Or when you grow up in a Christian home and you learn early on in life to never question God, the Bible, or any other Christian-related beliefs that you were taught, or else it will upset your parents, your extended family, your Christian friends, your pastor, and the rest of the church congregation.
Agree. That's the other path, and it can lead to much suffering as in your case. Imagine if all gay people felt free to be themselves rather than marry people of the opposite sex because they've been taught and uncritically accepted that it's God's way, which is unfair to both the gay person and the straight one they marry and then later leave due to no fault in the spouse.
Or how about the people with no real desire to have or raise kids, but do so because the Bible says to procreate. Much of Christianity is designed to reinforce that. Look at how the word family means having minor kids at home for so many.
I understand that there are many people who experience great joy and purpose in parenting, and many will have children even if they feel free not to, but my wife and I are examples of people who wanted a different life, one of frequent travelling, of frequent dining out, of frequent concerts, of playing in a band on weekends, and being surrounded by breakable art. If we had gone down the religion road and had children because it was expected, none of that would have happened as frequently. Instead, it's braces, soccer lessons, and continual noise and disarray. I'm good with dogs. I love how they don't talk.
And that brings me to Pascal's Wager - what have you got to lose if you guess wrong?
It makes me feel like not talking to them, and I don't, but most Baha'is are not that insensitive.
I understand. Sorry about that.
The believer knows what sufficient evidence to justify belief looks like because they have it. That is why they are believers.
But he uses his own rules of inference and thus his own definition of sufficient.
Says who? You think only atheists can think critically but that is laughable.
That was in response to, "that [God] belief was not arrived at critically." No, I think only people that have learned the rules of inference used in academia are critical thinkers. Maybe you don't really understand the term. It doesn't refer to smart people or contemplative people or serious people or well-read people or however you view yourself. It refers only to those who have learned this method of analysis, and for obvious reasons, only those who have can recognize others who have and others who have not.
This is not negotiable: If you have concluded that there exists a god, you didn't do so critically, because there is no sound argument that ends ,"therefore God." Object if you like, but to no avail. If you are using your own rules, your conclusions are useless to the critical thinker. This is from yesterday, in reference to a person who insists that their private way of reasoning deserves to be considered equal to the academic rule of reason:
"This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly."
This is how the person who reasons fallaciously, doesn't know it, and demands validation anyway is seen.
Also in response to my claim reproduced immediately above. Let me illustrate:
Faith-based thinker (who has never mastered the rules of inference in addition): My Bible tells me 117+235=87
Competent arithmetician: You aren't doing it right.
FBT: Says who? How do you know that?
I see that lots of people believe in the Bible and Qur'an, and I also see that there is a good reason to believe.
This is some of that private "reasoning." Critical thinkers disagree with you. You may have pragmatic reasons to believe, such as an irresistible or comforting intuitions, but not sound ones.