Mainly because saying someone is not credible without proving they are incredible points the finger right back at the one making the claim of non credibility. Thus the claim for example that the Tom Remington web site is not credible has been proven to be a non credible claim.. By of course alleged friends of our past.. Friends who were not friends at all.. Because any type of information that is contrary of and not embedded in your core beliefs does not mean the people sharing the information are deserving of a claim of non credibility.. Thus the false claim makes the claimant a liar with no credibility.. Guess what geniuses… Most core beliefs are not credible.. Are in fact incredible.. Such as people signing private contracts that were for all people of a society, how silly that one is.. And another, that all people of a society own all of the forests as shareholders… Both fairy tales are right up there with the tooth fairy and rabbits laying eggs and other childish nonsense..
So if you claim I am not credible, The Remington Website is not credible, and you fail to support that with evidence, you then are making an incredible statement. A lie.
credible (adj.) 
“believable,” late 14c., from Latin credibilis “worthy to be believed,” from credere (see credo). Related: Credibly.credibility (n.) 1590s, from Medieval Latin credibilitas, from Latin credibilis (see credible). Credibility gap is 1966, American English, in reference to official statements about the Vietnam War.incredible (adj.) early 15c., “unbelievable, surpassing belief as to what is possible,” from Latin incredibilis “not to be believed, extraordinary,” from in- “not” (see in- (1)) + credibilis “worthy of belief” (see credible). Used c. 1400 in a now-extinct sense of “unbelieving, incredulous.” Related: Incredibly; incredibility
Then we have the word believe, or belief..
believe (v.) Old English belyfan “to believe,” earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (West Saxon) “believe,” from Proto-Germanic *ga-laubjan “to believe,” perhaps literally “hold dear, love” (source also of Old Saxon gilobian “believe,” Dutch geloven, Old High German gilouben, German glauben), ultimately a compound based on PIE *leubh- “to care, desire, love” (see belief).
Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered, perhaps by influence of relieve, etc. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c. Related: Believed (formerly occasionally beleft); believing. Expression believe it or not attested by 1874; Robert Ripley’s newspaper cartoon of the same name is from 1918. Emphatic you better believe attested from 1854.
belief (n.) late 12c., bileave, “confidence reposed in a person or thing; faith in a religion,” replacing Old English geleafa “belief, faith,” from West Germanic *ga-laubon “to hold dear, esteem, trust” (source also of Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- “dear, esteemed,” from intensive prefix *ga- + PIE root *leubh- “to care, desire, like, love” (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c.
The be-, which is not a natural prefix of nouns, was prefixed on the analogy of the vb. (where it is naturally an intensive) …. [OED]
Meaning “conviction of the truth of a proposition or alleged fact without knowledge” is by 1530s; it is also “sometimes used to include the absolute conviction or certainty which accompanies knowledge” [Century Dictionary]. From c. 1200 as “a creed, essential doctrines of a religion or church, things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine;” the general sense of “That which is believed” is by 1714. Related: Beliefs.
Belief meant “trust in God,” while faith meant “loyalty to a person based on promise or duty” (a sense preserved in keep one’s faith, in good (or bad) faith, and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of Latin fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to “mental acceptance of something as true,” from the religious use in the sense of “things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine.”
Knowledge;
knowledge (n.) early 12c., cnawlece “acknowledgment of a superior, honor, worship;” for first element see know (v.). The second element is obscure, perhaps from Scandinavian and cognate with the -lock “action, process,” found in wedlock.
From late 14c. as “capacity for knowing, understanding; familiarity;” also “fact or condition of knowing, awareness of a fact;” also “news, notice, information; learning; organized body of facts or teachings.” Sense of “sexual intercourse” is from c. 1400. Middle English also had a verb form, knoulechen “acknowledge” (c. 1200), later “find out about; recognize,” and “to have sexual intercourse with” (c. 1300); compare acknowledge.
Here’s one I like;
con (v.2) “to swindle,” 1896, from con (adj.). Related: Conned; conning.
Swindled into false core beliefs..
Here’s some terms that come to mind;
coward (n.) mid-13c., from Old French coart “coward” (no longer the usual word in French, which has now in this sense poltron, from Italian, and lâche), from coe “tail,” from Latin coda, popular dialect variant of cauda “tail,” which is of uncertain origin + -ard, an agent noun suffix denoting one that carries on some action or possesses some quality, with derogatory connotation (see -ard).
The word probably reflects an animal metaphoric sense still found in expressions like turning tail and tail between legs. Coart was the name of the hare in Old French versions of “Reynard the Fox.” Italian codardo, Spanish cobarde are from French.
