Stating belief is more rational . . .

[TruthWorthy]

I'm coming to an honest conclusion in myself that it really might be more rational to claim belief in God.

[Darwinian]

Then snap yourself out of it immediately!

[Watson]

If this is for real, then what has brought you to this conclusion, TruthWorthy?

[fr0d0]

You just like to follow a majority TW. I've seen your type before!

[TruthWorthy]

Because of the way rationalisation works. You begin with a conclusion and then induce supporting argument for that conclusion; also in other contexts such as psychology, rationalisation is considered a defence mechanism. Saying I believe in God's love, a promised heaven, and human focus because I don't like the alternative.

[Watson]

Because of the way rationalisation works. You begin with a conclusion and then induce supporting argument for that conclusion;

This is perfectly true. You begin with your conclusion based on understanding and knowledge, which then allows you to work backward and see the supporting arguments for what they are.

also in other contexts such as psychology, rationalisation is considered a defence mechanism. Saying I believe in God's love, a promised heaven, and human focus because I don't like the alternative.

I don't know about this, it all depends on the conclusion being drawn. Drawing the conclusion "God exists and loves us" gives way t supporting arguments which actually discredit the alternative entirely. But I suppose in a sense, that is a defence mechanism.

[TruthWorthy]

Because of the way rationalisation works. You begin with a conclusion and then induce supporting argument for that conclusion;

This is perfectly true. You begin with your conclusion based on understanding and knowledge, which then allows you to work backward and see the supporting arguments for what they are.

No this is incorrect, the basis is created later, this is what rationalisation is.

[Watson]

Ah, I see, I spoke incorrectly then.

[TruthWorthy]

The whole process is backwards, it basically means that you choose what to believe in and then create supporting argument.

[tavarish]

Because of the way rationalisation works. You begin with a conclusion and then induce supporting argument for that conclusion; also in other contexts such as psychology, rationalisation is considered a defence mechanism. Saying I believe in God's love, a promised heaven, and human focus because I don't like the alternative.

Sounds a bit like Pascal's gambit.