"If you know something is true, you don't need belief."
That doesn't seem logical.
Belief, or unbelief, requires an object, or the lack there of. In the case of your statement above, "something true" is the object. "Knowing" something is true, belief then follows, whether for or against, but the results is belief, or unbelief.
In the end, one chooses belief or ...[text shortened]... r or not a thing is true of false.
Otherwise it's not a choice, but blind obedience to ignorance.
Well, you may not see the logic, but the logic is irrefutable.
We are not talking here about an 'object' such as a table, which setting aside existential discussion as to whether anything actually exists, is there for all to see and drink a cup of tea on.
The 'object' to which you refer is a supernatural being, which cannot be seen, or proven to exist, but can only be imagined. There is no 'evidence' for any god, save the written word, which is notoriously unreliable.
In other words there is no 'knowledge' that a god exists, there is only belief, which is the other side of the coin entirely, and never the twain shall meet, and an atheist such as myself will say that all religion is indeed blind obedience to ignorance.