DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

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.

I guess now you need to define "religion".
A group, society or clan does not necessarily align with a religion.

Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says
""
religion
noun
[mass noun]

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’

1.1. [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.
‘the world's great religions’

1.2. [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’


Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.
""


Why are religions tax exempt and porotected?
Would you think that these groups are claiming equal tax exemptions and protections in the hopes of starting this discussion in society leading to having the large religions getting taxed like any other institution, instead of having themselves not be taxed?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

When people go out of their way to assert things that weren't asserted...  *fail*

---

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.

I guess now you need to define "religion".
A group, society or clan does not necessarily align with a religion.

Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says
""
religion
noun
[mass noun]

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   ‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’

1.1. [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.
   ‘the world's great religions’

1.2. [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’


Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.
""


Why are religions tax exempt and porotected?
Would you think that these groups are claiming equal tax exemptions and protections in the hopes of starting this discussion in society leading to having the large religions getting taxed like any other institution, instead of having themselves not be taxed?

I think a more pressing question is why they would need to do so in "context of religion."  There are many other ways to get said protections and exemptions.  This is just my conjecture, but I would suggest it's a competing view point.  With the definition, I think 1.1 and 1.2 would be most applicable, but 1.1 in a lesser amount of cases where people participate with uncertainty, but still practice.  Even in third world countries where they assert values to things, even in nature, and worship them.  That's the thing with religions, there are more out there than we can logically count, and each has it's own versions.  That's why it's easy and sometimes necessary to lump things together.  If not we would have to make a bazillion different versions of the same laws to accommodate everybody.

[pocaracas]

I guess now you need to define "religion".
A group, society or clan does not necessarily align with a religion.

Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says
""
religion
noun
[mass noun]

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   ‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’

1.1. [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship.
   ‘the world's great religions’

1.2. [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’


Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.
""


Why are religions tax exempt and porotected?
Would you think that these groups are claiming equal tax exemptions and protections in the hopes of starting this discussion in society leading to having the large religions getting taxed like any other institution, instead of having themselves not be taxed?

I think a more pressing question is why they would need to do so in "context of religion."  There are many other ways to get said protections and exemptions.  This is just my conjecture, but I would suggest it's a competing view point.

It does seem to be the most immediate reason.
As opposition to the religious protections and exemptions. As a wake up call for society to rethink these religious protections and exemptions.
I ask again, why are religions protected and exempted?

Historically, one can argue that the Catholic churches pay their due to the Vatican, given that they're kinda like Embassies of the Vatican State. Fair enough.
But what about all the others? Are they just leeching off of a rule that was never supposed to apply to anyone else? Or is there some other reason?

  With the definition, I think 1.1 and 1.2 would be most applicable, but 1.1 in a lesser amount of cases where people participate with uncertainty, but still practice.  Even in third world countries where they assert values to things, even in nature, and worship them.  That's the thing with religions, there are more out there than we can logically count, and each has it's own versions.  That's why it's easy and sometimes necessary to lump things together.  If not we would have to make a bazillion different versions of the same laws to accommodate everybody.

I think someone did the counting and came up with a number of the order of 4000.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I think a more pressing question is why they would need to do so in "context of religion."  There are many other ways to get said protections and exemptions.  This is just my conjecture, but I would suggest it's a competing view point.

It does seem to be the most immediate reason.
As opposition to the religious protections and exemptions. As a wake up call for society to rethink these religious protections and exemptions.
I ask again, why are religions protected and exempted?

Historically, one can argue that the Catholic churches pay their due to the Vatican, given that they're kinda like Embassies of the Vatican State. Fair enough.
But what about all the others? Are they just leeching off of a rule that was never supposed to apply to anyone else? Or is there some other reason?

  With the definition, I think 1.1 and 1.2 would be most applicable, but 1.1 in a lesser amount of cases where people participate with uncertainty, but still practice.  Even in third world countries where they assert values to things, even in nature, and worship them.  That's the thing with religions, there are more out there than we can logically count, and each has it's own versions.  That's why it's easy and sometimes necessary to lump things together.  If not we would have to make a bazillion different versions of the same laws to accommodate everybody.

I think someone did the counting and came up with a number of the order of 4000.

 Bias. But we have a problem when religions share that same bias against each other.  IMO, the best solution is to agree to disagree.  If you want to form an organization and have exemptions, then great, but no reason to tell everybody else they're wrong and don't deserve the same fair treatment that the said religion/group wants.

You could be spot on with 4000. What I said was meant as hyperbole, since the number is high and frequently increases.

[Amarok]

  There are many other ways to get said protections and exemptions. 

Yes but that the way it happened and it's still not religion 

 This is just my conjecture, but I would suggest it's a competing view point. 

Then said conjecture is false atheism is not a competing viewpoint it's the rejection of a viewpoint 

 With the definition, I think 1.1 and 1.2 would be most applicable, 

That definition is false 

1.1 in a lesser amount of cases where people participate with uncertainty, but still practice. 

You can practice or participate in atheism 

 Even in third world countries where they assert values to things, even in nature, and worship them.  That's the thing with religions, there are more out there than we can logically count, and each has it's own versions.  That's why it's easy and sometimes necessary to lump things together.  If not we would have to make a bazillion different versions of the same laws to accommodate everybody.

None of this has anything to do with atheism

[T0 Th3 M4X]

  There are many other ways to get said protections and exemptions. 

Yes but that the way it happened and it's still not religion 

 This is just my conjecture, but I would suggest it's a competing view point. 

Then said conjecture is false atheism is not a competing viewpoint it's the rejection of a viewpoint 

 With the definition, I think 1.1 and 1.2 would be most applicable, 

That definition is false 

1.1 in a lesser amount of cases where people participate with uncertainty, but still practice. 

You can practice or participate in atheism 

 Even in third world countries where they assert values to things, even in nature, and worship them.  That's the thing with religions, there are more out there than we can logically count, and each has it's own versions.  That's why it's easy and sometimes necessary to lump things together.  If not we would have to make a bazillion different versions of the same laws to accommodate everybody.

None of this has anything to do with atheism

Right, and your view of atheism is inconsistent to that of the Chinese, who as a population have been practicing atheism for thousands of years.  I suppose their version is fake and yours is the real one?  If not, why is your version superior?

[Amarok]

Right, and your view of atheism is inconsistent to that of the Chinese,

Nope 

 who as a population have been practicing atheism for thousands of years. 

Nope 

 I suppose their version is fake and yours is the real one?  If not, why is your version superior?

Because mine is actually what atheism is

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Right, and your view of atheism is inconsistent to that of the Chinese,

Nope 

 who as a population have been practicing atheism for thousands of years. 

Nope 

 I suppose their version is fake and yours is the real one?  If not, why is your version superior?

Because mine is actually what atheism is

My atheism can beat up your atheism.

Got it.

[Amarok]

Nope 





Nope 



Because mine is actually what atheism is

My atheism can beat up your atheism.

Got it.

That would imply there is more then one atheism of which there is not

[T0 Th3 M4X]

My atheism can beat up your atheism.

Got it.

That would imply there is more then one atheism of which there is not

There are different versions.  Chinese can be version A and you can be version B, or vice versa.