Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[RozKek]

Life evolved.

That's just an assertion.

No, that is what evidence points to. Evidence which the god hypothesis does not have.

[Edwardo Piet]

Life evolved.

That's just an assertion.

...of the scientifically evidenced truth, yes.

[AAA]

That's just an assertion.

No, that is what evidence points to. Evidence which the god hypothesis does not have.

How is that what the evidence points to? Small changes in phenotype can easily be explained as a product of epigenetic inheritance which is influenced by the environment. This is a classic example of where speculation by scientists gets interpreted as fact by the outsider.

[Cyberman]

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

NOPE

Why not? What do you think about cells?

Whoa - careful where you're putting that burden pf proof; you're gonna have someone's eye out!

[Edwardo Piet]

No, that is what evidence points to. Evidence which the god hypothesis does not have.

How is that what the evidence points to? Small changes in phenotype can easily be explained as a product of epigenetic inheritance which is influenced by the environment. This is a classic example of where speculation by scientists gets interpreted as fact by the outsider.

LMAO.

[Jesster]

No, atheism is not related to science. Atheism is simply a rejection of a claim. Atheism also is unrelated to evolution, so you attacking that scientific fact isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

Also, no, we don't have to fill in the gap to reject your claim. Asking us "well what else caused all this then?" does not require us to answer a damn thing in order to not accept your bullshit. If you want us to believe a damn thing you do, then come here with the evidence to back that up.

[Chas]

I noticed that, atheists are so discouraged by a brutal worldview of theists(burn or serve), that they are ready to endlessly hide under the scientific material worldview, until actual God shows up.

Pro tip:  God's not going to show up.

---

Let your god show up, then.   What pitiful morons you are to be so attached to an nonexistent notion that you see its manifestation in everything just so you can believe it.  An even slightly intelligent designer would have made an infinitely better you than the squeaking wishthinking diot you actually  are.

I didn't say I was a worshiping any God.

But, the problem with atheism is that theist doesn't lose anything by trying to become a more caring person, even if he accepts fear of hell as a motivator to  some degree.

 And that's what is pissing you off so much, because you so easily went into to name calling mode.

The problem with theism is that theist wastes time and effort better used trying to become a more caring person, while an atheist already is one.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, what's another cause that is capable?

Other than the evidenced cause, you mean?  It wouldn't and doesn't matter.  The question is malformed and uniformative regardless.

"If not god than what" ignores demonstrable fact, and even if it didn't...would amount to no more than a failure of your own imagination.

[Chas]

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.

Or one could try to understand natural selection.  
You make the same old simplistic argument looking only at end products instead of the process of evolution.

[AAA]

No, atheism is not related to science. Atheism is simply a rejection of a claim. Atheism also is unrelated to evolution, so you attacking that scientific fact isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

Also, no, we don't have to fill in the gap to reject your claim. Asking us "well what else caused all this then?" does not require us to answer a damn thing in order to not accept your bullshit. If you want us to believe a damn thing you do, then come here with the evidence to back that up.

All I was trying to say was that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information. Someone said that was wrong, so I asked them if they know of another cause. I'm not saying that because we don't know how it was done we appeal to God, I'm saying that because we know intelligence is capable, then it is not irrational to conclude that it played a role. 

What would you consider evidence of design?

---

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.

Or one could try to understand natural selection.  
You make the same old simplistic argument looking only at end products instead of the process of evolution.

I understand natural selection. It isn't a creative force, it just allows the genes of the most reproductively successful to increase in frequency. You assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated more from the norm.