Evidence that demands a verdict

[Ninurta]

atheism
noun
noun: atheism
A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism by definition is not a religion or even a "belief" system.
It is a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of a God or gods (in the traditional "religious" sense).

Many here do not believe in God ... no problem, we all have our belief/s, however, 
I find it interesting that 'those who deny the Supernatural' have no explanation concerning the origin of life and the Universe, only theory
Is there some evidence I'm missing that allows sciencism to 'rule God out' < atheism ....... 
at least agnosticism keeps an open mind with the door open

Anyhow ..... My conclusion is that ALL Life derives from a source of Intelligence  .... 
I believe that the recent findings in DNA prove this to be so
you can apply this intelligence to whom so ever you will .... but what it DOES rule out is that DNA just fell together from nothing ... 
if you will, non-intelligence to intelligence

Atheism is not denying the supernatural. It is disbelieving the existence of (a) God.
Atheists (tend to) have a *Scientific Theory to explain the origin of life and the Universe.
(*Scientific Theory is a very different concept to ""just a theory".
It is defined as: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.
e.g. The scientific theory of evolution.)

Scientific Theory is not claimed to be fact.
It does not exclude any possibility. It is fluid. It reacts to the latest findings and experimental observations, and it definitely is not "only theory".
The BIG BANG (theory) for example is Scientifically Observable.
We can actually see the bodies moving apart in space in real time, and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
Plot the paths of these movements and you can trace them back to their origins. Together at one point in space & time.
Scientifically Observable.

BTW - Religious people don't have an "explanation" for the origin of life. Just a theory. (Not a Scientific Theory!)

Sciencism? Never heard of it. Is that even a word?

Did you just link to your own website as a source of "evidence"?

"All Life derives from a source of intelligence"?
OK, where did the source of intelligence originate?

PS - I don't think that anyone has ever said that "DNA just fell together from nothing". (By all accounts it took many millions of years?)

Using wordplay to undermine an opposing viewpoint does nothing but diminish your own argument.
If you really want to try and understand another persons views, then you cannot begin the conversation by putting words in their mouths.
A simple statement like: "I believe that recent findings in DNA research proves _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and here is a link to the evidence _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I'd be interested to hear other views on this." would be a much more balanced, less provocative opening post than the one which was used, which made several (inaccurate) suppositions regarding atheism, atheists, Scientific Theory, denying the supernatural, sciencism, and the suggestion that DNA fell together from nothing.

kindest regards,
G.

That, Sir G., is a cop out - it's just playing with words to mask the fact that "disbelief" is merely another word for "belief". There is no concrete evidence, hence "dis"belief is just belief with a few letters attached to mask what it is.

There IS no scientific theory to account for the origin of life. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I took a course at university on that very thing, team taught by a biologist and a physicist. They very thoroughly schooled us in what science is, what theory and hypothesis is. Those two gents, scientists both, made it clear that there is no scientific theory for the origin of life, although there are hypotheses. The most intriguing hypothesis was that life somehow originated from inanimate molecules replicating the crystalline structure of the clay they adhered to, but it didn't quite make it to theory, as no one was able to determine or even hypothesize how that could become "life".

The Big Bang theory is NOT scientifically observable. The microwave background radiation (and expansion of the universe) is observable, but the big bang is not. That background radiation (and expansion) is interpreted as evidence for a Big Bang, by is by no means verified. There are competing theories to account for the same radiation. I, for example, am one of those who does not adhere to the Big Bang Theory - it would require that the energy and matter composing the universe suddenly came into existence from nothing (i.e. an "infinitely dense point" - the scientific equivalent of "hammerspace"), which is not materially different from "religious" views. The only way to reconcile it would be to postulate that the matter in question was explosively injected into our current dimension form another one (through that "infinitely dense point")... but then where did THAT matter, in that other dimension, come from?

"Scientific theory" actually IS "only" theory, and is viewed as valid only until a better theory to account for observations more conclusively comes along. That is why scientific theory is "fluid", as you accurately observe.

.