A reason to believe?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm talking about reasons to believe that his belief is actually true. As I've already said, I don't dispute that for him personally it might give him hope/positivity. But when is he actually going to defend his reason(s) to believe that his belief in God is actually true?

He says he believes without evidence and evidence=a reason to believe the truth of, an indication of the truth of, etc. He even pride himself on it saying it's a "requirement" to believe without evidence. But believing in the existence of something without evidence when such a thing is so improbable and demands such evidence (just as the FSM would) = a false belief=a delusion (just as belief in the FSM would equate to a false belief and a delusion).

Belief, faith.

So to believe on faith is a requirement for belief/faith? Circular much?

Why would you want to believe in something without a reason to believe that that belief is true?

It's fallacial to rule out exceptions.

To make exceptions because of preferences rather than logic is cherry-picking though. You like to believe in God, but a false hope, a placebo at best, is not the same as having reasons to believe that belief in God is actually true? In other words, evidence. That's what evidence means. I never ever said empirical evidence - that's always your misrepresentation of my position.

By 'true' YOU mean true to you/ known.

No. I mean what I say. By "a reason to believe it's actually true" I mean just that. And evidence means just that, it means an indication of the truth of. I never said empirical evidence, that's your wording.

Like I've explained, this is never possible in the rules of this game.

Game? What do you mean? Well it certainly feels like a game when you keep messing around and dodging and misrepresenting my position and over and over saying "there can't be evidence." All I'm saying is, fine, but if there can't be evidence then your belief is a placebo at best because of the definition of the word evidence. Evidence means an indication of the truth of (as I said above, I never asked for empirical evidence, that's your continuing misrepresentation of my position and my questions to you).

You don't get to re-write the rules.

I'm not changing your rules of faith, I'm just trying to make sense of your words here for fucks sake. I'm trying to point out that you can't both say that "there can be no evidence" and claim to believe you have rational reasons to believe your belief in God is true, because that's a contradiction. Without evidence it's a placebo at best because for the belief to have any indication of the truth of, it would need evidence, because that's what evidence is. I never asked for specifically empirical evidence, that's your wording.

Religious belief without evidence is required.

Then by definition it's a placebo at best because there can't be any rational reason to believe in the truth of the said belief without evidence, because that's what evidence is, that's what it means.

It is a logical requirement of the system of thought.

You can logically, rationally, find reasons to believe that give you hope and a good life... but you can't both have that and logical rational reasons to believe your belief is actually true and God actually exists/real/'is' (the fact you've argued before that he doesn't exist he just 'is' is laughable because he can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist... by definition. This is how these words work you know?) - you can't have that and not have evidence because that's what evidence is. A reason to believe in the truth of, an indication of the truth of. So how can you have that without evidence if that's what evidence is?!?!

You don't get to break the rule just because you want to.

I'm not breaking a rule here, I'm just trying to use the English language. You, on the other hand, 'can't' break the rules of the English language because then we can't understand each other. Read above.

You're a strictly "if I can't have hard evidence I won't consider it" kinda guy.

See? You misrepresented my position again. I didn't say "hard evidence" I said "evidence", any evidence, i.e., any indication of the truth of your belief, any reason to believe your belief is true. You bang on about hope and positivity, but that alone is just a placebo at best. If you actually have reasons to believe your belief is fine, but you can't have that and also not have evidence because that's a contradiction - that's all that evidence is, indication of the truth, reasons to believe - do you get it yet?!?!

This makes you a hypocrite, because you can't apply the same logic across your entire experience as it simply doesn't work.

I always attempt to only believe in things when there is evidence actually. I'm against faith, I thought you already knew that. You call me a hypocrite and I'm not. I could call you dishonest though, for repeatedly reverting to acting as if I'm asking for "empirical evidence" or "hard evidence" or "provable evidence" or "corroborative evidence" when, not only did I never ask for anything of the stort, I just asked for evidence, but I also have repeatedly said to you over these forums, and[ to you on coversations on MSN that I am not asking for any specific type of evidence, I am just asking for any evidence[/i]. I have made that very very clear so if anything I could suspect your dishonesty in you always acting as if I'm asking for something much more specific than I actually am, that has always been your wording and not mine.

I don't think this is deliberate on your part,

I'm not sure it's deliberate on your part either. But at least what I said about you was accurate, and I can suspect dishonesty if you can suspect hypocrisy.

I think you're trying to justify your worldview, which is indefensible.

If you're going to claim my worldview is indefensible, give evidence to support that claim. And before you start - as I have said before over the forums to you, to you on MSN, and as I hope I've finally made it very clear in this post: I am not asking for "empirical" evidence, "hard evidence", "provable evidence", "corroborative evidence", etc, and I never have asked for that. That was always your wording and your misrepresentation of my position. All I'm asking for is evidence, i.e., indication of the truth of, a reason to believe. So when you claim to have reasons to believe/some indication but tell me that I'm being silly for asking for evidence - you're contradicting yourself because they're the same thing.