Well, i guess if you take it ultra-literally, that the simplest solution that accounts for ALL variables is the correct one, but then I think the principle loses its punch.
Take a Rube Goldberg machine, its certinaly not the most efficient way to accomplish a task, but it likely is "the simplest" if you accout for having to include a burning piece of paper, a bowling ball, and a squirt gun filled with vinegar. Unfortunately biology reminds me of rube goldberg a lot, just with motifs.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's probably true. But it would still be interesting what you think is the case on average?
Y'know I think it can depend. There a religous people that can be objective about a lot of things but if you bring up the Bible they flip out. Athiests can be ojective but when you discuss certain principles they lose their objectivity (obvoulsy you would disagree). On average though yes religous people tend to be worse.
All im saying is though never underestimate the ego. The athiesm religous debate is like alot of other things. Its rare when you have two sides that one is right and another is wrong what tends to happen is that both sides have good points and the most rational POV is some middle ground.
This sort of reminds me of a situation that happened in Spain where muslim, christians and jews were actually able to set aside there differences and work together. What runied the situation is that there were muslim and christian fundemantalists that ****ed it up for everybody. Its not that atheism and religon can't come to some common ground its just the human condition in general to be prejuidiced.