I still don't understand how that makes this statement untrue;
"I like to point out the awesome fact that beliefs are merely ideas we claim truth to, without evidence to support those claims. If we had evidence to support them, they wouldn't be beliefs now would they?"
I've used this analagy before. Take gravity, something we know is real (if we conclude that was is real and exists in this reality, is something that can be tested, studied, and repeated). This is something that i am not required to mentally think is real/true for it to actually be real/true. My beliefs are inconsequential, they mean nothing, because regardless of what i think is true/real, untrue/false... it doesn't matter, it exists regardless.
Then what do I mean when I say I believe in gravity? It's not the same as saying gravity is true because things fall, it's saying, I accept that this information is accurate and will act accordingly. Think about the things we call beliefs, and you'll find they ALL have personally convincing evidence, it's just that sometimes the evidence is an artifact of the way we gather and process information, or has been manipulated by intelectualism.
I agree that if you jump off a cliff you will fall no matter if you believe in gravity or not. But beliefs are not simply truths, beliefs are how we decide which truths to pay attention to. We have one word for the act of belief, yet it is not a unitary experience. By even evoking the concept of belief we implicitly agree that some observations are accurate and some are not. That the completed puzzle exists out there independent of us. The observations which we think are pieces that fit the puzzle are called beliefs. Whether they truly fit or not is irrelevant to the experience of believing they do. Beliefs are based on what is convincing, not what is accurate. Some people believe mystery spots defy gravity because they observe first hand a ball rolling up hill. This belief is inaccurate yet, is it any less of a belief to the person? Truths are universal, beliefs are personal. The same belief system governs subjective things. I believe orange sherbet tastes good and I have solid evidence to back it up, yet that doesn't make it universally true. Beliefs are how each person puts together their personal puzzle. Science offers a way to collectively work on that puzzle, but that development does not change the nature of belief. Beliefs are how we represent the puzzle pieces we have put together for ourselves.
If we remove action, we have no need for beliefs. If we can not do anything about the information we receive, then what value is it to us? A plant doesn't need to know what is true, it doesn't need to construct a puzzle picture, because it can't do anything about it. Evolving a belief system would be a waste of energy. When we are capable of action, then what is true about the world matters. We must base our actions off the information we gather. The actions we choose are based on which information we think is accurate. All beliefs have one thing in common, they are principals of action.
Beliefs also govern our emotions. If I say your mother has been kidnapped by Mormons, and you believe it, you get upset. If you know your mother has died years ago, a puzzle piece which makes you doubt the piece I have communicated to you, you don't believe it and don't get emotional. There is no emotion you have which can not be invoked by a belief. So beliefs decide not only our behavior, but how we feel about the world. The differentiating factor is our perception of the accuracy of the information.
So if you think that god exists (believe), since there is no proof or evidence to support or debunk this claim, we have no way of knowing whether or not god does, or doesn't exist. In order to percieve god existing, or not existing, we are required to form a belief about it... which is nothing more than idea, we claim truth to, without evidence to support that claim.
If we had evidence to support that claim, we wouldn't be required to beleive it, our beliefs would hold no relevence because regardless of our beliefs, it would be true, like gravity.
Beliefs are relevant only to the person holding them, not to the world. Beliefs are a result of gathering and processing information. If we never gather the information for gravity then it is still a truth, but it is not a belief. So, I think you have it backwards. If we have evidence to support a claim, we are required to believe it, or else risk performing an action that could be dangerous, or feeling emotions which are unjustified. If we have no evidence or reasoning, or even if we have counter evidence, we are still free to be convinced of a belief, but we are no longer free to say it arose from the same system that decides all our other beliefs. If you tell a person free energy is impossible because of thermodynamics, that person can only hold on to his belief in free energy is he discounts your evidence. It's fake, it's a conspiracy, ect. That's because information which we deem accurate decides our beliefs. A person can not think thermodynamics are true and still decide to believe in free energy. Beliefs are a slave to information, therefore, the stronger the information, the more required we are to believe, not the other way around.
.
