Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[comet]

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

I don't see a receding pocket of ignorance, I see a continuous decline in possible alternative explanations.

---

Oh, I most certainly have!  As I said...go back and re-read through the endless pages of your own past threads, and perhaps refresh your memory.  

It's as I said before:  the ID "argument" is NOT an argument.  You have never once produced a shred of evidence demonstrating the mechanisms by which your designer has accomplished his design, not to mention an explanation for who or what this designer is, and by what facts and evidence you came to those conclusions.  When you can bring those things to the table, you have an argument for which I may choose to participate in.  Until then, I'm not going to waste time pointing out fallacies that have been pointed out to you time and time again.  

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

beliefs that provide a mechanism and prediction are more valid then those that don't and "lack belief".