Why do editors sometimes accept a paper even if a reviewer recommends rejection?

For the last many days, I have a question in mind related with the editorial decision of accepting or rejecting the manuscript after peer-review:

Few days back I got a review report from a very reputed mathematics journal in which reviewer 1 had given some good points and suggestions to further improve the paper while reviewer 2 had given some points and rejected my manuscript. Although, its not tough to revise the paper as per the suggestions of reviewer 2. I would like to know why editor has given me chance to revise the manuscript while reviewer 2 has rejected it. I asked this question because in the past I had bad experience of rejection despite of getting acceptance from one of the reviewers.