Dualism

[fr0d0]

You're not listening to me at all Evie.

I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that you cannot believe a fact.

I've shown you dictionary definitions of belief. I've shown you very well/ clearly written explanations of what belief means. Yet still you're arguing that belief means what you say it does.. knowledge of fact! Please provide proof that belief doesn't need the slightest proof. I've proved to you the opposite. Unless you can provide evidence you have to retract. You can't just go on blindly asserting something that there's strong evidence against.

I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that all beliefs are false

What??? Beliefs can't be provable is what the dictionaries say. You're making wild conclusions.

You wouldn't need to 'believe' it... because you'd know.

If you know it then it would have to be 'known' by you. Which means the fact that it is known (because it's a fact)

No it doesn't. Belief MEANS not knowing. people use the word 'know' very loosely to try to add gravity. What they're really saying is that they're convinced beyond the balance of reason. They have no proof.

Evidence = proof
Belief = no proof

Evidence specifically means logical indication that something actually exists! How could the absence of evidence be logical in the matter of believing something then??

"logical indication" does not require evidence. Logic isn't evidence. Fact is evidence. Logic is a thought process, nothing more.

You and I could draw our own different logical conclusions. How could either EVER be considered as fact???



Faith, is more the reason people can attribute more certainty to belief. I have faith that God Exists. I believe God exists through faith. Faith is the trust.

So you can only disbelieve facts then?

Precisely - yes you can disbelieve facts. Which demonstrates clearly that belief doesn't need facts. Belief is independent of facts. I can believe that I'm a great footballer. I'd be wrong but that doesn't stop me believing it.

Your whole anti religion stance is totally unsupportable and illogical.

I have no idea where you got that idea from!!

Maybe here:

There is no evidence that any "God" exists so to believe anyway is illogical because there's no indication that it actually exists (if there was it would be evidence by definition)

I'm against that because it's irrational and there's no reason to believe such thinking has any bearing on the truth. And I have no idea how being against that is illogical!!

You contradict yourself in every sentence.
You say it's illogical that God (who can't logically be proven to exist) exists!!!

I'm astounded by your lack of reasoning.