Johnny Skeptic

Is your position that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a particular worldview is more valid than any other worldview? If so, even though I do not agree with you, nor do most of the people in the world, I am pleased because Christianity demands the assumption of a probablity that the Bible is true. If your world view is in a category that might be labeled "uncertain", that is fine with me.

Joan of Bark

Because people all over the world are still dying of malaria, and influenza, and cancer, and ...

hatsoff

I wouldn't know anything about the supernatural. Nor do I know the best criteria for choosing a worldview. I'm not sure there is any reasonable criteria accessible to humans, hence my belief that any religion or lack thereof is equally with and without merit.

Johnny Skeptic

I wish that Christians felt the same way. If they did, a lot of them, especially fundamentalist Christians, would change their positions on social issues such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and physician assisted suicide, all of which I support. I assume that you know that all theists, most atheists, and most agnostics, disagree with your position that any religion or lack thereof is equally with and without merit. That might be over 99% of the people in the world. It is doubtful that you will ever be able to convince more than a relative handful of people that your approach is the best approach. You have not changed my approach at all, nor will you be able to do so in the future, so I suggest that you go back to disussing Biblical criticism, which is what you mostly do. If you wish to debate your approach further, I suggest that you go to the EofG Forum and start a new thread that is titled 'Any religion or the lack thereof is equally with and without merit'. If you do, I wouldn't be surprised if no one agreed with you. I could be wrong, but it would be easy to find out if you want to. I assume that you are not confident enough of your approach to defend it at the EofG Forum.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Please reply to my posts #94, #98, and #99.

hatsoff

I've really never tried to do so, nor do I expect to in the future.

I never wanted to debate it in the first place. I was just answering your questions. There are a bunch of mine you haven't answered, though, if you ever feel like going back and doing so.

Johnny Skeptic

If you really want your questions answered, you shouldn't mind who answers them. I am sure that there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle at the EofG Forum who will be happy to answer your questions for you, and I assume that most of them, if not all of them, will disagree with your approach. You believe that religion or the lack thereof are equally with and without merit. Most of the people in the world disagree with you, including me, most skeptic scholars, and most Christian scholars. I believe that the skeptics at the EofG Forum are better able to answer your questions than I am. Since you hold a very small minority position, so you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding lots of people who will be happy to answer your questions for you. Since Christians also disagree with your approach, I suggest that you ask them to answer your questions too, including rhutchin.

If you were able to convince me that any religion or the lack thereof are equally with and without merit, something that you will never be able to do, what would you have accomplished? I would still be a skeptic, and most Christians would still oppose my position and say that I will go to hell. If your goal is to try to get me not to be so aggressive with Christians, even if you achieve that goal, it is quite possible that you might not be able to convince anyone else at the IIDB that your approach is the best approach. If you do not want me to be so aggressive with Christians, in order to be fair, you should start threads in all of the forums at the IIDB and tell Christians who are aggressive with skeptics not to be so aggressive. I have spent a good deal of time at a number of forums at the IIDB, and I can tell you that the majority of people on both sides of the aisle have strong, assertive opinions, and most or all of them are not going to change their approach based upon anything that you have to say. Do you by any chance have any expert corroborative sources that agree with your approach? There must be a few people in the world who agree with your approach, but I personally have never come across any at all.

DBT

To make an informed 'choice' between option A or option B - which is to say we are to use our theoretical 'free will' - we require reliable information.
Considering the countless God claims we are inundated with, can we say that we have sufficiently reliable information to 'choose God?' - For a start, which God?

rhutchin

Such is life. Choices confront us constantly and we have incomplete information, some of it good and some bad. Like the CSI guy says -- follow the evidence.

rhutchin

If you can hold God accountable for the sins you say He has committed, then you will not let Him into your heaven.

If God can hold you accountable for the sins He says you have committed, then He will not let you into His heaven.

That seems fair.