RE: Are Religions/Religious Arguments Complicated Because...
October 25, 2011 at 9:27 am
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2011 at 9:38 am by Ace Otana.)
It can be hard to keep things simple when defending a lie. A lie has a habit of becoming more complex as more questions are asked, the more complex the question the more complex the lie will have to be. When asserting the improbable without evidence, you'll have a hard time defending it.
It's just an ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g."And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. Just an endless supply of elaborate competing explanations. Occam's Razer rules it out.
Never multiply explanations beyond what's required to explain anything.
One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
It's just an ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g."And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. Just an endless supply of elaborate competing explanations. Occam's Razer rules it out.
Never multiply explanations beyond what's required to explain anything.
One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
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.
