You believe what you've been told uncritically. You've been told that whatever this god says or does is moral and doing or believing otherwise is immoral. The critical thinker approaches it from the other direction.
He looks at the actions attributed to the god and makes his moral judgments from them as he would for any other actor, that is, he examines the evidence impartially and draws conclusions from them.
You begin with an unfounded premise believed by faith and then evaluate those actions. Not surprisingly, they're all divine.
What you haven't done that is also commonly part of this process is to then reverse engineer an argument using faulty reasoning connecting the evidence to your premise now presented as a conclusion derived from that evidence - what I call a pseudo-conclusion. These are the people who say things like, "The whole world is evidence of God." They didn't use that evidence - the world - to conclude that it must be the work of a god. They accepted that on faith and then created that weak argument where God is presented as a pseudo-conclusion rather than the premise it is.
Do you remember all of the post I wrote you about restricted choice as an argument against the existence of an interventionist god? It was a series of inactions.
Here's one of them, which also refers to an earlier one covering the same topic. It's a series of observations of how things could have been otherwise in a universe with such a god, but not in one without that god. Their cumulative effect shows how this god is indistinguishable from its nonexistence. Recall that a perfectly loaded coin can only land one way (restricted choice), but a fair coin can be heads or tails. No single coin toss can identify a loaded coin, but the cumulative effect of getting the same outcome every time points to aloaded coin. We can do the same with gods.
You must be describing personal experience.
My experience has been very different. I judge the quality of my belief set by its ability to predict outcomes. My map of the world by which I navigate it contains a collection of empirically confirmed ideas, or beliefs as you call them here. They have served me well.
If you believe things that you "can never actually know," you are making the logical error of belief by faith, and one is often accepting a false or unfalsifiable belief. THAT can be trouble. And yes, if you promote such a belief to critical thinkers, you will be asked to defend it according to the academic (legal, scientific) rules of interpreting evidence, which will be impossible and uncomfortable. The problem there is not belief, but belief by faith.
so what was the point?
