DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

 So, we're moving the conversation along again?

 So... you make the claim that the book supports itself?

 Okay... please offer the most 'Current' such 'Prophecie'?

 Lets keep it simply. The 'Last' prophecie, I suppose. Since that then should be the closest to us in time, right?

In summary to your above responce, though. It basically comes down to "No true mythology"

Your mythology is true-er than every one else's mythology.

By that stance... We should all worship Thor and Odin.

Thor killed all the frost giants. I'm looking around and I am totally not seeing any frost giants.

Therefore the stories of Thor, and by extension Odin, has validity.

Not at work.

Thor and Odin are just myths with mythical creation stories. It's just paganism.

Latest prophecies are found in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel regarding the end times which we have been in since Christ ascended into heaven.  The latest prophecy is of the Roman Catholic Church is the little horn of Daniel and the first beast of Revelation.

Now, here's the interesting thing.

Other belief systems call your stance a 'Mythology' just as much as you call them.

Other than your assertions..... What else might you have that you think would be evidence?

Aftef all.... if the Roman Catholic church lost all its followers, lands and finances following the fall out of the systematic and seeming endemic 'Kiddy fiddling' practices, your prophecy kind of fall down, doesn't it?

Since there won't be any 'Little horn'..... Unless you just arbitrarily point at something else to claim is a horn.

Yeah, not seeing a vague interpretation as anything sort of validation there.

As a side note. Since secular methodology of science is doing such a good job of 'Predicting the fuuture', why aren't you supporting such endeavours whole heartedly?

[Amarok]

No such thing 

And if trot out "atheism is a religion again " i'm just going to ignore you

Found three of them, but do as you must. The world will continue to spin. Good luck though.

Too bad they aren't actually atheist bibles simply ironically putting the word bible on the cover doesn't equate it to Christian one 

1. Ones just a collection of commentaries not a religious text 

2.Same with the second 

3. is the same 

By your silly  logic 








So kindly stop this foolishly and passive aggressive of trying to equate atheism to a religion

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Found three of them, but do as you must. The world will continue to spin. Good luck though.

Too bad they aren't actually atheist bibles simply ironically putting the word bible on the cover doesn't equate it to Christian one 

1. Ones just a collection of commentaries not a religious text 

2.Same with the second 

3. is the same 

By your silly  logic 








So kindly stop this foolishly and passive aggressive of trying to equate atheism to a religion

Of course you can have a "cake bible" too. Bible = Book.  So you have the "atheist bible" for atheism and the "cake bible" for making cakes.  Also, I'm not the one equating atheism to a religion.  Society is the one that has equated atheism as to being a religion.  When you evolve something into something more complex, then it has to take on that identity to explain.  If someone says "I adhere to atheism." That alone isn't enough to qualify their belief (on non-belief) since there are many different versions and attributes that could mean.

[Amarok]

Too bad they aren't actually atheist bibles simply ironically putting the word bible on the cover doesn't equate it to Christian one 

1. Ones just a collection of commentaries not a religious text 

2.Same with the second 

3. is the same 

By your silly  logic 








So kindly stop this foolishly and passive aggressive of trying to equate atheism to a religion

Of course you can have a "cake bible" too. Bible = Book.  So you have the "atheist bible" for atheism and the "cake bible" for making cakes.  Also, I'm not the one equating atheism to a religion.  Society is the one that has equated atheism as to being a religion.  When you evolve something into something more complex, then it has to take on that identity to explain.  If someone says "I adhere to atheism." That alone isn't enough to qualify their belief (on non-belief) since there are many different versions and attributes that could mean.

1. Accept it isn't a book of atheism it's a bunch of guys commenting on stuff and don't be disingenuous you were trying to equate these books to the Christian bible   

2.As for you second point both you and society are wrong 

3.And your third point is simply wrong

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Of course you can have a "cake bible" too. Bible = Book.  So you have the "atheist bible" for atheism and the "cake bible" for making cakes.  Also, I'm not the one equating atheism to a religion.  Society is the one that has equated atheism as to being a religion.  When you evolve something into something more complex, then it has to take on that identity to explain.  If someone says "I adhere to atheism." That alone isn't enough to qualify their belief (on non-belief) since there are many different versions and attributes that could mean.

1. Accept it isn't a book of atheism it's a bunch of guys commenting on stuff and don't be disingenuous you were trying to equate these books to the Christian bible   

2.As for you second point both you and society are wrong 

3.And your third point is simply wrong

1. I didn't read it, so you could be right.  But why label it as such then if it's just random thoughts and has nothing to do with atheism?  I don't expect you to answer that, but it's just curious.

