roughly two-thirds contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’‘Jesus,’‘Your Son’ or the ‘Holy Spirit.’”

Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of the government establishment of religion. The appeals court agreed.“The town’s prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint,” Judge Calabresi wrote.

In 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its legislative sessions with an invocation from a paid Presbyterian minister, saying that such ceremonies were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

David Cortman, a lawyer for the town, said its practices were consistent with that tradition.“Americans today should be as free as the founders were to pray,” he said in a statement.“The founders prayed while drafting our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.”

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group behind the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court should bar prayers in governmental settings like town meetings.

“A town council meeting isn’t a church service, and it shouldn’t seem like one,” he said in a statement.“Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”

MEDICAL DEVICES The justices also agreed to consider which side bears the burden of proof in some patent disputes. The case, Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 12-1128, concerns devices made by Medtronic that deliver electrical jolts to the heart when it fails to pump normally.

Medtronic licensed patents owned by Mirowski Family Ventures concerning various aspects of such “cardiac resynchronization therapy.” The license agreement also addressed new products developed by Medtronic, requiring it to pay royalties on ones said to be infringing the patents or to go to court for a “declaration of noninfringement.”

In 2007, the patent owner asserted various infringements, and Medtronic asked the courts to decide the matter. The question for the justices is whether a federal appeals court in Washington was right last year when it put the burden on Medtronic to prove it had not infringed the patents. In ordinary cases, the patent holder must prove infringement.

https://www.google.com/search...
Lincoln LCN

United States

#460 Jun 16, 2013
Part two from NYTtimes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The administrative law case, City of Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 11-1545, concerned a 1996 federal law that requires state and local authorities to act “within a reasonable period of time” after receiving applications for building or altering wireless facilities. In response to a request from a trade association for the wireless industry, the commission made two decisions.

First, it found that it had jurisdiction to define what a reasonable time was. Second, it said that a deadline of 90 or 150 days was generally appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

Two Texas cities, Arlington and San Antonio, said Congress had not authorized the commission to act in the first place, pointing to a part of the law that said it was not meant to limit the power of state and local governments.

The general rules in this area were set out by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which said that judges should defer to an administrative agency’s views when Congress itself had not spoken clearly.

That general framework, the court said Monday, applies to an agency’s determination of whether it has the power to act at all. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it did.“The distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretations,” he wrote,“is a mirage.”

“The false dichotomy between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ agency interpretations may be no more than a bogeyman,” he continued,“but it is dangerous all the same. Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, it is conjured by those with greater quarry in sight: Make no mistake — the ultimate target here is Chevron itself.”

An unusual coalition, made up of Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, joined Justice Scalia’s opinion without reservation. In a concurrence, Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined the majority for the most part but suggested a less categorical approach.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr., issued a cutting dissent that accused the majority of abdicating judicial responsibility in favor of a federal bureaucracy with vast and unsupervised power.“It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, quoting a phrase from James Madison about the dangers of concentrating too much power in the same hands,“but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the decision “could make it more difficult for both industry and public interest groups to challenge agencies for departing from their statutory authority.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#461 Jun 16, 2013
Lincoln LCN wrote:
Part two from NYTtimes
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The administrative law case, City of Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 11-1545, concerned a 1996 federal law that requires state and local authorities to act “within a reasonable period of time” after receiving applications for building or altering wireless facilities. In response to a request from a trade association for the wireless industry, the commission made two decisions.
First, it found that it had jurisdiction to define what a reasonable time was. Second, it said that a deadline of 90 or 150 days was generally appropriate, depending on the circumstances.
Two Texas cities, Arlington and San Antonio, said Congress had not authorized the commission to act in the first place, pointing to a part of the law that said it was not meant to limit the power of state and local governments.
The general rules in this area were set out by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which said that judges should defer to an administrative agency’s views when Congress itself had not spoken clearly.
That general framework, the court said Monday, applies to an agency’s determination of whether it has the power to act at all. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it did.“The distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretations,” he wrote,“is a mirage.”
“The false dichotomy between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ agency interpretations may be no more than a bogeyman,” he continued,“but it is dangerous all the same. Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, it is conjured by those with greater quarry in sight: Make no mistake — the ultimate target here is Chevron itself.”
An unusual coalition, made up of Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, joined Justice Scalia’s opinion without reservation. In a concurrence, Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined the majority for the most part but suggested a less categorical approach.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr., issued a cutting dissent that accused the majority of abdicating judicial responsibility in favor of a federal bureaucracy with vast and unsupervised power.“It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, quoting a phrase from James Madison about the dangers of concentrating too much power in the same hands,“but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the decision “could make it more difficult for both industry and public interest groups to challenge agencies for departing from their statutory authority.”
Spamming the forum is just an admission that you have nothing to say that is worth reading
LCN Lincoln

United States

#462 Jun 17, 2013
Public schools 2013 in the United States. Is this similar in the United Kindom ?

It has been 50 years since the Supreme Court banned school-sponsored prayer. But God and faith are probably present in more ways now than ever in public schools, say law and religion experts and activists.

