
: > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases
: > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the 
: > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same 
: > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component' 
: > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily 
:                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any 
:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > such component. More detail in the next post.
: > 

Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an
argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to
what end. 
It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being
primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and
childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's
razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more
straightforeward and, apparently, simpler. Which is it to be - which
is the "non-essential", and how do you know?
Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to
its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a
lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...

This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out
tough.