Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions. One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. Thi…
You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. ( Especially when talking about it as an assumption which is used to justify some behavior.) I'm not trying to have a religious argument, I'm trying to have an argument about how to practically classify and understand humans and their beliefs. >I think anybody, atheists…
> An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe.
Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important.
Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.