Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Chas]

You can't just assert that evolution is an adequate cause. he

How much information per generation does natural selection coupled with mutation produce? How many generations have there been? How much information is contained by the genome. Until we know the answer to all three of these we will not know if natural selection+mutation is adequate. 

The algorithm is sufficient to accomplish what we see. Calculate the number of organisms and reproduction events that have existed in the last 3,000,000,000 years (they are staggeringly large numbers) and you will see that there has been plenty of room for the amount of evolution we observe.

And you don't think that lifestyle impacts our genetic output? That's like the whole point of epigenetics. Environmental stimuli lead to heritable changes in transcription. Eating meat is not a more efficient means of nutrition. Nut consumption has a much higher assimilation efficiency than meat.

Tell that to the Inuit. Pound for pound, there is far more nutrition in meat than in plant matter.

Also, you have to consider that the meat itself has disseminated most of the energy of the primary producers when it was alive.

That is a ludicrously incorrect statement. Pound for pound, there is far more energy content in meat than in plant matter.

Therefore, skipping the middle man is a much more efficient way to eat from an energy perspective.

See above.

[Pat Mustard]

This is at least the third time this guy has come in here and trotted out all this nonsense. I have no idea what he's possibly hoping to achieve.

I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, either.  Is his faith so pathetically weak that he can't enjoy it in peace unless we agree with him?

I honestly think he's a masochist with long term memory problems. Hence why he comes back every few months to be spankered for spreading bullshit, and also why it's the same bullshit every time (well apart from the time he was pretending to be a postgrad biology student at an unnamed reputable uni. He dropped that one fairly quickly after I did a bit of investigating).

---

I don't believe you.  Show that there *is* an agent, rather than spouting unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity.

Are you saying, that making an inference is an argument from incredulity?  How would you categorize the inferences made in light of evolution then?

Well when your inferrence is "I can't understand how evolution works, therefore evolution doesn't work. Therefore god QED" (an argument both you and Junk Stats share), then yeah you are arging from personal incredulity.

[robvalue]

Yeah...

I don't get what he thinks happens. He either can't or won't actually state his position. Evolution... doesn't happen? It does happen but... it's magic? Or someone's sprinkling magic dust around? Or someone... designed evolution?

Obviously he actually thinks God made humans in their current form by magic, but he won't come out and say that either.

He's perfectly welcome to correct me. I mean, this is page 23 of attempt number 3 at least, you think he'd be willing to state his position by now. Instead all he does is try to attack evolution, assuming that whatever he believes wins by default if he can get enough mud to stick. To what end, I have no idea.

We really need a dumping ground for conspiracy theories about evolution for every thread that devolves into it.

[Tonus]

Instead all he does is try to attack evolution,

And if that's all he wants to do, he's in the wrong place. Just do the research showing how and where the theory fails, write a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal, and watch all of the other dominoes fall. If the scientific method can be used to lead us to a designer, then it's imperative that those who believe that hypothesis use it to do so-- it would be a monumental discovery with wide-ranging effects for everyone.

[robvalue]

Of course, the designer might be stupid. Their ideas may be useless and as such should be disregarded.

What they intended is no longer of any consequence.

[Asmodee]

Do you think that the reason that more educated people tend to be atheists is because the materialistic worldview is the only view taught in schools? More educated = more exposure to materialistic perspective= less religious. 

I also resent the assertion that it is the Christians who are trying to deceive. Did you read the opening question? It is the atheists who have been successful in promoting their worldview as the position of science. I have not heard anyone yet say that atheism and science are directly related, yet that is exactly what many atheists are doing. Also, don't tell me that Christianity is synonymous with "bad science". Young Earth creationism is bad science because they must fit all the evidence into a predetermined worldview, but materialism is guilty of the same charge. Other christian scientists have made highly significant contributions of the world of science.

You are trying to convey the idea that Christians are the ones who are more susceptible to delusion, deception, and immorality, but in you hostility you have made a strong case that you are the one who has been overcome by all three. Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but your comment seemed to be basically implying that Christians are destroyers of reason.

