Are you serious, dude? Seriously? Just read that aloud. You're basically asking "Why is it logical to be logical?" It's logical by virtue of being logical.
A=A, 1=1, etc. Come on, man. = /
Look, I know the philosophical line of thought you're going by here. Descartes type shit, right? Not really a fan of his, honestly. But whatever. Using that line of thought, nothing can be trusted completely. Even first hand knowledge, because our senses can be tricked. Pretty much nothing is without doubt.
Sure, that's a neat way of thinking and all, I suppose. But it's completely useless too. What does doubting almost all known knowledge do for us, really? Not a damn thing, and I'm sure you know it. I could use your same exact argument to argue against literally almost any known fact to put a degree of doubt upon it. You're not proving anything though, and you're not making any point at all.
Besides, there's a huge difference in having faith in something like, say, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun compared to the a claim that has no credible supporting evidence like there being a magically powerful entity that controls all space and time, and other equally baseless things. That goes far, far beyond the default amount of doubt that is found in all human knowledge. They are in no way comparable.
Originally Posted by Freshgrease
Perhaps, but they should not have to validate the existence of God to believe in him.
No one is saying you can't believe in that stuff. Just that it is illogical. That's all.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
That's kind of why it's slightly erroneous, in my opinion, to argue that God definitely doesn't exist. To make that claim requires some sort of proof. Though, when you think about it, it doesn't really matter. Functionally, not believing claims that there is a God and believing he doesn't exist are the same things. You can't prove the boogie man doesn't exist, but if someone asked you if the boogie man existed you'd probably say no. Same with any other made up magical thing, I'd hope.
Logically, claims that have no credible support should be ignored. That's how it should be, because that's what makes the most sense. You would likely use this same logic in almost any other scenario where it applies. It shouldn't be a foreign concept to pretty much anyone.