But if it's verified by science, it's no longer a belief, it's fact. Or as close as we can get to "fact."
No, "belief" is irrespective of "truth" or "fact". A belief doesn't become a "fact" when it gets adequately confirmed, it becomes a justified true belief, or "knowledge", but knowledge is still a belief, it never ceases to be a belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
No one has "facts" in their head, they have beliefs about facts, which can be either true or false.
This is my point, I'm only a novice in philosophy but what I have learned is that these concepts are well defined but can easily be misapplied (like in the 1st post) to make fallacious arguments.
Essentially, the word "belief" has different meanings, what fallacy is that when you change the definition of a word between premises?
premise 1 "World views based on beliefs are unreliable""unjustified, purely faith based belief"
premise 2 "science is based on beliefs""the simplest form of mental representation, (everything in your head)"
Conclusion: Therefore science is unreliable.