Atheists and Agnostics--Would you Change if you could??

[David Sklansky]

"all the other viewpoints combined."

"How do you combine contradictory viewpoints?"

On the off chance you really didn't get what I meant I will rephrase it. It is stupid to have the stance that among all the competing theories, any one specific religious theory is more likely to be correct than not, as long as you are basing that stance solely on the evidence and arguments available to everybody.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

as long as you are basing that stance solely on the evidence and arguments available to everybody.


[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is it isn't stupid to believe in God but if you try to put any content into the word God, then you're stupid. Which really means you're stupid to believe in God if the word God means anything. Which really means you're stupid to believe in God.

[David Sklansky]

I am saying that it is stupid to believe that the readily available evidence and arguments should be enough, by themselves, to lead people to a high degree of conviction that specifics aspects of their religion (eg transubstantiation) is true.
Unlike taxq007 and Peter666, you have come pretty close to saying the same thing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am saying that it is stupid to believe that the readily available evidence and arguments should be enough, by themselves


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the evidence and arguments are enough. I have said many times that all are accountable on the basis of God's revelation in nature and in each individual conscience, citing Romans 1-3. The theological word is perspicuous and is used both with reference to revelation in nature and special revelation in God's Word.

I think in one sense though we are talking about different things. You maintain that you can be neutral, objective, sincere in evaluating the evidence. You also think you can apply the laws of probability to the question of God's existence and the question of specific religions the same way you do problems within the universe, such as poker, etc.

I can't even address whether or not someone would be stupid to believe in a specific religion on that basis for I don't believe anyone is neutral and I don't believe the laws of probability have any relevance to these questions. On your basis, I'm not stupid because I don't believe in Christianity through your methods. But I don't think anyone does. I don't think you're neutral and I see no possible way you can arrive at a legitimate, mathmatical probability number.

So we're really talking about two different things or more accurately proceeding on the basis of different assumptions.

I do believe Christianity can be distinguished from all other religions on very fundamental issues. I don't believe all religions teach the same things and the differences are far greater than the similarities. And I don't think most Christians think Christianity is right because they believe it, but they believe it because they think it's right.

[David Sklansky]

"I believe the evidence and arguments are enough"

They are enough to believe that transubstantiation is wrong I take it?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They are enough to believe that transubstantiation is wrong I take it?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's more like lack of evidence. It isn't a Scriptural doctrine, though I don't think it's important either way. I won't fight someone over it. I believe Luther held on to it even after he was excommunicated, but I might be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

as long as you are basing that stance solely on the evidence and arguments available to everybody.


[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is it isn't stupid to believe in God but if you try to put any content into the word God, then you're stupid. Which really means you're stupid to believe in God if the word God means anything. Which really means you're stupid to believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you. Oh, you were just being rhetorical. Nevermind. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]