Actually, if you have provided no supporting evidence, no proof whatsoever, then it would be highly illogical to believe either of your claims. Even less outlandish claims require substantiation. From a logical perspective, whether or not unicorns or billionaires exist, you must be the one to prove it so. This is why active belief in a negative due to a lack of evidence to the affirmative is moronic. Now, practically speaking, you don't need to tell us that billionaires exist, because we already know that, and specifically proving even the base rudiments of even the simplest arguments is best reserved for philosophy textbooks.
Let me see if I am reading that correctly. It is highly illogical to believe either of my claims, but moronic to have an active belief that they are untrue? Thus the only way to be logical and not moronic is to not believe anything. I'm sure this could go on forever, but this will be my last attempt to show my stance:
I believe you are a human, not a monkey, I believe that is the truth.
I do not believe it has been proven you are a human or that it has been proven the truth or that it can, absolutely, be proven. You have not even stated you are a human, or not a monkey, yet I believe it.
I believe the Lakers will beat the Thunder in their playoff series, that that is the future truth.
I do not believe it has been proven the Lakers will win, that it is known as an absolute fact they will, and I believe I could be wrong in my belief.
Should I have to say I do not believe the Thunder will win to not be moronic? I may as well say "I don't believe either way". I may as well say "I don't believe either way" in every little fact of life down to whether you are a real person or whether I'm just in a permanent lucid dream created by a government.
I believe god is not real, that he does not exist, that that is the truth of things, despite no absolute evidence or possibility of evidence.
I do not believe god can or has been disproved, I believe I could be wrong about my judgment of the truth of things.
This is one of webster's working definitions of belief:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. I believe we should make a distinction between believing a truth or falsehood, having a hunch or opinion, or confidence in the truth, and feeling absolutely certain of truth. Otherwise, there is almost nothing at all we can believe in, almost nothing at all we can take as true or false. Belief, I am saying, does not, nor should it, require absolute certainty and absolute proof.