Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Anomalocaris]

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 a some degree.

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

No, he loses a lot.  He loses perspective on reality.  He loses the use of much of the main faculty by which mankind has successfully improved itself.  He debased himself and became instead a contributor to the confusion, ignorance, wishthinking, and above all, gullibility, of mankind.

[brewer]

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 a some degree.

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

Caring is great, but a lot more comes with the package.  Know any killers for god, any bigots for god, any manipulators for god, any con artists for god, ........................

[AAA]

How much science (or logic) does it fucking take to know that a supposedly Holy and Inerrant book written by an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal deity that nevertheless professes his only son died on BOTH Thursday and Friday is full of shit ?

Yeah, but atheism doesn't just deny a book. Atheism isn't the lack of belief that the Bible is inerrant.

[purplepurpose]

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 a some degree.

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

No, he loses a lot.  He loses perspective on reality.  He loses the use of much of the main faculty by which mankind has successfully improved itself.  He becomes a contributor to the confusion, ignorance, wishthinking, and above all, gullibility, of mankind.

Thinking that you can become Gods "little angel" isn't so bad, stop making strawman.

[AAA]

Why not? What do you think about cells?

Pitiful little things, but so convoluted, inefficient, tenuous and ass backwards in so many of their vital operations their designer must be so dumb that random chance could easily have done a better job.

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.

[brewer]

How much science (or logic) does it fucking take to know that a supposedly Holy and Inerrant book written by an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal deity that nevertheless professes his only son died on BOTH Thursday and Friday is full of shit ?

Yeah, but atheism doesn't just deny a book. Atheism isn't the lack of belief that the Bible is inerrant.

Your belief (which apparently includes the bible) is a man made fantasy delusion. The bible chronicles that delusion.

[RozKek]

Pitiful little things, but so convoluted, inefficient, tenuous and ass backwards in so many of their vital operations their designer must be so dumb that random chance could easily have done a better job.

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.

[AAA]

I think what people would call hard atheism is unscientific.
People who claim to know there is no God which is basically claiming knowledge about something that isn't testable.
In general practical terms though most atheists just reject religion. And since the mainstream religions make unscientific claims then the absence of belief in those claims could give someone a scientific advantage.

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.

[brewer]

I think what people would call hard atheism is unscientific.
People who claim to know there is no God which is basically claiming knowledge about something that isn't testable.
In general practical terms though most atheists just reject religion. And since the mainstream religions make unscientific claims then the absence of belief in those claims could give someone a scientific advantage.

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?

[paulpablo]

I think what people would call hard atheism is unscientific.
People who claim to know there is no God which is basically claiming knowledge about something that isn't testable.
In general practical terms though most atheists just reject religion. And since the mainstream religions make unscientific claims then the absence of belief in those claims could give someone a scientific advantage.

Would you call people who say there is not a big bowl of spaghetti levitating 5000 Kms  over the North Pole of Jupiter "unscientific"?

Science is about making probability weighted statements.  If the probability of a statement being true, based on what is know, can judged overwhelming, it is waste of breadth to hedge. Any intelligent person, when hearing an unhedged statement about an overwhelming probability, knows the subtlety. Only religious idiots invested in the overwhelmingly improbable somehow being acknowledged as true, would quibble. Just because religious morons take offense at that statement that their god's chance of existing is on par with a bowl of spehatti floating 5000 Kms over Jupiter does not make it less scientific to say "the god of christians does not exist" then to say "the said levitating bowl of spaghetti does not exist"

A big bowl of something is physical where as a lot of people believe god is non physical and non testable therefore outside the realms of science.

If someone says something that is outside the realm of science definitely does or does not exist I'd say they're equally unscientific.

If it's not testable then the scientific response to it should be basically, no comment.
If someone says we're all brains in a jar and this life is all just an illusion but it can't be proven or disproven then that has nothing to do with science, it's just ignorable.
If someone says a giant bowl is floating above a planet then that can be questioned and dismissed as false.