truth is anti belief

I'm working with the limited amount of words used in your title and I will start with trying to show you that your statement that truth is anti-belief is not a actuality. Firstly I'll start from first principles, below are the definitions of the words you used part by part. truth truH0;_2;/Submit noun the quality or state of being true. "he had to accept the truth of her accusation" synonyms:veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness; More that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. noun: the truth "tell me the truth" synonyms:the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; More a fact or belief that is accepted as true. plural noun: truths "the emergence of scientific truths" synonyms:fact, verity, certainty, certitude; law, principle "scientific truths" is =8;z/Submit third person singular present of be. anti G2;anti/Submit informal preposition 1. opposed to; against. "I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes" adjective 1. opposed. "the local councils are anti" noun 1. a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea. "the threat to field sports from the antis is a serious one" belief b=8;G2;liH0;f/Submit noun 1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. "his belief in extraterrestrial life" 2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something). "a belief in democratic politics" synonyms:faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; optimism, hopefulness, hope "I have no real belief in the power of reason" Now that we know the definitions of the words, which I hope you accept as such, otherwise this debate is complete semantics and not a debate as such. Take Truth By way of example, consider the moons of Jupiter. I can testify that last time I checked, Jupiter had moons. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the major moons have been there for millions of years. All the available evidence indicates that in 1610, at the time Galileo first said Jupiter had moons, it did in fact have moons. In this sense, we can define a notion of truth. This is meant to be an objective (not subjective) notion of truth. To me, the term "fact" is more-or-less synonymous with "truth". We must evaluate separately the truth of each proposition, such as the narrow question of whether Jupiter has moons. In contrast, we do not pretend to know the whole truth about a complex situation. Lets then take belief Galileo had trouble persuading "The Powers That Be" to believe that Jupiter had moons. They didn"t want Jupiter to have moons, and some people have a powerful ability to not see what they don"t want to see. Here belief denotes more-or-less the same thing as knowledge, but by connotation it calls attention to the fact that people are often willing to believe things that cannot possibly be true. Sometimes people believe the truth, but all-too-often they believe things that cannot possibly be true. According to some measures, more people in the US believe in astrology than believe in evolution. Wacky beliefs are reflected in people"s actions, not just in what they say they believe. In the US, people spend W64;10 billion dollars per year on homeopathic medicines, magnetic "therapy" bracelets, and similarly wacky forms of "alternative" medicine. In some simple cases, knowledge is sufficiently well established that it can pass for absolute truth (in some narrow domain). As I like to say, we don"t know everything there is to know about the moon, and we don"t know everything there is to know about green cheese, but we know enough to be quite sure that the moon is not made of green cheese. A similar thought is expressed by the saying that you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Generally, though, issues are more complex, and those who claim to possess infallible inerrant "truth" are cranks, unaware of their own limitations, monumentally immodest and arrogant. It is particularly comical to observe how different cranks hold wildly incompatible beliefs. They each claim to possess infallible inerrant "truth", but really they have no idea what truth is. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they"re not entitled to their own facts". But I'll finish my opening with this, since there is no such thing as truth in it fullest philosophical sense, but due to the limitations of observation and measurement, one can never fully measure anything to determine that anything is a truth in the first place. But on the other hand one can believe that something through observation and justification is true. Thus I argue that truth is belief. And that truth would not exist without belief. Thus truth is not anti-belief.