(November 9, 2015 at 10:10 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: You should try going to the zoo. If you stand near enough furiously masturbating monkeys - you'll seem like a f***ing rocket scientist.

And what exactly do you have against furious masturbation? >.>

Keep in mind that for rik, being seen talking to us is a multi-step promotion. But us, it would be an ambarassement to be seen confusing rik for something with which theoretically productive conversation can be possible.

(November 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Kaiser Wrote: And what exactly do you have against furious masturbation? >.>

Nothing. I just don't like monkeys...

(November 9, 2015 at 10:17 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 10:13 am)Kaiser Wrote: And what exactly do you have against furious masturbation? >.>

Nothing. I just don't like monkeys...

!!

Monkeys are the most awesomest things ever, I can't even...

(November 9, 2015 at 10:18 am)Kaiser Wrote: Monkeys are the most awesomest things ever, I can't even...

Uhm, no. Breasts are the most awesomest things ever.

(November 9, 2015 at 10:28 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 10:18 am)Kaiser Wrote: Monkeys are the most awesomest things ever, I can't even...

Uhm, no. Breasts are the most awesomest things ever.

That...I will grant you. Monkey breasts however...not so much.

Look upon your work Rik. This is what your inanity drives us to discuss. Monkey boobs. I hope you're happy, you bastard.

(November 9, 2015 at 10:47 am)Kaiser Wrote: Look upon your work Rik. This is what your inanity drives us to discuss. Monkey boobs. I hope you're happy, you bastard.

I think that was his plan all along - to steer the conversation towards his main area of expertise. I expect he will now blind us with all sorts of monkey-boob science... 

Re the title of the OP: Is it scientifically naive to look toward science for evidence of God's nonexistence? All one can really do is find evidence against any empirical claims that religion makes. So long as religion contents itself with a non-empirical domain it is safe from the scrutiny of science. But what empirical claims are really essential to a religion?

Lots of religions have an origins tale to tell. But it shouldn't be too hard for a religious person to be modern enough to shrug and admit no one really knows what there was at the most remote of times. That relates both to cosmic origins and human origins.

Then there are the claims some religions make about an afterlife. Here too I don't see why a modern religious person can't shrug and admit it is a mystery.

Of course very few Christian people in my experience are so humble in their perceived epistemic position. If the humble ever do inherit the earth there will be very few xtians counted among their number.

You know what, the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is dumb. It is evidence. Not outright proof, but it's a piece of evidence to consider. If someone tells me Godzilla just ran down my high street, but it all looks perfectly normal, then that's evidence against the claim.

Let's see if we can get to 100 pages with zero evidence being put forward.

What am I saying? That's no challenge, it's a certainty.