Ok. That’s really interesting actually. I would equate worship with praise. So how are you defining it?
Obviously these scriptures are a claim that God can be known, so how much historical support or other substantiation do they need to become worth examining?
I would equate worship more with submission. Worship, it seems to me, goes beyond mere interest, praise or admiration. But I’m not sure that we are so much in disagreement about what “worship” is as that you have not understood what I was saying about a god “wanting” worship being weird. That a god should desire to be praised seems utterly bizarre and incomprehensible.
Historical support doesn’t help, because historical evidence is simply incompetent to establish claims of the paranormal (or “miracles,” if you like). But if one could show the existence of a god in the here-and-now, and demonstrate that this god corresponds in some important way to the gods described in one or another of the various religious traditions, and show that it had the abilities and inclinations which one of those traditions ascribes to it, one would then have shown that the events recounted in that tradition were indeed possible in the practical, rather than the nakedly philosophical, sense. At that point, historical analysis would be of some value. I have no proposal for how this ought to be done; indeed, I suspect that the reason it has not been done in any way, shape or form is that it cannot, because none of the gods actually exist.
I remain open to the possibility that it will be done. At that point, I will be very interested in learning all I can about it: what are gods, anyhow? Where did they come from? Are they like us or unlike us, and in what ways? What sorts of things do they characteristically do? All those questions would open up as soon as Odin pops up his head, but for now, they are very much in the realm of pure philosophical speculation, utterly useless in practical terms.
But as for “worship,” that’s something I cannot imagine having a reason to do. I might be awfully impressed, in the Monty Python’s Meaning of Life sense.
This is a question, not a logical proposition.
Why is it illogical to expect the same level of skepticism of your supernatural beliefs that you show others supernatural beliefs?
So can I say that you are not skeptical about atheism because you believe there is no God?
You can, but if you look closer at the meanings of skepticism and atheism the statement will prove to be rather silly.
Skepticism is the questioning of beliefs.
Atheism is the lack of belief (in gods). (If you want to argue this definition, then can I suggest you go over to https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/strident-atheist-atheists/ where @Ashwin_s has argued it to death already.)
Skepticism about atheism would therefore seem to be questioning something (belief) that isn’t there. Hardly a fruitful endeavor.
It’s not illogical. It would be logical to have the same level of skepticism across the board.
Yes, and it is fruitful as it would be questioning whether one should actually have belief instead of unbelief. You should have the same level of skepticism about your lack of belief as I have about my belief.
Your whole post reads as if you were in Monty Python. 
Since Christians believe in a personal God, I see praise as God delighting in His relationship with us. Just like you may enjoy receiving a compliment from someone you care about.
And that’s what atheists do. They’re skeptical to all supernatural beliefs across the board.
Yes, and it is fruitful as it would be questioning whether one should actually have belief instead of unbelief.
“Belief” isn’t a single thing, it is a disparate group of often mutually-contradictory things. So it doesn’t make sense to ask “should I believe?” without first specifying what it is you are actually contemplating believing in. So we look at each belief individually.
Atheists are outsiders to all religion. Therefore it is not illogical that we assign a similar probability to each religion’s supernatural claims that any other outsider does.
You are an outsider to Islam. You assigned a zero probability to Muhammad splitting the Moon (and would likely do so to other Muslim supernatural claims that are not also Christian supernatural claims). Therefore it is not unreasonable that an atheist would also assign zero probability.
A Muslim is an outsider to Christianity. That Muslim would likely assign a zero probability to Christ’s ressurection. Therefore it is not unreasonable that an atheist would also assign zero probability.
And so on.
You should have the same level of skepticism about your lack of belief as I have about my belief.
I have just explained why this doesn’t make sense. Your simply restating your claim without engaging that argument is straight out of Monty Python – “the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says” – from The Argument Sketch:
That’s hilarious. 
What I was trying to argue is that your assumption is wrong. It assumes all religious people have not been skeptical about their religion and haven’t investigated any others.
