DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Everything has bias.  Even when we don't want to interject bias, it still happens.  Atheism has made itself religious because it keeps adding components.  Heck, even the atheists in the PRC study I linked previously had a positive numerical value of atheists saying they were "religious."  Back in the day, there were really only two "none" options when it came to non-belief in any god.  You were either atheist or agnostic.  Then it went to "hard" and "soft" atheists.  Now I can't count the different versions because there are too many.   Same thing has happened with Christianity and Islam.  It started out simple, then people naturally branched off in different directions.  I would be willing to bet my last nickel that the same thing continues to happen with atheism.  They're already splitting their churches and excluding certain groups. Really, it wouldn't concern me, but I don't like when one religion (or belief system) sets its goals to eliminate everybody else. If you don't want to believe in God or god(s), then don't believe.  And if people want to believe, they should be able to do so without some silly "war" against them.  If someone asks me to go to their church out of good will, regardless of what religion it is, I would probably go if I had nothing else to do.  Even if I don't agree, I still might learn something, especially about the culture I live in, but if their goal is to bad mouth others, then I would probably have to pass.

Maybe it would be better if you stopped lumping all atheists in with the groups that have decided to call themselves a religion.
People are people, regardless of their beliefs, they will act as people. That is why religiosity is never a good measure of empathy or morality.

If you take a belief and shape it into a religion, then that's what it is. If the east coast were to be annexed into Canada, guess what?  I would be a Canadian even if I didn't want to be.  If something changes its form or designation, it becomes something else.  When you start claiming religious rights and protections, people are going to see you as a religion.  I would have to assume that's why National Geographic did it.  We've seen the formation of a religious group called the "nones."  We had to define it as a whole to offer them the requested protections. Not only that. but said groups are claiming things like tax exemptions so they can organize and discuss or practice religious dogma.  Likewise, there are Christians/Muslims that aren't practicing. They don't go to church/mosque and they don't belong to any religious organization, attend services, or whatever.  They would still be considered part of a "religion" even though how they practice is indirect and not the same as those practicing in a fuller sense.  It doesn't matter what I say.  I'm not the one making them a religion.  It was the choice of those who decided they needed to try and organize and make it something else.