We all (theists and atheists) keep talking from a common moral framework. Just pointing that out.
No we don't.
My ethics have nothing to do with conditional belief in superstition.
That question was really just a thinly-veiled invitation to atheists to try out some godly advice. The point of that post is that God doesn't reveal himself to disinterested academics, only to people with the intention to follow Him.
This isn't coherent nor applicable advice, it engages in special pleading inserting a qualification where you want to insinuate one has to have 'desire' to find your preferred superstitious god. You already presume that they lack that desire to know the truth based on a tautological and dishonest presupposition, believing your own presuppositional nonsense to be true without having argued in the affirmative for it at any point
Just like I predicted.
Maybe the real question should have been, If God did exist, would I follow Him?
The question presupposes that a god exist, that there is a coherent meaning by the label god, and that there are coherent conditions about that belief system. There are not.
Again, you are presupposing an entire context of mythology without arguing in the affirmative of your implications. You are purposefully avoiding the burden of proof and condescendingly expecting others to walk into your presuppositional bullshit.
The goal is to get away from nonsensical "proofs"
Then we have instantly rendered knowledge meaningless. If I can't draw a series of logical conclusions from A to B, there is nothing to say about A or B. It has no virtual meaning in any context.
I realize that most of this site isn't interested in this.
Of course, why would we be interested in a vague obfuscation?
But for any that are, faith
Faith is interchangeable with make believe, it is inserted at the point where one needs to justify what can't be separated from make believe and that can't actually been shown to be knowledge of any kind.
in God is very useful
It was not useful to africans seeking to escape slavery, the bible was used to justify slavery.
It was not useful to jews and other non-christians escaping the holocaust, the bible was used to justify the holocast.
It was not useful to those fighting for womens rights, the bible was and still is being used to fight against womens rights.
It was not useful to those fighting for homosexual equal rights, the bible is being used to fight against womens rights.
Do I really need to go on?
Emotional satisfaction from a belief isn't evidence that that thing exists or is true. This is the definition of delusion.
and you don't even have to set aside your reasonable mind
Yes you do.
I have to suspend what I know about reality, history, ethics, and a countless list of other information. I have to lie about history, science, education, and accept philosophical concepts of ethics that are .. to be frank.. profoundly stupid.
. It is, in fact, the only viewpoint I've found from which the world makes sense.
This is word for word, presuppositional apologetics.
Here let me help you:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologeticsIn Christian theology, presuppositionalism is a school of apologetics that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith and defend it against objections primarily by exposing the perceived flaws of other worldviews while the Bible, as divine revelation, is presupposed. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
Presuppositionalism can be used to argue for anything and everything, it dishonestly works to avoid the burden of proof for the implications of its own claims.
I can't help but notice you avoided my posts.
I predict you will engage in sophistry, reducing the ability to know anything to a point where one can't know anything at all.