if "the truth is self evident" and “fundamental” in nature, and the only way and place that the truth can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind,
The truth doesn't need to be known in the first place. Knowledge isn't fundamental. Knowledge is derived from reality, and can never validate the truth. Again, one's understanding of reality cannot stand under reality. The intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance.
truth's self evidence must imply the existence of a believing mind as well,
No. belief can't originate in the mind. It literally originates in one's heart. This is an empirical fact proven with reproducible results. Again, the intellect can only reflect upon what exists, and reflections are not fundamental.
because if the truth and reality exists, then it too must have a way and place in order to be known to exist.
If truth and reality don't exist, then anything that can be articulated is pure incoherent nonsense. Truth and reality does exist, but knowledge is completely unnecessary. The faculty of knowing is the only way anything can be known, but it isn't necessary for one to be consciously or unconsciously aware of the truth. Revelation isn't directed at the intellect to begin with. If that were the case, then it would be intelligible. It clearly isn't, and never can be. So when you hear people say that some day we'll all understand what's really going on, you can bet they're deceived. Again, there can be no mediator other than Christ who is the way, not the intellect which can only reflect upon reality.
And a believing mind is the only thing that is capable of hosting the truth and reality.
False. The truth is immediately evident to conscious awareness, and one's conscious awareness can completely bypass the intellect altogether. The truth can also be evident to the unconscious awareness.
But if you know of something else outside of a believing mind that is capable of this function, then by all means say what that thing or way is.
Awareness. An acute awareness has no need of the faculty of knowledge to begin with. The faculty is a redundant mediator of reality.
You are speaking from the unbelievers standpoint only,
Not really. I'm simply pointing out that there is common ground in both camps.
God used belief as the means by which to reveal His truth and reality to us.
One believes what they see. They don't believe what they don't see. Everyone in the bible sees what they believe, even Thomas. That is why they are referred to as "witnesses". They all believe what they have seen. They are ALL unbelievers until they see the risen Christ with their own eyes. See how that works? None of them believe he is risen until they actually see him. Seeing is believing.
what we experience with our physical senses comes from what we HAVE to believe about what we are experiencing
The kingdom of God does not come through observation.
Plenty of people have no idea what they are experiencing. It happens all the time. Some people believe they are being chased, stalked, etc. Their beliefs are based exclusively in ignorance. Their beliefs are based upon what they can't know to begin with which as you already know is the exact same position as the atheist.
with our physical senses in order to know what we are experiencing is true to begin with.
The problem with you position is that you believe that one must know what you are experiencing is true. This isn't the case at all. One doesn't need to know anything at all for the truth to be the truth, or for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to know the truth for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to believe it either. There are people who don't believe a placebo can heal them, but they are healed anyways. Our physical senses as well as our intellect are inherently fallible, and notoriously untrustworthy. Despite this glaring fact, people are still able to get things done even though they can't depend upon their senses.
When I'm dreaming that I'm driving down the road, I know that I am driving down the road, yet I'm not actually driving down the road at all. I'm in bed dreaming that I'm driving down the road. My intellect is quite effectively deceiving me into believing that I am driving down the road. Is that the truth? Nope. When I wake up, and see that I was dreaming, do I also note that there is no essential difference between my waking and dreaming mind? Yep. Why? Because in both cases, it is all being represented or filtered through my intellect. It's like filming a football game, and then watching it after the fact. What I'm looking at isn't happening at all. It's a cheap imitation. In fact, it's worthless. It can't be believed because it isn't real to begin with. Only reality can be believed. Only the truth can be believed, and the intellect has nothing to do with it, and never can. The intellect can only acknowledge the truth, it can never validate it. You keep wanting to validate the truth with your knowledge, but this is to place one's knowledge on a firmer foundation than the truth itself which is pure nonsense. You're making the same mistake Adam made. He walked with God, but didn't know it. He wanted to know God rather than be the image of God.
Those who claim that they believe in something that is untrue, or a lie are deceived. They are hallucinating, not believing
.
both require belief in order to be known to be true.
Doesn't matter what they know because what they know is a deception. It can't be the truth because it is only what is caught second hand by the intellect. It is a representation, a substitution, a simulation, and therefore cannot be what it represents or is substituted for. By its very nature it can't be real. It can't be the truth.
Furthermore, they don't have to believe what they know, they only have to acKNOWledge it.
both require a belief in order to be known and experienced.
I don't have to know or experience God in order to be taught theology. There are atheists who have gone through seminaries and now pastor Christian churches. What is experienced can then be mediated through the intellect and known. It doesn't have to be believed to be acknowledged. Two people watch three buildings come crashing down. One believes they are watching a controlled demolition. The other believes two planes crashed into them, and caused them to come crashing down due to the heat of the fires. What do they know?
So, both are belief based.
No. those who are taught what to believe don't really believe what they've been taught unless they implement it into their lives. The vast majority of so-called "believers" don't implement even a fraction of what they've been taught to believe. That is not belief, yet that is what they call it. Hence the labels mean nothing.
atheists are disbelieving when they should be believing,
You didn't say anything about what they should be doing before. That's a completely different issue.
that's why they don't know they truth and reality of God.
Again, they can know the unadulterated truth, and it will make no difference whatsoever because what is known is being filtered through the intellect. It is being filtered through that faculty rather than directly through reality itself.
There is nothing more immediate than reality, or the truth of reality. Reality is the medium, not the intellect or the faculty of knowing.