No need to be condescending, I perfectly understand logic. I'm not sure you're understanding my point.
I am working under the assumption you do not absolutely know for certain billionaires exist. How can you know it as a fact? The fact would be an absolute truth. For all you know, you could be a crazy guy that has deluded himself into thinking people were talking about billionaires or had billions of dollars when they never did. I am not calling into question that real evidence supports the truth of a claim, I am calling into question the validity of the evidence. If it is not absolutely certain, absolutely true, then you are doing one of two things: assuming it is true, or measuring the probability that it is true.
Here, answer these questions, if you truly profess to follow logic:
1) Do you know, without any shred of doubt, that is it absolutely true billionaires really exist?
2) If you don't, then is it not simply a hunch, a measure of probability? You would believe that it was probable billionaires really do exist because of your senses, your experiences, your memory, even if all of these things, in turn, could be doubted, questioned. Could you be absolutely certain? How do you measure the level of a certainty if it is not absolute? In probability, of course, there is no other way to do it by the very nature of the words we're using. That is what I meant by probability - you are assuming, for the sake of practicality, truth, based on what you find most probably true and real, no? If the evidence is to be taken as true, to be assumed to be true, then is that not a belief, a positive belief in the evidence, or a positive belief in the probability of the evidence? Explain to me how that is not a belief. I feel like you are not addressing these points.