It's sad when the Atheists, and Theists, went about utilizing the power of the SCOTUS to have their way with public prayer, at their say so? (IE, That very same anti Religious component, that I've asked you to comment on, and you still refuse to?)
Because there IS NO HARM in a Public prayer inside of a school, or outside of a public school.
I think that the anti Religious carefully choose their anti Religious narratives, when expressing themselves before any court of law, because apparently their anti Religious narrative, is more important than a harmless prayer is?
Hence, the TRUTH behind this debate point, that both the Atheists, and Theists are in a sense pleading the 5th on?
(Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?
"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."
The earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old, and humanity has roughly been on this planet, I believe anywhere from 250,000 - 300,000 years?
The above is what Regular Science says.
And in my experiences with going to a Religious building, have your individual talking points ever been discussed during the Religious services, in the Religious building.
"if the world is only as old as Christians say it is, then dinosaurs and humans must have roamed together at the same time. yet no where in the bible does it speak of them."
What individual Christians expressed to you, about the conversation piece, that you're elaborating on?
Can you shed some light on maxx's conversation piece?
"if the world is only as old as Christians say it is, then dinosaurs and humans must have roamed together at the same time. yet no where in the bible does it speak of them."
So says the internet enabled artificial court of opinion:
"I just reformatted the question to fit an actual legal setting... Atheists do not have "evidence", they have "reasonable doubt" as their best argument, and that's all they need for a favorable judgement."