My argument for atheism +

[Paleophyte]

I haven't been discussing whether there is really evidence of any kind for God.

I have been saying that people have criteria by which they judge whether there is evidence or not. 

For the most part, atheists who care enough to discuss the subject on the Internet hold very specific views concerning what constitutes good evidence. Sometimes these views seem so obvious that people don't even realize how strongly they hold to them.

Evidence: lit trans That which can be shown. As opposed to that which plays epistemological hide-and-seek for no good reason.

---

Not sure if this has been brought up ( I'm new here)

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to make an introductory thread and tell us a little about yourself.

but did you know that DNA is a code that gets decoded during transcription and is replete with error correction. The order of nucleotides that comprises the code is in arbitrary format that which the laws of chemistry have no bearing upon. How do you reconcile this with your beliefs?

With little effort. If you look at the mess that he genetic code is it rapidly becomes obvious that what you're looking at is the product of a few billion years of mindless organic evolution. No loving god would have made such a mess, no hateful god would have wasted so much time and effort when there are simpler ways to torment us, and no incompetent god could have kept the DNA from tangling like a phone cord.

How do you square your beliefs with error correction? I thought your fellow didn't make mistakes.