Also, no one is completely an outsider to belief. For instance, explain how life began and how DNA formed, etc, If you cannot, do you have evidence to show that it is more plausible that life began without God rather than with God? If not, you are not applying the same level of skepticism to your own belief that there is no God.
I assigned a zero probability to Muhammad splitting the moon because I already have examined evidence for Islam so the probability of that miracle occurring is the same as the probability that I could split the moon. If I had not investigated it, I would have assigned it higher. If you gave me another religious claim, I would assign it higher as I haven’t studied others extensively.
Any such exercise is meaningless. Claims that are unfalsifiable cannot be assigned a probability. Be happy, don’t worry!
Where have I ever stated that assumption?
Are you claiming that you, and other Christians, are as skeptical towards Christianity’s claims as a Muslim or an atheist would be? If so, I would ask for substantiation of that claim.
Christian Apologetics does not count as ‘skeptical investigation’ as the whole point of Apologetics is the defense of the viewpoint, and the arguments and ‘evidence’ it presents is carefully tailored to that aim.
Also, no one is completely an outsider to belief. For instance, explain how life began and how DNA formed, etc, If you cannot, do you have evidence to show that it is more plausible that life began without God rather than with God?
That is a fallacious* ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. If you want to argue Origin of Life, there are plenty of biologists on this forum, and have been plenty of threads on the topic.
That you would make such an argument is itself good evidence that no Valerie, you are not being skeptical.
I assigned a zero probability to Muhammad splitting the moon because I already have examined evidence for Islam so the probability of that miracle occurring is the same as the probability that I could split the moon.
Are you claiming that no Muslim who assigns zero probability to the Ressurection has applied similar scrutiny?
You can postulate whether Muhammad existed or not, and whether the Quran has any evidence it could be of divine origin etc. There are definitely falsifiable claims at the basis of all religions. If some evidence can be discovered, consider the next piece.
What probability do you assign to the existence of God or any god and why? At least answer that question, otherwise I feel like I’m wasting my time replying to any others.
I finally read the Outside piece. I loved how he said he was committing a logical fallacy but he thought it was OK because it didn’t apply. 
Sure, we can examine factual claims. Give me a way to test whether gods exist.
For Islam, prove that it’s likely the Quran is not directly from God.
For Christianity, prove that it’s likely Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Both are unfalsifiable.
Example of falsifiable religious claim. When I was very young, maybe seven or eight, my mother would make strawberry jam each year at the height of the season when there was a glut. It was irresistibly delicious to me. Mum wished to safeguard her jam stock till winter and attempted to limit my incursions into the pantry to filch it by threatening that God would strike me dead unless I left her jam alone. I disproved her claim.
Maybe punishment is just delayed. 
You can show for the Quran that there are contradictions. You can show for Christianity that Jesus body is still in the ground or prove a hypothesis that the beginning of Christianity was motivated by something other than the belief Jesus was alive.
Don’t see how you’d begin to establish whether any human remains were that of the historical Jesus. And establishing that Jesus left physical traces - would that impinge on his divinity?
To Christianity a very low value, not zero but close. I’ve seen enough detail on it to believe I see the human toolmarks, metaphorically speaking.
To any other religion, such as Islam or Wicca, which postulates an omnibenevolent god or gods, a low, but slightly higher probability. I do not see this universe as providing evidence of omnibenevolence, but at best balance.
To religion like Buddhism, that I’m neither familiar with, nor see anything to actively disagree, but see nothing that attracts me to look further at it, higher again.
To the Tao, the pantheistic force of Taoism, a good deal higher, but still quite low – probably 1-5% at best.
Interesting. How does giving a 5% probability to an unfalsifiable claim pan out?
Because I have called myself a Taoist for thirty-odd years, and am still not completely comfortable calling myself an Atheist.
The actual number is more emblematic that tangible – not zero, not even as negligible as the other religions I discussed, not sufficiently substantial for me to put any real weight on it.
Statisticians usually use a 1% or 5% probability of error in their testing, so I’m reasonably happy to, off the top of my head, assign somewhere in that range to Taoism.
YMMV 