DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Gwaithmir]

---

Prove it!

How about a couple hundred Bible prophecies?

Present your favorite prophecies that we might discuss them.

[Amarok]

They have their brand of atheism and you have yours. 

Their are no brands of atheism it's not a cereal 

 Nothing to make one preferable than the other,

Accept ones about atheism the other is a bunch of crap being shoved into it 

 except they at least have some type of organization rather than a bunch of "nope" statements. 

They have a dim witted cult and some empty rituals none of which have anything to do with atheism 

 Ten years from now it will all look different anyway. 

I have not changed in 50 years 

 You have competing factions with it already.

Were no competing with them . They aren't even the same thing .

  They start out as one group and break into smaller groups, 

Religions do atheism doesn't 

then they grow from there.

You can't grew from atheism 

  

No different than what happens with any other religion. 

Considering atheism isn't a religion this does not apply 

 You're just in an earlier stage of the process.  

There is no sages atheism can't be divided 

Plus the atheist groups are monetizing their factions which means it will happen all the more.

You can't monetize atheism 

  I think the Christians and Muslims have you beat there though. 

Were not even the same thing 

 You can typically become a member without paying a fee. 

There are no members or fees this loopy cult is not atheism 

 Surprised the atheist churches are doing that, but hey, it's "business" I suppose.

This idiotic cult  isn't anything

---

I disagree.  You're wrong.

Don't care you are wrong

[Peebothuhlu]

He's of masculine gender.  He does not ignore facts about reality, He can perform miracles, some of which may be by manipulating quantum mechanics.

King Yeshua is my diety.

---

 I asked you how and what detrmined said 'Masculinity'?

 The very attributes you (EDIT: 'Ascrobe'? What were my fingers thinking when they typed that?) ascribed are not present in reality.
 Nothing is known to be 'Omniscient' (To be able to do so would violate causality. I.E. Your diety ignores the fundamental limit that nothing, even knowledge, can propogate faster than the speed of light.)
 Nothing is known to be 'Omnipotent' (To be able to do so would violate causality. I.E. You diey would be able to move into and out of the confines of a 'Black hole')
 Nothing is known to be 'Omnipresent' (Again, see previous comments about nothing propogating faster than the speed of light)

 Miracles, by their very definition, break our knowledge of reality. Since they are the suspension of realitie's consitencey. Also... could you demonstrate one that has happened within 'Modern' times? Anything too far back becomes little more than hearsay.

 "Manipulating quantum mechanics" ? Now you're just seeming to 'Derp'.

  "King Yeshua is my diety."

*Nods* That's all nice and good/swell.

How's that 'democracy' concept going for you at the moment? I hear it's getting rave reveiws in the 21st century.

Sorry... while I'm happy to have my representative democracy, I'm also happy with my 'Constitutional monarchy'.
Never been comfortable with a countrie's armed forces pledging aleagance to an easily changed political figure.
Too much risk of things going ploin shaped when said elected demgog decieds that 'They' know what's best for the population and rig the military forces to back such ideas up.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

They have their brand of atheism and you have yours. 

Their are no brands of atheism it's not a cereal 

 Nothing to make one preferable than the other,

Accept ones about atheism the other is a bunch of crap being shoved into it 

 except they at least have some type of organization rather than a bunch of "nope" statements. 

They have a dim witted cult and some empty rituals none of which have anything to do with atheism 

 Ten years from now it will all look different anyway. 

I have not changed in 50 years 

 You have competing factions with it already.

Were no competing with them . They aren't even the same thing .

  They start out as one group and break into smaller groups, 

Religions do atheism doesn't 

then they grow from there.

You can't grew from atheism 

  

No different than what happens with any other religion. 

Considering atheism isn't a religion this does not apply 

 You're just in an earlier stage of the process.  

There is no sages atheism can't be divided 

Plus the atheist groups are monetizing their factions which means it will happen all the more.

You can't monetize atheism 

  I think the Christians and Muslims have you beat there though. 

Were not even the same thing 

 You can typically become a member without paying a fee. 

There are no members or fees this loopy cult is not atheism 

 Surprised the atheist churches are doing that, but hey, it's "business" I suppose.

This idiotic cult  isn't anything

---

I disagree.  You're wrong.

Don't care you are wrong

Ahhhh well.  To each his own.  Your brand, their brand.  Your faction, their faction.  Whatever you want to call it.  I'm sure they would disagree with you as much as you disagree with them, but there's no determining factor that makes one better than the other.  I don't even belong to any of your churches and I would still go to one for kicks, and probably get along with everybody there without any of the nonsense you're providing, so maybe their view is superior.

