Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question." Just because God is a possibility doesn't mean faith in him can be rationally defended. It's the same principle as the flying spaghetti monster - why would we believe in or even consider something that has no observable evidence of existence? The simpler, evidence-based reasoning is always more probable. Your thoughts?
yeah i dont see how people can still believe in god and what not, i mean im not gonna try to put you down, but really it just doesnt make sense to me, and i think there are way to many people that just say the believe in god just because everyone else does.
Well I know atheists really don't buy christianity because it was a very poorely manufactured religion with a LOT of loose ends. And a LOT of bible verses on the cutting room floor and not to mention a work of great contradiction.
like i like whole idea of it for morals and stuff because a lot of people really need that, and need it to look up too, but i really see religion as just a set of morals and to explain stuff that they couldnt explain. So they made up god and everything was just wrtitten off that god created everything and everything goes back to god. but in todays world it just doesnt cut it anymore
i said "need it to look up to" not look it up lol like as in looking up to god on what to do and whats right and whats wrong if thats what you were talking about lol
what bothers me is the people that are condescending towards me because i don't share the same beliefs. it's just so ignorant and contradicting; the actions of alot of "christians" scare me. i'd rather be an independant-thinking, open minded agnosticist than a hateful and judgemental "christian."
Because faith is just that, to believe without proof. Choose, as you have. Don't believe, as you do. Being called to faith is being called to believe without proof. Do I have proof for me? Of course I wouldn't believe if I didn't. Is it absolute truth? No, many others can choose to discredit it or push it off to chance or something else. People believe, their choice. You don't, your choice. What, are you proving that you don't believe? Congrats man. You are not going to convince a believer who KNOWS THE TRUTH>> That they are wrong, why? I know the truth, your logic is good, and a VERY useful tool, but not applicable when concerning matters of the heart or salvation. O I know, I must be wrong cause science is God. God is beyond the confines of anything our mind can comprehend.
I am an agnostic and I currently live in the "bible belt", and even my family doesn't accept my beliefs. I just cant understand how people can accept some religion just because that is what they were brought up to believe. I wish they would open their minds and question things instead of basing their whole lives on a mythical tale...
Just as they are a lot of judgemental hateful atheists. Your religion does not determine things of that nature. Simply because A follows B Does not mean A caused B. Basic logical fallacy. Granted a lot of people are messed up. On both sides. Go figure we're a fucked up race.
People aren't fond of thinking for themselves. EDIT: Of course, on the flip side, our world is getting increasingly larger and more complex and it can be difficult to really think for yourself when the facts you're working with are completely skewed.
Atheists don't buy any religion. I wouldn't base my non-belief in Christianity on contradictions or 'loose ends'. It's simply logic and science have answered every question man can pose.
People really need to stop comparing science with religion/god. Sorry man, I respect your beliefs, but that's just like someone making fun of your religion because of whatever misconceptions or ignorance they posses on the topic.
Which is why we should reserve absolute judgement (according to what you said). As of now, human knowledge has not determined tangible evidence for a god and so belief in one is not substantiated logically. Occam's razor shows that a claim with baseless assertions should be disregarded in order to uphold intellectual integrity. Religious belief, thus, is not rational. Simpler explanations are more statistically probable than complex ones if those explanations are not grounded in evidence.