Oh, you mean like how I don’t believe in an objective reality beyond my senses because of absence of evidence. And how believing in reality because you don’t personally agree with the evidence against it is unsound.
Hard solipsism is self defeating. If you stand by your argument, you’re arguing with someone in whose existence you don’t belief. If you don’t stand by it, you’re agreeing that solipsism is useless and worse, pragmatism demands it be ignored. Go troll someone else.
You just described the subjective experience of joining every religion
The difference is that realising you lack belief because of absence of evidence is the product of sound reasoning.
Realising that you do believe in something because of an absence of evidence is not.
Oh, you mean like how I don’t believe in an objective reality beyond my senses because of absence of evidence. And how believing in reality because you don’t personally agree with the evidence against it is unsound.
Hard solipsism is self defeating. If you stand by your argument, you’re arguing with someone in whose existence you don’t belief. If you don’t stand by it, you’re agreeing that solipsism is useless and worse, pragmatism demands it be ignored. Go troll someone else.