🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:Odqpd.207061$9b.160829@edtnps84...
> In article <h%7pd.181407$df2.125158@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:RnUod.15328$l65.11153@clgrps13...
> >> In article <PaSod.319584$%k.59888@pd7tw2no>, CalgaryBill@shaw.ca
says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"SilverStar" <you.dont.get@it.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:hGQod.309646$Pl.266071@pd7tw1no...
> >> >> Helper Monkey Assault Squad 7 wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:40:51 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
> >> >> > (Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof
> >> >doesn't exist
> >> >> >>>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly
> >> >developed tools of
> >> >> >>>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith
on.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of
> >> >> >>>reasoning lead you to believe in God?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>They don't, they've led me to atheism.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh well, so much for that argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, and it's still just a belief. A blind leap of faith, choosing
to
> >> >> ignore any possible evidence that may show up to the contrary. The
> >> >
> >> >Bullshit.  An atheist is reasonably likely to accept evidence ...
> >> >measurable, reproducible events would allow many atheists and
agnostics
> >> >to re-evaluate.  Then apply Occam's razor to such evidence ... if the
> >> >scientific method could not debunk such evidence, I'd certainly
> >> >reconsider.  Unfortunately, no such evidence has arisen during the
> >> >entire history of mankind.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >No more than a theist is likely to accept evidence that is measurable and
> >reproduceable.  Sufficient evidence is a very subjective thing.  For some
> >theists and atheists only absolute certainly would do.  For others, a
> >reasonable indication would do.  For others, no amount of evidence will
do.
> >
>
> Hey at least you're learning from me while pouting, eh?
>
I haven't learned anything from you.  My guess is that there is little you
can teach me except to confirm what I already know; and you have already
accomplished that, eh?
>
>
> >> Occam's razor is not the scientific method, it is form of
methodological
> >> reductionism called 'parsimony' which can be used to compliment the
> >scientific
> >> method in judging hypothesis.  Parsimony can be used to evaluate data
> >generated
> >> by scientific inquiry but it's usefulness is somewhat restricted - your
> >idea of
> >> what the 'least complicated explaination' is and mine are subject to
bias,
> >so
> >> it's impossible to determine objectively what is 'least complicated'.
> >Occam's
> >> razor is often misapplied by those seeking confirmation for theories
that
> >are
> >> only the 'simplest' in the sense that they are the stupidest.  To many
> >people,
> >> the application of Occam's razor confirms God's existence.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>