@jaketheripper Perhaps I should have worded that one line differently; there is no such thing as absolute belief, as we are inherently subjective creatures. That isn’t to say that I believe my statement that “there is no absolute truth, as nothing is ever certain” is incorrect, but for all intents and purposes of the argument, “belief” is the proper term.
That aside, truth and belief are two commonly-contradictory terms – not always, but enough. When you say that your belief in a god is an absolute truth, that is a matter of opinion. To you – most certainly. I believe that you believe that you believe that god to be true (and respect you for you opinion). However, this is not a factual statement for the entire populace, as you do not speak for the world and all its knowledge. There is a distinction that needs to be made here:
Intellectually honest/absolute belief – inherently subjective, does not have to be bothered by outside scrutiny and opinion, personal, yet connects itself to fact and reason
Intellectually honest/absolute “truth” – as objective as possible, accountable to outside influence and reasoned logic, impossible to completely prove to be true (I.E. we are actually all are living in the matrix), independent from belief
An intellectually honest “truth”, and the only way it could be considered a truth on macro scale, is for it to be tested by as many individuals as possible. If evidence supports the theory, it becomes human fact. However, we can never prove that the “absurd” or unlikely are not true (note: this differs from it being reliant on belief), and that is why I say it is intellectually dishonest to say that any one thing is a perfect truth, which that leads me into my next point.
An intellectually honest belief (and this is moving backwards a bit), would be akin to your belief in a god. For the purpose of this exercise, I will assume that you believe in your own personal god, supported by general science. Let’s say your god is every molecule in the universe, and is sentient yet unassuming and non-interfering. The common saying would be “the absence of evidence does not equate to the evidence of absence” – that is to say, based on physical evidence and reasoned logic, I cannot find proof for your god… but I cannot prove it to be false. However, because there is no evidence for such a thing, it remains in theory – and is, therefore, a belief. If you told me, however, that you believe in the God of the Bible, then there is enough reason and evidence to contradict your opinion, as it is enveloped in anecdotals. That is an intellectually dishonest belief.
I progress; what I mean about suspending disbelief and belief, I am referring not to the empathetic response, but to our naturally inquisitive nature and am certainly not speaking of an instantaneous reaction. Just as I spoke of the gradient when coming into belief, the same route needs to be taken to come out of belief. Even if there was one strong instance that occurs to a person – for example, God showing himself to an Atheist – it is with careful deliberation afterword that he is able to successfully rewrite his entire belief system… and even then, I’m sure he’d run into some interesting dilemmas (“but, if God is real, why does evolution make so much sense?”).