Oh, more than that...I deeply, deeply disagree; when you have facts on your side, belief becomes redundant.Still, I don't think you understand what I mean by a belief, RocketGirl. When I say 'regardless of how you come to that conclusion', I do not mean a belief entails disregarding logical steps. I mean that whether you come to a conclusion via logic or evidence or indoctrination or whatever, that conclusion is a belief. I understand, however, that you might see a certain degree of ambiguity in the term, so I'll move on to something else.
One of the dictionary definitions of belief is such: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"
This is exactly what I'm talking about, right here, why I reject the term "belief" in this context.
First, I must assume that you mean you as a physical entity, and not "nickspoon" as an identity or persona adopted for the internet and which is not representative of your offline personality and demeanor.As a thought experiment, I put to you (by 'you' I mean anyone) a simple question: Do I, nickspoon, truly exist?
Next, according to all available data, yes. Though the possibility exists that the data have been faked in some way, and that one's observations on the matter are false, when sliced with Occam's Razor, the potential of that scenario is unlikely to the point of ridiculousness. The fact of your existence is, indeed, susceptible to rigorous proof, and thus according to the definition above--which is the one I use when discussing belief--belief is not required since the data are available for testing.
The only reasonable conclusion given the facts is that, yes, you exist. However, one is quite willing to reconsider the matter pending new evidence.
The kind of belief you seem to be talking about is much fuzzier, and NOT the sort which I am trying to debunk with the Rational Station series.