What makes your biases better than mine? How do you propose to access truth?
Discussion
Admit you don’t know. That’s it.
Absolute epistemological certainty? No. But I am "convinced" of the God I've entrusted myself to, as Paul says. The thing is, if I'm wrong, I'm no worse than someone who can't commit themselves to anything.
The thing is, the only options I see are nihilism and theism. Nihilism is incoherent, theism requires transcendence to work, which really narrows down your options. Agnosticism is lazy and pointless.
Those are subjective takes and of course you’re entitled to think whatever you want.
To me, simply accepting the warped propaganda of your forefathers known as Christianity and assimilating into that narrow culture is the easy (or lazy) route - the clear path of least resistance.
Questioning the nature of reality and being open to all possibilities and accepting uncertainty with unflinching courage is stimulating, fulfilling and the far more difficult route.
To each their own. Though I will always question those who claim certainty on matters they can’t be certain about - and that’s where these conversations started. Thank you for admitting you’re not certain, I respect you for that.
Btw I never made the claim my biases were “better” than yours or that I have “access” to the truth. Fallacious straw man argumentation.
This answers my question at least. Your own position is that you have no argument against mine, it seems. You're just being stubborn by force of will, not reason.
WILLIAM