2. You don't determine society.  It's determined within the context of itself.  What it means for you to be an atheist isn't how society has to interpret it, especially as the idea becomes more complex.  If we just take one person's view and say "this is it", then we ignore the rest of people in society with have a different take on it.

3. I'm not wrong. You're wrong.  (I said that because you saying I'm wrong doesn't validate your claim more than me saying "you're wrong" validates mine.  Pointless.

[Amarok]

1. Accept it isn't a book of atheism it's a bunch of guys commenting on stuff and don't be disingenuous you were trying to equate these books to the Christian bible   

2.As for you second point both you and society are wrong 

3.And your third point is simply wrong

1. I didn't read it, so you could be right.  But why label it as such then if it's just random thoughts and has nothing to do with atheism?  I don't expect you to answer that, but it's just curious.

2. You don't determine society.  It's determined within the context of itself.  What it means for you to be an atheist isn't how society has to interpret it, especially as the idea becomes more complex.  If we just take one person's view and say "this is it", then we ignore the rest of people in society with have a different take on it.

3. I'm not wrong. You're wrong.  (I said that because you saying I'm wrong doesn't validate your claim more than me saying "you're wrong" validates mine.  Pointless.

1. Put it this way nothing he's written is equal to the book of Mathew or Cake recipes  and i imagine the title is just an attention grabber .

2. No but do get to say when society is wrong and is viewing something wrong and it doesn't matter how many wrong people say otherwise it doesn't alter their wrongness 

3.Actually it does because you are actually wrong and it's quite pointed

[T0 Th3 M4X]

1. I didn't read it, so you could be right.  But why label it as such then if it's just random thoughts and has nothing to do with atheism?  I don't expect you to answer that, but it's just curious.

2. You don't determine society.  It's determined within the context of itself.  What it means for you to be an atheist isn't how society has to interpret it, especially as the idea becomes more complex.  If we just take one person's view and say "this is it", then we ignore the rest of people in society with have a different take on it.

3. I'm not wrong. You're wrong.  (I said that because you saying I'm wrong doesn't validate your claim more than me saying "you're wrong" validates mine.  Pointless.

1. Put it this way nothing he's written is equal to the book of Mathew or Cake recipes  and i imagine the title is just an attention grabber .

2. No but do get to say when society is wrong and is viewing something wrong and it doesn't matter how many wrong people say otherwise it doesn't alter their wrongness 

3.Actually it does because you are actually wrong and it's quite pointed

You say I'm wrong, and I say you're wrong.  That's what's know as a "wash"

Society has to be able to define things in order to maintain certain laws and norms.  If we didn't lump atheists together somehow, then how could we protect them?  What if we just used your definition?  (disbelief and nothing else) and we said everybody who believes that are "atheists."  Okay, now what about everybody who is an atheist who doesn't define it like you do, but still applies the term to themselves?  What do we tell them?  You don't get those rights because you're "not truly atheists."  Then we go round-n-round in the legal system, which of course they would win because they have the right to define themselves.  Then you lose in the long run anyway, since we'll have to establish new terms and laws so we don't have more similar cases finding their way into the legal system.  As such, we have more order.  Atheists not fighting with other atheists because they couldn't agree on a definition.  Don't believe me?  Look at how a lot of the Muslims practice.  Same book, different interpretations.  They have a lot of problems in Canada with this sort of thing.  You can't go to one mosque because you have a different ideology.   Not only that, it turns violent at times.  Atheists are running in that same direction.  They're making churches and those churches are splitting into different churches because one wants to "practice" a different way.  10 years from now and 5k churches later, it's just going to multiply the problem.  Might as well fix it while we still can.

[Amarok]

You say I'm wrong, and I say you're wrong.  That's what's know as a "wash"

Nope

Society has to be able to define things in order to maintain certain laws and norms.

And more then often it's wrong 

  If we didn't lump atheists together somehow, then how could we protect them?

Legally giving protection to Atheist does not make it a religion 

 What if we just used your definition?  (disbelief and nothing else) and we said everybody who believes that are "atheists." 

The correct definition 

 Okay, now what about everybody who is an atheist who doesn't define it like you do,
 but still applies the term to themselves?

Sucks to be them 

 

What do we tell them?  

Your misusing the term stop it 

You don't get those rights because you're "not truly atheists." 

