I can feel your anger

[Reforged]

I have no belief.

So you don't believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence?

But you just said that "a lack of evidence" is a valid reason to "disbelieve". Why would you say something you don't believe?

---

There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.

No, but I'm not the one who claims only to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.

Let's just get this straight, so there isn't confusion:

You guys are saying, "For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p." Call this proposition E (for Evidentialism).

Now, the "lack of belief" is with regard to p--you seem very keen on pointing out that lacking belief in p doesn't mean that you have some other belief.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your belief in E.

That may well be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What you've just said there is "Oh well you think a proposition requires evidence so that constitutes a belief and you can't prove it isn't because you need evidence to justify that system which would be circular! :-D"
You've taken that and stretched it into a paragraph and tried to make it sound like a more plausible idea and the people who have given it kudos should feel very silly.

Ok, lets test that theory of yours:
I'm going to make a proposition without any evidence and see if it turns out to be true. Ok, I propose that an invisible man is in my room right now and will give me money in 3, 2, 1... nope. Nothing. But then I suppose that money would constitute evidence wouldn't it? Hm, well I suppose in that case we should just say all propositions are true now that they don't require any evidence. Well this is going to make bank robberies alot easier. Just walk into the bank and claim you're Donald Trump, no evidence needed.
*Or*... now this is an idea... how about we go by the same system to prove somethings real through evidence thats worked for centuries, which in itself is evidence the system works, and ignore the completely fallace and moronic theory you just came up with! :-)

Is everyone ok with that? I just want to make sure no-one will be upset they can't legally turn the Encyclopaedic Britannica into their own personal scrapbook of bullshit and scrawl "Jesus is in my cock" over its cover.