-
• At the elementary school level, religious instruction sometimes takes place right on campus in after-school programs. By far the most widespread and controversial, Good News Clubs hold Sunday school-like classes in some 3,200 public elementary schools. After-school Good News Clubs have grown from fewer than 17,000 participants in 2001 to more than 156,000 enrolled in 2012.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2... .

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#463 Jun 17, 2013
I guess you get bonus points at church for spamming these Fox News favorite stories.

Proving once and for you are no agnostic.
LCN Lincoln wrote:
Public schools 2013 in the United States. Is this similar in the United Kindom ?

It has been 50 years since the Supreme Court banned school-sponsored prayer. But God and faith are probably present in more ways now than ever in public schools, say law and religion experts and activists.

-
• At the elementary school level, religious instruction sometimes takes place right on campus in after-school programs. By far the most widespread and controversial, Good News Clubs hold Sunday school-like classes in some 3,200 public elementary schools. After-school Good News Clubs have grown from fewer than 17,000 participants in 2001 to more than 156,000 enrolled in 2012.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2... .

Since: Jun 13

Cape Town, South Africa

#464 Jul 30, 2013
if the earth is and universe is made of clustered energy then someone must of created it so therefor god exists

you might say now that people created god out of fear if that is so why are you fearing the unknown the fact that there might be other energies among us (not aliens) jinn ,satan and angels. say god didnt exist could you explain how the bigbang could suddenly cause cell generation and creation of biengs if we are energy clustered and niether does energy die or get created then a bigger energy must of created us which is GOD (allah)

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#465 Jul 30, 2013
Wow you camel worshipers are ignorant.

Until you can first demonstrate proof a god exists you cannot assign actions and creations to him.
MUJAAHID wrote:
if the earth is and universe is made of clustered energy then someone must of created it so therefor god exists

you might say now that people created god out of fear if that is so why are you fearing the unknown the fact that there might be other energies among us (not aliens) jinn ,satan and angels. say god didnt exist could you explain how the bigbang could suddenly cause cell generation and creation of biengs if we are energy clustered and niether does energy die or get created then a bigger energy must of created us which is GOD (allah)

Since: Jun 13

South Africa

#466 Jul 30, 2013
we don't worship camels you are one of those who cannot read

if you feel you have more knowledge you prove god doesn't exist

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#467 Jul 30, 2013
Yes you do look in the Quran about the holy she camel of Allah. To this day you revere that beast and a camel is a beast.

Present some observable proof for god and I will go from there. I have never said god doesn't exist but you claim your camel god does exist without any proof so the onus is on you who are making the claim not those who do not accept your imaginary friend.

Did you know the Quran teaches Allah has two goddess daughters? Probably not.
MUJAAHID wrote:
we don't worship camels you are one of those who cannot read

if you feel you have more knowledge you prove god doesn't exist

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#468 Jul 30, 2013
MUJAAHID wrote:
if the earth is and universe is made of clustered energy then someone must of created it so therefor god exists
"someone"?

No.. the universe is uncaused, doofus.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#469 Jul 31, 2013
MUJAAHID wrote:
if the earth is and universe is made of clustered energy then someone must of created it so therefor god exists
you might say now that people created god out of fear if that is so why are you fearing the unknown the fact that there might be other energies among us (not aliens) jinn ,satan and angels. say god didnt exist could you explain how the bigbang could suddenly cause cell generation and creation of biengs if we are energy clustered and niether does energy die or get created then a bigger energy must of created us which is GOD (allah)
why?

Since: Jun 13

South Africa

#470 Jul 31, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes you do look in the Quran about the holy she camel of Allah. To this day you revere that beast and a camel is a beast.
Present some observable proof for god and I will go from there. I have never said god doesn't exist but you claim your camel god does exist without any proof so the onus is on you who are making the claim not those who do not accept your imaginary friend.
Did you know the Quran teaches Allah has two goddess daughters? Probably not.
<quoted text>
those who cannot read will never learn none of what you state is true in this you accuse and claim but cannot prove

Since: Jun 13

South Africa

#471 Jul 31, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
"someone"?
No.. the universe is uncaused, doofus.
if it was uncaused then how does it exist?
Amused

Dracut, MA

#472 Jul 31, 2013
MUJAAHID wrote:
<quoted text>
if it was uncaused then how does it exist?
If your god is uncaused, how can he exist? And no,'because he's god' is not an answer.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#473 Jul 31, 2013
MUJAAHID wrote:
<quoted text>
if it was uncaused then how does it exist?
Uncaused events happen all the time at the quantum level-- in fact? It appears to be the normal turn of events.

It exists because it does--it was uncaused, just like most quantum-sized events.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#474 Jul 31, 2013
So you do not know about the holy she camel of Allah? Wow that's another Muslim that I have shown to know more about the Quran than!

You people humiliate yourself so much on here.
MUJAAHID wrote:
<quoted text>those who cannot read will never learn none of what you state is true in this you accuse and claim but cannot prove

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 8 min Eagle 12 - 106
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 12 min Eagle 12 - 69
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 154
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 80,048
what science will NEVER be able to prove 2 hr Amused 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Amused 32,584
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep 20 The pope 258,485
More from around the web