Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[robvalue]

There is no direct link between atheism and science.

The application of scientific thinking often results in atheism. But not all atheists are scientifically minded.

[AAA]

I think they are nifty. What do you think about cells? Tell us about their "design".

Never mind cells, look at the human body, is it designed by a god? If it is then the god is useless. Only an idiot would have a common opening for food, water and breathing, any 1st year engineering student could come up with a better design. Would you buy a car with just one opening to fill with fuel, water and air?

How convenient to just ignore cells. We could talk about the cross-talk between signal transduction pathways that allow external signals to change your transcriptional output. We could talk about how cells have regions dedicated to packaging proteins and delivering them to where they need to go. We could talk about the small nucleolar RNAs that direct editing of spliceosomal snRNAs which then cut and rearrange other RNAs which can go on to be translated by the incredibly complex ribosome to make proteins which, by the way were essential for everything I've mentioned so far. 

If you want to complain about the placement of your trachea, then you should at least know that we have plenty of mechanisms to keep us from choking. For example, we have a class of surfactant enzymes that break up fluid in the lungs. Without it, fluid would accumulate quickly and we would die. We could talk about how important the epiglottis is. If this didn't manage to evolve at the same time the trachea/esophagus arrangement evolved, we would choke every time we ate/drank anything.

[Anomalocaris]

"Non-testable" is synonymous with "bullshit". To say god is outside science is to say he exists by mere assertion. If any idiot find that sufficient then I have many more untestable propositions to cram down his throat.

[AAA]

Are you serious? What part about them is inefficient? Is it the way that one gene can code bidirectionally, be differentially edited/spliced, and be recycled and used as micro RNAs to regulate translation? The prediction that cells should be severely flawed because their "designer" is random chance has been one of the least scientifically productive predictions of all time.

So... how do you know that god made this? enlighten me.

Well we don't know that God made it, but we know that the only known cause of specified, sequential information is intelligence. Read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. It makes this case strongly. Given that intelligence is the only known cause, it is the best current explanation for the genetic code responsible for life. Just because it is the best current explanation doesn't mean that no other explanation will arise, but the search has been thorough, and I am pretty confident intelligence is the force that actually did cause it.

[Mermaid]

So... how do you know that god made this? enlighten me.

Well we don't know that God made it, but we know that the only known cause of specified, sequential information is intelligence.

No.

[AAA]

I see your point. While I agree that religions make unscientific claims, I think that the prediction of design that comes from the religious worldview has been scientifically productive; especially in biology.

What prediction? What world view? Productive how?

Well the most famous prediction is that the "junk DNA" would have function if it were designed. Now we are finding function after function for this code. They actually almost decided not to sequence this region because they were so confident that it was evolutionary junk. This would probably have been the greatest scientific mistake of all time.

[The Grand Nudger]

@OP, not in and of itself, no.  It's nt even a "persepctive".  Just a statement regarding one's status of belief in gods.

You'll only embarrass the divine with genetics and "design", btw.

[AAA]

Well we don't know that God made it, but we know that the only known cause of specified, sequential information is intelligence.

No.

Ok, what's another cause that is capable?

[Edwardo Piet]

Life evolved.

[AAA]

Life evolved.

That's just an assertion.