(June 30, 2011 at 2:57 pm)adam_1992p Wrote: Lol thanks Ace...forgot about Occam's Razor..I read it when I finished the great book of Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great."
Hm..so an example of Occam's Razor would be "Orange juice comes from oranges." Later on however I realize the process to make Orange juice is more complex through evidence and requires a stronger explanation. Does it work this way? Correct me if I'm wrong..I've only come across Occam's Razor in books and no one actually explained it to me.
You got it.
Another way to put it: When someone claims that there are ghosts making noises in an old house, the simplest explanation is that they are mistaken.
The simplest explanation is most often correct.
Always go with the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions. With religion, there's tons of baseless assumptions and is far too complicated, thus making it far more likely to be incorrect.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