[pocaracas]

Way back in 1999, I became a National Geographic magazine subscriber. Kept that subscription until 2016, when I let it run out. Why?
Towards the end of 2015, National Geographic was bought by Fox. With that, some of its articles became biased to reflect Fox's views.

The article you show here is from 2016 and is a prime example of that bias.

It's true that, when you poll people about their religion, you need to include the option of "none". Personally, I think the most honest category for these "nones" would be "N/A" (not applicable). This would make it clear that a religious label makes no sense for this group of people and would have saved us the effort of even having to refute the claim that atheism is a religion.
Society's biases show through in that faulty categorization, I suppose.


About the atheist churches, they exist, yes. Some people leave their childhood faiths, coming to be aware that their previous beliefs were erroneous, but still feeling the need for the social connection that a church gathering provided. We are, after all, social animals.
To maintain such a social gathering, some groups have come to mimic many of the church's rituals, but with no deity involved, nor invoked.
As it is when I join a group of friends to go play football on a rented pitch, where each of us contributes to the rental, I suppose those atheist gatherings also need to pay for the space they occupy and thus require those attending to contribute. While the groups are small, everyone needs to pitch in... As the groups become large enough, socialist standards start to apply and those who can afford more tend to contribute more, while those who can't, can contribute nothing. One can say that the Christian church is auto-socialist in this regard, as people do this by themselves, without the church imposing anything.

[Pat Mustard]

 Okay, lets try this again.

 1) What aspects/attributs does your Designer have?
 2) How did your Designer originate?

Trying to start slowly again.

Not at work.

He omnipotent, omniscient.

In that case he cannot exist by definition. A being which is all powerful cannot be all knowing, because being all knowing means he already knows every action he will take in the future, thus constraining his power.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Way back in 1999, I became a National Geographic magazine subscriber. Kept that subscription until 2016, when I let it run out. Why?
Towards the end of 2015, National Geographic was bought by Fox. With that, some of its articles became biased to reflect Fox's views.

The article you show here is from 2016 and is a prime example of that bias.

It's true that, when you poll people about their religion, you need to include the option of "none". Personally, I think the most honest category for these "nones" would be "N/A" (not applicable). This would make it clear that a religious label makes no sense for this group of people and would have saved us the effort of even having to refute the claim that atheism is a religion.
Society's biases show through in that faulty categorization, I suppose.


About the atheist churches, they exist, yes. Some people leave their childhood faiths, coming to be aware that their previous beliefs were erroneous, but still feeling the need for the social connection that a church gathering provided. We are, after all, social animals.
To maintain such a social gathering, some groups have come to mimic many of the church's rituals, but with no deity involved, nor invoked.
As it is when I join a group of friends to go play football on a rented pitch, where each of us contributes to the rental, I suppose those atheist gatherings also need to pay for the space they occupy and thus require those attending to contribute. While the groups are small, everyone needs to pitch in... As the groups become large enough, socialist standards start to apply and those who can afford more tend to contribute more, while those who can't, can contribute nothing. One can say that the Christian church is auto-socialist in this regard, as people do this by themselves, without the church imposing anything.

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.

[pocaracas]

Way back in 1999, I became a National Geographic magazine subscriber. Kept that subscription until 2016, when I let it run out. Why?
Towards the end of 2015, National Geographic was bought by Fox. With that, some of its articles became biased to reflect Fox's views.

The article you show here is from 2016 and is a prime example of that bias.

It's true that, when you poll people about their religion, you need to include the option of "none". Personally, I think the most honest category for these "nones" would be "N/A" (not applicable). This would make it clear that a religious label makes no sense for this group of people and would have saved us the effort of even having to refute the claim that atheism is a religion.
Society's biases show through in that faulty categorization, I suppose.


About the atheist churches, they exist, yes. Some people leave their childhood faiths, coming to be aware that their previous beliefs were erroneous, but still feeling the need for the social connection that a church gathering provided. We are, after all, social animals.
To maintain such a social gathering, some groups have come to mimic many of the church's rituals, but with no deity involved, nor invoked.
As it is when I join a group of friends to go play football on a rented pitch, where each of us contributes to the rental, I suppose those atheist gatherings also need to pay for the space they occupy and thus require those attending to contribute. While the groups are small, everyone needs to pitch in... As the groups become large enough, socialist standards start to apply and those who can afford more tend to contribute more, while those who can't, can contribute nothing. One can say that the Christian church is auto-socialist in this regard, as people do this by themselves, without the church imposing anything.

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.

[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.

[LastPoet]