The identification of coward & bully has gone so far in the popular consciousness that persons & acts in which no trace of fear is to be found are often called coward(ly) merely because advantage has been taken of superior strength or position …. [Fowler]
As a surname (attested from 1255) it represents Old English cuhyrde “cow-herd.” Farmer has coward’s castle “a pulpit,” “Because a clergyman may deliver himself therefrom without fear of contradiction or argument.”cowardice (n.) c. 1300, from Old French coardise (13c.), from coard, coart (see coward) + noun suffix -ise.
Cowardice, as distinguished from panic, is almost always simply a lack of ability to suspend the functioning of the imagination. [Ernest Hemingway, “Men at War,” 1942]
cowardly (adj.) 1550s, from coward + -ly (1). The adverb (late 14c.) is much older than the adjective:
Yit had I levir do what I may Than here to dye thus cowerdelye [“Le Morte d’Arthur,” c. 1450]
An Old English word for “cowardly” was earg, which also meant “slothful.” Related: Cowardliness.
“Descriptive Knowledge” says this: “The difference between knowledge and beliefs is as follows:. A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists in one’s mind. Most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, true and justified.”
I don’t know about that subject and I don’t want to know about that subject and behind your back I’m going to claim you have no credibility..
THE WORD, BELIEVE
The word “believe” has an ancient etymology, and is derived from the Sanskrit.
It is a portmanteau, a combination of two short words; “bel” and “eve”. It has gone through countless variations through time, and “bal” and eva” are two of the earliest.
When one examines the concepts these words were used for conceptually, we find that this is a dialectical portmanteau, with a tension of the opposites extant in it’s meaning.
“Bel”: has to do with jejune, rebellion, angst and “belligerence”, “bellum” “Bal” {an evil entity}, “ballistic” and a long nomenclature of similar conceptualizations put into a descriptive word.
“Eve”: has to do with nurture, nature, empathy, compassion, love, and understanding, equilibrium… also a lengthily nomenclature.
The original conjunction actually expressed an error of thinking, which comes back to us in more modern times in the form of “True Believer”, irrational certainty, fanaticism, and again associated with ‘bellum’ or war, and destruction.
This is why I make an attempt not to use the words ‘believe’, and ‘belief’ when self referencing. I like to use the term I “think” or “it is my opinion”. Or, “beyond reasonable doubt”, when making a strong judgment of my opinion.
[If I do use the term self descriptively, I mean it in the very soft and vague popular sense]
Belief is best defined in terms of “faith”, of believing without the need of proofs, as is demanded of many of the major organized religions. And this is where the word again takes on its original connotations, of erroneous thinking.
There is nothing wrong with not believing anything someone says or writes. Thats intelligent. I don’t believe anything people say or write. While being a guy that collects and reads several books I simply point out some things in my read searching, particularly in the International law category that is factual. yet still I advise others to go read it for themselves.
The legalese says what it says and your governments actions validating those terms speaks volumes.. So in my read searching I’ve discovered many people saying things and writing things, although very articulate and well thought out are quite wrong concerning the legal aspect of those various issues.. Especially involving land ownership of not only private but also public lands.. And of course the myth that “We Are the People” referred to in a certain contractual agreement signed by a few men..
Who did that for themselves and their Posterity not your great great grandaddy’s posterity leading down to you, or myself.. I believe we ALL should be good read searchers thus seeking out whether certain things we would like to believe or perhaps have believed in for most of our lives turn out to be true or myth.. Especially in the question of defining legal terms connected to international compacts constitutions contracts private agreements because that is what those legal instruments are. And those legal instruments represent the signatories and their Posterity period..
“Merely putting a word in the form of a derogatory phrase creates in the mind of the listener the impression of something unsavory. People who care about the truth are mere “truthers,” after all. Tenth amendment supporters are “tenthers.” Those who prepare for the future are “preppers.” Want to demonize someone who does good things? Call them a do-gooder!
Language is the great tool of the tyrants. It always has been, and always will be. Patriots are expected to abide by a PATRIOT Act that destroys their Bill of Rights, support “surgical strikes” against “enemy combatants” by the Department of “Defense,” and cheer the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to those who wage war.
Our language has been weaponized against us.”~James Corbett
Ad homenim such as they are not credible is not an argument, it is an admission of ignorance. When done behind their backs it is an admission of cowardice..
For the majority of the right versus left masses there is apparently no solution to the false core beliefs condition..
