Belief Without Factual Basis is Fraudulent

I must be misunderstanding something because I thought that you wrote that "belief without evidence is fraudulent" and "believing in something without factual basis is the same as believing a lie." I am arguing against this based on the idea that fraud and lies involve dishonesty and that one can be sincerely mistaken or wrong. I maintain that one can believe a patently wrong thing, but that it is insincerity or an attempt to deceive someone else that makes one a fraud. Believing something without enough facts to make some kind of conclusive judgment is faith. Believing something when the weight of available facts counters your belief is being mistaken. The missing piece is determining how many facts are needed for evidence and how we are to evaluate these facts. I am detecting that you assume some kind of absolute standard for weighing evidence; otherwise all faiths can be called fraud. Am I correct in thinking this? As for your chair analogy: how do I know in which chair to sit? The answer is I don't. The apparent "newness" of an object is not a fact that favors the idea that it has superior loading bearing properties. That perception I have about it being new is an item I file away in my mind and use inductive logic to sort. Is something new in better condition? Based on my experience: yes. Will a chair that is newer support my weight better? I have no idea, but my experience would tell me it"s less likely to fall apart than an older model. However if I were to choose the "incorrect" chair and hurt myself, it would not be because I had some kind of blind belief in the ability of a piece of furniture to hold my weight. Instead, I either made a judgment error in evaluating the available facts or there were insufficient facts to make a sound judgment (or both, or neither). I could be presented with all the facts and be wrong due to external factors (I"m drunk/distracted/concussed) or a flaw in my reasoning. Nowhere do I have faith in an inanimate object, but rather my own ability to make a decision based on past experience. It goes without saying that someone who teaches things to they know to be false is a fraud, however that did not seem to be the main thrust of your proposition for a debate titled "Belief without factual basis is fraudulent." You mention that your main gripe is with those who propagate false beliefs, but who are these people? Are they cult leaders, known charlatans, or are you referring to the clergy of an established religion? You mentioned Jim Jones, but it"s hard to say that he was a fraud when evidence points to him believing his message. One can safely say that he was crazy and wrong, but it"s difficult to say he was dishonest when he killed himself along with his followers. That seems like the ultimate act of sincerity of belief. Moreover if this is your only assertion, that frauds commit fraud, then where is the debate? How do we determine who is a fraud? I have asserted that it is nearly impossible to determine fraud when it comes to belief and I have yet to hear an argument against that. However I think my biggest question is: what is this one way to truth you speak of, how does it provide factual evidence for belief, and why did you not lay it out in your opening argument? I really get the feeling that there is a world view that you are assuming here, yet you have not stated what it is. What is the one way to truth?