Yup sorry 

 Then we go round-n-round in the legal system, 

Only if the legal system is dumber then a sack of bricks 

which of course they would win because they have the right to define themselves. 

They can also a muffin doesn't change the fact their not 

Then you lose in the long run anyway, since we'll have to establish new terms and laws so we don't have more similar cases finding their way into the legal system.

Nope 

 As such, we have more order

Or less 

 .  Atheists not fighting with other atheists because they couldn't agree on a definition. 

It's not a fight it's more one side being screeching group of cultist and the other actually the term  

 Don't believe me?  Look at how a lot of the Muslims practice.

Too bad atheism isn't like Islam 

  Same book, different interpretations. 

Atheism has neither 

 They have a lot of problems in Canada with this sort of thing. 

I live in Canada 

 

You can't go to one mosque because you have a different ideology. 

Hasn't my experience with  Muslims and i know a few 

Not only that, it turns violent at times. 

Again not in my experience 

 Atheists are running in that same direction. 

 No were not 

They're making churches and those churches are splitting into different churches because one wants to "practice" a different way. 

Nope collection of fringe nutters who have no clue what an  atheist is have gone back security blanket and expect the rest of us to accept them tossing shit into a term it doesn't belong in 

 10 years from now and 5k churches later, it's just going to multiply the problem.  

Nope i predict this a fad and even if it happens my answer remains the same 

Might as well fix it while we still can.

There is nothing to fix

[The Grand Nudger]

Thor and Odin are just myths with mythical creation stories. It's just paganism.

Firstly, one wonders how a person who entertains the notions of gods could determine that to be the case.

Secondly, if they -are- just myths.....that immediately implicates your own pagan myths.

Latest prophecies are found in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel regarding the end times which we have been in since Christ ascended into heaven.  The latest prophecy is of the Roman Catholic Church is the little horn of Daniel and the first beast of Revelation.

The folks who came up with the stories in Old Babble and New Babble didn't know shit about the RCC - it didn't exist.  That's just you, today...as a protestant.... imagining shit.  They were talking about something else.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You say I'm wrong, and I say you're wrong.  That's what's know as a "wash"

Nope

Society has to be able to define things in order to maintain certain laws and norms.

And more then often it's wrong 

  If we didn't lump atheists together somehow, then how could we protect them?

Legally giving protection to Atheist does not make it a religion 

 What if we just used your definition?  (disbelief and nothing else) and we said everybody who believes that are "atheists." 

The correct definition 

 Okay, now what about everybody who is an atheist who doesn't define it like you do,
 but still applies the term to themselves?

Sucks to be them 

 

What do we tell them?  

Your misusing the term stop it 

You don't get those rights because you're "not truly atheists." 

Yup sorry 

 Then we go round-n-round in the legal system, 

Only if the legal system is dumber then a sack of bricks 

which of course they would win because they have the right to define themselves. 

They can also a muffin doesn't change the fact their not 

Then you lose in the long run anyway, since we'll have to establish new terms and laws so we don't have more similar cases finding their way into the legal system.

Nope 

 As such, we have more order

Or less 

 .  Atheists not fighting with other atheists because they couldn't agree on a definition. 

It's not a fight it's more one side being screeching group of cultist and the other actually the term  

 Don't believe me?  Look at how a lot of the Muslims practice.

Too bad atheism isn't like Islam 

  Same book, different interpretations. 

Atheism has neither 

 They have a lot of problems in Canada with this sort of thing. 

I live in Canada 

 

You can't go to one mosque because you have a different ideology. 

Hasn't my experience with  Muslims and i know a few 

Not only that, it turns violent at times. 

Again not in my experience 

 Atheists are running in that same direction. 

 No were not 

They're making churches and those churches are splitting into different churches because one wants to "practice" a different way. 

Nope collection of fringe nutters who have no clue what an  atheist is have gone back security blanket and expect the rest of us to accept them tossing shit into a term it doesn't belong in 

 10 years from now and 5k churches later, it's just going to multiply the problem.  

Nope i predict this a fad and even if it happens my answer remains the same 

Might as well fix it while we still can.

There is nothing to fix

Nah.  It's just reality.  What something is today, it may not be tomorrow.  When you can accept that things change, then it's much easier to proceed through life.  That's why we're not still using Windows NT, but it's still Windows, just version 10.   It doesn't mean that people aren't still using Windows NT, 7, 8, 8.1 or think any of those versions are superior, but we're still on version 10.  Get with it or fall behind.