until you can propose a better alternative then it seems we're stuck with "belief" language.
What about "accept"? Facts do not require belief.
Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution
We're never going to get anywhere if even an article that supports science uses this kind of bigoted language. Do scientists "believe in" gravity? Do scientists "believe in" relativity?
There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft
But there are companies with lucrative military contracts in Iraq, so it has a purpose for someone.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?