🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

> 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.
>
>