Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

See, that is a logical fallacy. That's like saying it's great that my laptop has an internal fan to cool it down, but a designer would have figured out a way to prevent it from getting hot in the first place.

We're not talking about cooling down a component in a computer, I'm talking about a 'design' that has lead to the near-extinction of all life on the planet in the past and threatens to do so again.  The human who designs a microprocessor is limited by his knowledge and resources and the laws of nature.  A God who builds a universe is limited in no such ways.  If his designs are inefficient or dangerous, then they are that way by design.  If my expectations for God are no greater than they are for a human engineer then God either faces the same limitations, is a monumentally inept engineer, or is designing things that way on purpose, which would be terrifying if true.

I think that is another flaw in the argument. It does not necessarily follow that something dangerous or inefficient in a system is the result of a flawed design. It could have degraded to the point where it became dangerous, or some other force could have damaged the system to the point where it is dangerous. For example, we are releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere which is leading to warming. The previously non harmful  atmosphere is now potentially harmful. Similarly, an exploding star that releases debris into space may be an instance where the system is running down as opposed to saying that it was intended to lead to problems for our planet. Another example would be the fan example. If the fan stops working, then the laptop could potentially overheat, whcih would make it a threat to the user. It wasn't designed to do that. 

I think you are hinting at a bigger question, though. Why isn't everything in the universe perfect if it were designed by an all-knowing God? I don't know, but I think that perfection is too much for us imperfect people to ask for. If it were perfect, then there would be more room for us imperfect beings to corrupt and ruin it. Would you create an extremely intricate and "perfect" enclosure to house a group of rowdy animals? It would be all the more disappointing for you to see your perfect enclosure be ruined by the inevitable actions of the flawed.

[Edwardo Piet]

Holy shit you're as annoying as a pair of underpants that get caught on a doorhandle.

---

That, of course, happens all the time to me. It's pretty routine.

[Tonus]

I think you are hinting at a bigger question, though.

I am. You asked if nature exhibited evidence of design. My point was that we can see the signs of design in nature, but as we look deeper we see that it might also be an illusion. To put it another way, this is the kind of evidence that would indicate that the world is flat, or that the Sun is a relatively small light source that travels across the sky. As we learn more we realize that while it looked like those assumptions were correct, they were actually wrong.

Why isn't everything in the universe perfect if it were designed by an all-knowing God? I don't know, but I think that perfection is too much for us imperfect people to ask for. If it were perfect, then there would be more room for us imperfect beings to corrupt and ruin it. Would you create an extremely intricate and "perfect" enclosure to house a group of rowdy animals? It would be all the more disappointing for you to see your perfect enclosure be ruined by the inevitable actions of the flawed.

If God was anything like us, I expect that his designs would be flawed and require constant tweaking and testing as he improved them. He would still have far more tools and fewer limitations than we do, but he could enjoy the journey as much as we do when we're chasing after a goal that we can't achieve right away. That would be a very nice God to have, assuming he didn't exhibit any of the less-pleasant attributes that humans do all too often.

[Angrboda]

So your evidence for your claim is that you don't like alternative claims? Have you heard of the argument from incredulity fallacy? Are you going to give evidence for your claim, or are you just going to try to beat up on other ideas? If you are just going to duck and dodge, I am not going to waste any more time on you.

The claim was that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information". If I describe the other alternatives and why they are wrong, then this is support for the claim that intelligence stands alone. Rather than shout argument from incredulity, think about the nature of the claim I'm making. For example, imagine someone claims "idea A is the only good idea". In order to support this claim, they must show why ideas B, C, and D are not good ideas. Does that make sense? In order to show that intelligence is the only cause capable, I must show why the other causes are not sufficient. 

Moreover, intelligence is observed to be capable of producing it all the time. Through the input of intelligence, we have developed computer code, written language, radio communication, and have even tampered with genetic code. All of these are specified and sequence based. Intelligence is an adequate cause.

(emphasis mine)

These are radically different claims. The first is true but unremarkable. The second would be true if you'd actually shown other causes are insufficient, but you haven't done that. All you've done is whine about improbabilities and use undefinable terms like "specified information." Showing that the exact process of abiogenesis responsible for life on this planet is unknown doesn't advance the proposition of intelligent design. It's just a fallacious argument. The fact is that nobody has been able to create a filter that can reliably separate out those things that were designed from those that weren't designed. In its absence, we have a bunch of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. If this is the best that the ID movement can produce, it is a very poor showing. More, because it's a possibility that humans evolved their ability to design things, you haven't even shown that design points to a non-natural process. That's a complete failure for those hoping that design is the magic bullet that points to God.

[Cyberman]

Why isn't everything in the universe perfect if it were designed by an all-knowing God? I don't know, but I think that perfection is too much for us imperfect people to ask for.

Yeah, leave "God" alone, you lot! The guy can't work miracles!

[comet]

science is data collection and conclusions. Not a belief statement or lack of belief.

It to be use by anybody, anywhere, at anytime. I welcome religion to use it.

[RozKek]

science is data collection and conclusions.  Not a belief statement or lack of belief.

It to be use by anybody, anywhere, at anytime.  I welcome religion to use it.

The problem is, usually religion contradicts evidence. And that causes people to reject the evidence just to save their precious religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Silly creationism is silly as fuck.

[Whateverist]

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.

This was my response as well, though it seems not to have been posted before I shut it down this morning.

There is no link as Rob says and in fact some atheists claim to be spiritual, etc.  But it is quite fair to point out that every mainstream xtian sect embraces empirical claims not based on observation or measurement.  In other words, xtians start off committed to empirical claims for which they do not consult science.  And yet empirical claims are precisely those which make up the domain of science.  That isn't to say such a xtian couldn't be a good scientist in regard to other questions but when it comes to the origins of the universe, the development of life on earth or the relationship between consciousness and the human brain xtians are not good scientists. Instead they seek to cherry pick evidence that supports the empirical beliefs their religion commits them to.

[Cyberman]

science is data collection and conclusions.  Not a belief statement or lack of belief.

It to be use by anybody, anywhere, at anytime.  I welcome religion to use it.

The problem is, usually religion contradicts evidence. And that causes people to reject the evidence just to save their precious religion.

People's Exhibit A: the infamous Answers in Genesis "Statement of faith":

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.