I do see a reason. The reason is that it's illogical to believe things without some evidence that they're true. If one does that, one will end up believing things that aren't true. Your logic enables me to say that the bottom of the Atlantic ocean is filled with extraterrestrial aliens who are concealing themselves from us. Obviously, it's illogical to believe that things are true without evidence.
You see a reason and I don't - stalemate.
One can try and impose one's sense of logic on each and everything one experiences, sees, reads, hears, and thinks about and still end up believing things that are not true. If you don't think this has ever happened to you, I'm not going to gainsay your conviction.
One can also believe in God, despite concrete physical evidence, and not find oneself believing in Atlantis, Unicorns, George Bush ordered 9/11 and Elvis Presly is still alive. This is the sort of condescending "logical"assumption and assertion that I find insulting. Again, if you worry that once you find yourself believing in something for which there is no evidence you'll also find yourself falling through the rabbit hole, fine. I don't.
I didn't arrive at the sense that it is not necessary to deconstruct and proof everything by some identifiable process of logic. That I have this sense doesn't "allow" you or cause you to say anything. You can, of course, say whatever you please, and if you wish to defend it by saying, "I have no physical evidence to support it, but it seems right to me," that's your choice. Depending upon what the "it" is and whether or not there is evidence to refute what you belief, I will formulate an opinion about the validity of your belief.
I appreciate that you desire to live a life wherein your thoughts are shaped only by that for which you find evidence for existence, and I'm not going to tread on your reasons for wanting to debate these things. You like to and if other engage, that's fine, but the only time that I would agree that it is truly important, or even necessary to raise the issue or call someone out (and again, please do not infer that I am asserting that you are calling anyone out) is if they attempt to force people to believe what they
believe or base actions that affect people in a physical, not philosophical way based on their beliefs. I can't resist challenging beliefs in ESP, Aliens, outlandish political conspiracies and the like, but I'm not going to do anything but write posts in this forum, unless I think these beliefs are being used in a potentially dangerous way. (And before anyone rushes in to raise the point, yes, belief in God can be used in dangerous ways.)
There would be no point, in the context of this thread to do so, but have you started other threads that question the reason to believe God does not exist? Do you find that belief to have supporting evidence while belief in God does not? I ask out of curiosity, not as an argument.
Which is why I never do it in daily life unless they challenge me first, which is very rare. I might also challenge a person who kept talking over and over again about God in my presence, although in the real world, I always choose to just walk away unless, as I say, they are trying to challenge me about it. If you don't want to have your beliefs debated, you probably shouldn't post in this thread, because that is pretty close to the thread topic. Posting in this thread is voluntary.
I hope your use of "you" is not specific to me. I've never said that I don't want my beliefs debated and, quite obviously, if I didn't I wouldn't be writing this or any other post in this thread. I have questioned the point of debating a particular belief, and expressed less a disinterest in debating the existence of God than an admission that I can't do so with any hope of "winning". I don't assume that you don't want to debate
a belief of yours: "That debating the belief in God is of some value."