Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

I know that these things have been argued before, but I think that they typically end in name calling, circular arguments, and loss of interest.

And I disagree that science agrees with you so far. There have been a number of recent discoveries (mainly the fine tuning of biological systems and the physical constants of the universe) that seem to have theistic implications. And every scientist believes things with no proof. In fact, the word proof is only allowable in mathematics or topics that use mathematics. Other than that, we deal with probabilities. There is virtually no such thing as proof in biology. This is another example of how the general public has a narrow schema of science. I have described no "proof" anywhere. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence (not the one in parenthases).

And it is ironic that you want to put a disclaimer to tell people not to use previously used arguments when you come here, read the first and last page, then admittedly make an argument that has already been argued.

The arguments can go either way but I've noticed that on this site the atheists usually don't get hostile unless the Xian does first. Facebook and that sort of thing is just horrible but here we have some pretty good civil debates which is why I was surprised they started in on you right away with the cursing and hostile attitude. We have also been harassed by some pretty mean xians lately so the reaction from them might have rubbed off on you. I know we have a few xians on the site that everyone gets along with and we have pretty good discussions.

The last sentence I was referencing the bible. Xians kinda lug that around and I saw a few mentions of it on this thread. I do like that this is about science though. I was saying my comments despite reading the rest because what I was saying didn't pertain to the convo that had evolved from the main subject so I was making it known that it wouldn't factor in the new conversation. I have read a few more pages since my first post but I got realllly really bored because like someone mentioned being atheist doesn't mean we are into science. I mean I put science first but I have no interest in reading about cells and biology being something that isn't 'proof'. I'm sorry but while I know that our understanding of science evolves with our discoveries I can't agree that biology is not proof. There are still a lot of things humans don't know but the science is still out there. We are limited by our own minds and will eventually find it all. I'm pretty sure the whole point of science is to NOT believe something without evidence. We have had so much 'evidence' come up over the last 100 years it's not even funny and we aren't done yet. We didn't develop math we just worked out a way for us to understand it. That is what science is doing. Yet still I see no reason to think any theist claims are real.

Well if you were to give a presentation on a biological study, and you said that "my results prove...." you would frustrate pretty much everyone in the room and would lose all credibility instantly. And the whole point of science is to understand aspects of the natural world by appealing to a method that intends to reduce the bias of the investigator.

---

Nobody is arguing for young earth creationism.

Quite frankly, I think all  flavours of creationism, from all belief systems, are crap. YEC is merely the worst of the worst.

I am not in the least bit amused by people who just assert there has to be some sort of intelligent agent running the show, but cannot produce any actual evidence for it.  Even more ludicrous are the excuses that creationism proponents use to explain the existence of the creator itself (usually something along the lines of "the creator is eternal," or some other nonsense).

I just get frustrated by atheists who think that they are automatically highly versed in science and intellect just because they are atheists. And you guys are proving my point with these posts: when you don't want to address the argument you just start insulting me. I just want you guys to realize that the theory of evolution (at least the concept of common descent from one ancestor) is not as robust as you think it is.

We have addressed the argument -- multiple times.  At this point, AAA, you've fucking earned the insults you've been receiving.

I'll stick with evolution, thanks.  Much more robust than the Talking Snake™ Hypothesis.

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world. 
And I think the insulting and hostile nature of atheists is one of the huge turn offs for people, and one of the reasons that people do not want to see an atheist in political power.