🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
>

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.