What if it's not a false belief? It's alot different from "2+2=3" or "the world is flat". Why? Because you can prove those things correct or incorrect.

The extremely low prior probability and the total lack of evidence allow us, as Bayesians, to dismiss it as false. Taboo the word "proof", because it's not useful to us in this context.

Because they don't!? I was talking about how the FDA is right, the "wouldn't work at all" is an unregulated drug industry. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but lots of people would agree with me including many of those "political philosophers" you speak so highly of.

Speaking as someone who thinks that the general outline of your point in that thread is the correct conclusion, the problem is you gave zero evidence or logic for why you would be correct. Suppose someone says "Hey we do things like X right now, but what if we did Y instead?" You can't just respond "Y won't work." If you say "Y won't work because of problems A,B, C" or "X works better than Y because of problems D,E,F" then you've got a discussion going. But otherwise, all you have is someone shouting "is not"/"is too."

What if it's not a false belief? It's alot different from "2+2=3" or "the world is flat". Why? Because you can prove those things correct or incorrect.

If we're talking about the religion matter again, which it seems we are, weren't you already linked to the Mysterious Answers sequence? And I'm pretty sure you were explicitly given this post. Maybe instead of waiting 8 minutes to post between that time read some of the things people have asked you to read? Or maybe spend a few hours just reading the sequences?

Edit: It is possible that you are running into problems with inferential distance.

In my expirience, people rarely change they're minds after their sure of something.

That matches my experience everywhere except Lw.

If you don't like my opinion, fine, but lots of people would agree with me including many of those "political philosophers" you speak so highly of.

Again, I did not say I disagreed with you, or that people downvoted you because they disagreed with you. Rather, you're making a strong political claim without stating any justification, and not actually contributing anything in the process.

What if it's not a false belief? It's alot different from "2+2=3" or "the world is flat". Why? Because you can prove those things correct or incorrect.

There is strong evidence that the world is not flat. There is also strong evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist, and in fact to an indifferent agent the (very algorithmically complex) hypothesis that the Christian God exists shouldn't even be elevated to the level of attention.

Clicky

False - division by zero. You may want to see How to Convince Me 2+2=3.