That first paragraph there is utterly and completely ignorant.  I don't mean to offend, but look up the definition for the word "materialistic" and you'll see what I mean.  Materialism is about possessions, having them, coveting them.  That is not what's taught in science class.  Science is the study of the natural universe, not the collection of Beanie Babies.
Yes, I did read the opening question and I answered it thoroughly.  You can resent the assertion that Christians are trying to deceive all you want, it's still true and I can give you sever real-world examples if you like.  I can give you examples in Jehovah's Witness printed materials.  I can give you examples in anti-evolution arguments.  I can give you examples in court cases about religion in schools.  I have actual reasons for my believe that Christians are generally deceptive when speaking to me about their beliefs.  As I stated multiple times, though, I don not think they are intentionally deceptive.
As for the relationship between atheism and science, I already addressed that very thoroughly.  And yes, Christianity IS synonymous with "bad science".  Christians can do good science.  Christians can and do contribute to science.  But whenever CHRISTIANITY (NOT "Christians")  tries to "contribute" to science it is ALWAYS junk science intended to push their beliefs.
Materialism again, huh?  I assume you're familiar with the meme, "You keep saying that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means."  Snookie pushes "a materialistic world view".  Science pushes "reality".  To be materialistic is to desire to collect material possessions.  That is not being pushed in schools, by atheists or by scientists.  I don't know what word you're going for there, but if that's actually the word you intend to use then you have a very warped view of reality.
I never said Christians were more susceptible to immorality, nor did I ever claim they were "more susceptible" to deception.  Delusion, of course I think they're more susceptible to that.  I'm an atheist.
There was no hostility in my response.  I responded directly to the OP with my opinion on the question at hand.  I tried to keep it civil, I made no intentional insults and, looking over it again, it reads like a dry opinion piece without emotion interjected.  It was a recitation of facts as I see them, not an assault.  If you don't want to hear what I have to say on a subject then don't ask the questions.  If you like I can easily give you a very detailed breakdown of a half dozen or so "deceptions" made by Christians off the top of my head.  As I pointed out repeatedly, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Discovery Institute are the biggest perpetrators of these deceptions that I have had experience with.  Though I do associate deception with Christianity in general, these two sources are the ones I look at "extra hard".
But if you think I was being unfair, let me give you one example of what I'm talking about, directly from you.

Do you think that the reason that more educated people tend to be atheists is because the materialistic worldview is the only view taught in schools?

The deception here?  That a "materialistic worldview" is somehow related to science, which is taught in schools, which means a materialistic worldview is taught in schools because of science.  But "materialism" is not what your usage of the word suggests it is.  Do I think you are purposely trying to pull the wool over my eyes?  Of course not.  Why did you use that word, and use it so wrong?  Because "materialistic" sounds bad.  In our heads it relates to being greedy and shallow, because, by the correct usage of the word, that's what it is.  The word invokes a negative image in our heads, and you certainly wanted to invoke a negative image when talking about "not your beliefs" being taught in schools.  You used that word, not because you, personally, were trying to deceive me, but because you, yourself, were deceived into thinking that the word "materialistic", a word which invokes bad associations in our heads, was the right word to use to describe "the study of the natural (or "material") world".

THIS is what I'm talking about.  Not that you're some jackass who wants to trick me into following something you know to be false, or whatever you thought I meant.  I have to check everything you say to find out what words you're misusing.  I have to think about everything you say to find out what concepts you're abusing.  Not because you're inherently deceitful, as you seem to have taken it, but (and I'm sorry, but it's true) because you're inherently ignorant of basic scientific understanding.  If you were not then you would not have thought that the word "materialistic" IN ANY WAY describes ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to "science".  I have to double-check even your most basic understanding of science, right down to the usage of any word not used in our ordinary, daily lives.  And I don't mean that to insult you.  Unlike you, I don't take what you say personally.  Our opinions and viewpoints differ, and I'm really okay with that.  I don't mind that you believe something different then me.  I only care when Christians try to push their beliefs on my kids, which is YET ANOTHER reason I see Christians as deceitful.  More than one Christian family has tried to "sneak" Christianity to my children behind my back, specifically and purposefully without me knowing.  Is that not the very definition of "deceitful"?

I have reasons for believing the things that I believe.  I'm not just being a dick about it.  And you have reasons for believing the things you believe.  The only difference is that mine are good reasons...

[robvalue]

I expect this guy is just repeating the bogus apologetics he has been spoon fed. Apologetics is inherently dishonest; it has to be, because it's trying to evidence that which cannot be evidenced, and to deny the evident.

[RoadRunner79]

Are you saying, that making an inference is an argument from incredulity?  How would you categorize the inferences made in light of evolution then?

Well when your inferrence is "I can't understand how evolution works, therefore evolution doesn't work. Therefore god QED" (an argument both you and Junk Stats share), then yeah you are arging from personal incredulity.

I didn't argue that, as well it is not the view that I hold.

Also, just for future reference, if you are claiming that I don't understand something, please be specific. This is for two reasons 1) I do want to represent the facts and the opposition accurately. If I am misunderstanding something, then I do want to correct the error. 2) Especially when I ask someone to clarify. but even when not... I have a suspicion, that this accusation is thrown around more as a rhetorical device, to avoid discussion. For example, when it comes up, when I really didn't say anything of detail to warrant such an accusation.

[robvalue]

I mean... what are you meant to say in science class about things defined to be outside of the scope of science? That would be a quick lesson.

[Astreja]

I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, either.  Is his faith so pathetically weak that he can't enjoy it in peace unless we agree with him?

I honestly think he's a masochist with long term memory problems. Hence why he comes back every few months to be spankered for spreading bullshit, and also why it's the same bullshit every time (well apart from the time he was pretending to be a postgrad biology student at an unnamed reputable uni. He dropped that one fairly quickly after I did a bit of investigating).

One would think that his blatant butt-hurt at the audacity of atheists daring to even exist would adequately satisfy his masochistic urges.