1. About the Dalai Lama you mentioned that he was claiming that all people deserve to have a religion that is effective for them on an individual basis. So do you think that he or would or he would not support the idea of a single universal religion as the solution to the question of religious pluralism? Support would be great here.
2. Your reply for how you would argue if god exists was very interesting. I agree that the best approach would to not engage in a forceful argument, however, you seem a lot more reasonable than I probably would be. I'm curious, now, if you wanted to refute a believer and prove that God did not exist, how would you do it? How do you think you would counter any arguments they would come up with? Has this ever happened to you and what were they trying to argue?
Hi there! I appreciate your post here.
As for the first question, I've addressed the Dalai Lama's position only as far as the information given me according to your course; this doesn't mean anything I'm saying is wrong, just that the responses aren't intended to be authoritative about him apart from what you've shared. That said, you did share that he's judges the effectiveness of religion in a much more individualized manner, meaning that if a religion is not effective for an individual, the individual would be better served and formed by another religion (or perhaps none at all). So, strictly speaking, I think his position necessarily rules out any single, universal religion per se. If a single universal religion ...
A few consequences of religious pluralism and a mental exercise regarding the positions of non-theists is discussed in brief. Almost 500 words.