Hey,

Let's not be offended brother BooDah. Ignorance is just the lack of knowledge, or education of a particular set (or sets) of arenas. I venture to say that none of the beings who post to this board are omniscient. By default, we're all ignorant some way or the other. Now, if the statement was intended to offend, what does that say about the initiator? I suppose it means he's ignorant to ignorance. (*whew!*)

If I were to state that belief was ignorance, here is the sequence of logic I'd use to build that statement. I would have to start with two statements:

"I believe 1+1=2".
"I know 1+1=2".

Only one of the previous statements require a mastery of addition. The latter. To state "I believe 1+1=2" could mean that you've heard it mentioned that way before, or you hypothesize that the statement is true, etc.... To state "I know 1+1=2" means that you have gone through the process of addition and reached that conclusion.

To put simply, knowledge is reached through some system of tests and or rules/procedures. Belief can just be reached (i.e. "I believe Apollo drags the sun around the earth on his chariot"). If one is forced to believe about a particular thing, he doesn't know. And, as we've already stated, not knowing set A is equivalent to being ignorant of set A. Now we have:

*Belief => not knowing
not knowing = ignorance

Hence (by the transitive property)

Belief => Ignorance.

I feel like I should write a proof for the new theorem I'm developing.

Peace

eyezed

*note that "=>" and "=" are not equivalent statements.