It depends on what you mean by "it". Sometimes I believe in concepts that seem ridiculous, but I really believe in them. Sometimes I defend one side of an argument because I feel it is underrepresented and I am trying to form my own opinion about it. I'm the type of person who tries to weigh both sides of any situation carefully, so I am comfortable assuming either side of any argument. Generally if I feel that if there is sufficient information to draw conclusions about things already on the table from others, I won't argue at all. It varies from topic to topic, but I hold beliefs to be very fragile thing, constantly evolving and changing.
If you are refering to when I stated
"We can not prove that black holes exist (that I am aware of), is there any rational reason to believe they exist?"
Do you understand that in context my point was that it may be rational to believe in black holes, despite a lack of conclusive evidence that they exist? I can understand that if you weren't reading what I typed carefully it may seem as though I was saying black holes are irrational to believe in, but I was really defending the claim that it is not always irrational to believe in things that can not be conclusively proved. (I wasn't aware there may be conclusive proof now of black holes at the time, but the analogy still works, pretend i said it in 2009).
I really do believe that science can be considered as a form of religion, and I also think scientists shouldn't have to pay taxes because of this! Did I mention I am a scientist? How about that I don't like taxes. If nothing else, accept science as your lord and savior and no more taxes! (consult your accountant) If you think that it is stupid to want science to be viewed as a religion, then you must just love paying taxes, don't you? You all are fucking ruining this shit for me.
"Most people think time is like a river, that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you, they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm."