Of course, That'd be dumb, like believing the stuff they teach
you in school because it's in textbooks.
I'm agnostic myself but any proof someone gives would have to be
experiential in nature. Words on a page don't make something so.
Lots of people agreeing with each other don't make something so.
Even a computer spitting out numbers that might be based on a
flawed premise doesn't make something so.
Belief of evidence present makes something so. What's the nature
of that belief? The nature of the evidence? Depends on the
sphere of knowledge one is working within.
