Did you read what I wrote? Did you have a grown up explain it to you?

Do you understand the difference between "not believe there is" and "believe there isn't"?

Do you understand there is a difference?

Do you?

Because either your language skills (or intellect) are so poor you don't understand that, or you're deliberately constructing a straw man. Which is it? Idiot, or dishonest? Must be one or the other.

That's why normal people don't take you seriously.

That's exactly the kind of word games that religiously atheists use to convince themselves they're more rational than theists.

And it only convinces you, and others as religiously atheistic.

"Personal atheism" is what generally gets lumped in with agnosticism, making coherent conversation impossible by mixing two very different things.

I suggest you have a grown up explain the difference between "a religion" and "a religious belief," or, more precisely, "a belief of a religious nature."

And the difference between "not believing there is" and "believing there isn't."

Do you understand there is a difference?

That is exactly the redefinition I was talking about.

Do you not understand the difference between "not believing the is" and "believing there isn't"?

When you lump atheism and agnosticism together, you (as I noted) make coherent conversation on the subject impossible.

But perhaps that's your goal.

Become? There was a time when he wasn't?

A Harvard professor went to prison for scamming his family and friends out of $600,000 to send to a Nigerian scammer. From this prison cell, he insisted it was a legitimate deal that would have worked if the government hadn't interfered.

Once a delusion takes hold, there's very little chance of breaking it.

(And Dawkins has been delusional for a long, long, long time.)

If one distinguishes between atheism and agnosticism (many don't, but that makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation with them on the subject), atheism is the affirmative belief there is no deity (where agnosticism is more "we don't know, "we can't know" or "I don't care").

Since proof that the deity of any major religion exists, or doesn't exist, is, by definition, impossible, that affirmative belief there is not God is exactly as much an act of faith as the belief there is.

And any faith can be proselytized for. And yes, Dawkins does. He's always been a bit of a nutbar, and more than a little bit of an asshole.

(I'll be modded down for saying that first part out loud, but that's inevitable when someone challenges a person's faith. Especially from someone who is in deep deniable that it is, in fact, faith.)

Until the Supreme Court rules on it (and they will, eventually), the question remains open.

After all, Google Won Authors Guild v. Google at trial. Many of the same arguments will apply here.

The issue to pursue here isn't what they did with the pirated material, it's how they pirated it.

(Commercial use can affect the penalties for infringement, but it's a factor in whether or not it is infringement.)

If you believe that's more likely that people like him being indoctrinated by the government to believe that shit, then you you should institutionalized for your own safety. Seriously. You - and he, except of course you're the same person - are that deranged.

I stopped reading after "I'd say the government is far more capable of determining what's in the best interest of their children than the parents"

Governments get overthrown for shit like that, and rightly so. People like ranton should be first against the wall.

While what you replied to might well be sarcasm, don't believe for a second that criminalizing this behavior isn't part of the plan. Even if you accept that the number reported are not inflated, the mere fact that the questions are being asked suggests that somebody is trying to justify something.

Those kids have to learn that the computer is their friend, er, that the government knows best for all things for all people. Or else.

Are you implying that parents are more qualified to determine what's best for their children than the government? Keep talking like that, and you'll end up in a reeducation camp.

Since you don't dispute anything he said, you have agreed with it. You have said, clearly and unambiguously, that you agree with it, even though you don't like it.

Perhaps a professional in the mental health industry could help you with your self hatred.

On the other hand, IIRC, suicide is legal in Oregon now.

Irrelevant to this case. It's not an issue of science, it's an issue of law.

The basis of the lawsuit is that there was no warning on the label that it might cause cancer. Federal law requires the label to be reviewed and approved by the EPA, which is was. Monsanto can't change it from the approved format. Under federal law, they have no liability for issues with the label. This lawsuit, and thousands of others, are in state courts, which in many cases, are based on liability laws that can only be obeyed by violating federal law.

SCOTUS gets to decide if state law can override federal law (and the odds of the state winning on that, especially with the current justices, are slim).