Amazon.com Widgets

Is it right to believe in anything without proof?

Asked by: missmedic
  • Better than believing in nothing…

    Many atheists believe in nothing yet science… they want proof of God yet do not know what proof they want to search for. Atheists simply are what they described in the Bible "lost sheep" or a skeptic like Jesus' disciple Thomas (who does not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus without seeing). Religion has substance… it opens the mind to possibilities.

  • Some knowledge is Not Verbalizable Right Away; And Causality Itself is Just A Tool; In the End It's About Living Your Life

    A person may come up with something, know its true but just isn't sure how to word it knows they would be able to given enough time to think about it but has other pressing concerns at the moment so he doesn't have time and must act now without explanation.

    In other cases, sometimes you just need to make a decision and really have nothing to go on. Proof is relative. Every "fact" we observe/infer comes from putting together observed patterns of correlations in the environment. If we lived in a world where the only cause of things was God deciding every moment we'd be none the wiser about it and would have drawn the same conclusions about reality. "Causality" can be treated as the truth/as facts in a practical, pragmatic sense in an overwhelming number of cases but we can never know anything for sure, because causality is just inferences we get from observed correlations. That correlation is not always causation comes from when there are other conflicting correlations that tell us that the other correlation should be treated as irrelevant.

    In the end it's about living your life. The "functioning truth" is what ever to believe in in order to promote success, well-being, and a better life. "Truth" itself is just a tool we use in this reality.

  • One Two Three

    In my opinion, it all comes down to an act of volition. If one does not simply (lol) believe in something that lacks proof, then our long line of history consists of countless gaps of which are lost to us forever. If you do not believe in something that lacks proof then you are only limiting you imagination and your skills to acknowledge the possibility; however slim it may be; that something could be true. Let's say I'm asleep, and my mom says she sweep the kitchen floor while I was asleep, then she took the trash out that held the sweepings. Are saying that because I have no proof that this happened, that it isn't true, or just that it should be believed the because the lack of evidence is baffling, therefore rendering it useless to be believed in. Lol. I know the analogy sucks, but I'm fairly certain you've caught my drift.

  • One two three.

    In my opinion, it all comes down to an act of volition. If one doesn't believe in anything without proof, then we have lots of gaps in our long history that people tend to freely acknowledge from an "I was there perspective." Let's say I'm asleep, and my mom claims that she kissed my forehead, but because I was asleep an I have no proof of this actually taking place, there's no way this could be true, and therefore, I don't believe it. The point is, by you choosing not believe in something that lacks proof limits your imagination and your ability to access the possibility of something actually being true without the having of proof as a trump card. Sorry the analogy isn't really the best, but I'm pretty sure you get my drift.

  • Of course not!

    Without evidence that is verifiable, you have superstitious nonsense, e.G., Church Dogma.

    If you can't observe it and test it, it is not real.

    You can have emotions, e.G., the feelings of love and hate without proof; but, emotions are learned responses to situations, which can also be explained.

    All religions are based on superstitious dogma, which can't be proven.

  • why it is wrong.

    To believe in something without proof can be immoral when belief turns to actions. Without proof justification for ones actions is not needed, leaving you free of guilt or penalty, this is immoral. We all must justify our actions with proof. To believe in an assumption without proof is the surrender of logic and reason and the acceptance of ones own gullibility. Question everthing and thank you for reading

  • Proof may be the wrong word- Evidence is better.

    Believing in claims without evidence to support them, particularly extraordinary claims (like gods, alien encounters, Bigfoot), is illogical. To accept a premise the burden of proof for that premise should be met.
    Obviously for some claims the burden is higher than for others, but the point remains. I have no idea how "faith" came to be considered a virtue in our society since it is, as the great Mark Twain put it, "believin' what you know ain't so".

  • Oh hell na

    Oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69 oh hell na lel lel lel lel 69 69 69 69 69

  • Wildly immoral way to live your life.

    There seems to be a general taboo on a truly simple reality, an exhaustingly proven one: religion is to blame for the indoctrination of faith as a value.
    The moment an individual value his ability to not use his critical thinking, his actions and decisions become based on a volatile lie that he believes to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt. Their denial becomes dangerous when it's more and more challenged by the logical needs of a rising scientific era.

    So those who can't function with the level of cognitive dissonance required to live in a scienticly justifiable society, turn towards religious extremism, living on the allegorical borderlands of the criticly thought world we built. They live among others who believe in the same delusion so they are not confronted to the need for critical thinking.

    We have come to a point where we as a species, can't afford uncritical thinking anymore, and to stop those who oppress it. It is oppression, brothers and sisters, don't let the story deny the fact that they have no proof.

    What do you call someone who claims something to be true (as in, true beyond the shadow of a doubt) without having any scientific evidence to support it?
    What if I had this: he claims that for his story to be true, you first have to believe it is true in the first place?

  • In general it's better not to

    Beliefs should be reasonably justified. The reason being, people base their actions on their beliefs. When a belief is not justified, through reason, logic and evidence, then you have people burning witches at the stake - obviously without good reason. I, for one, don't believe extraordinary claims without a reasonable amount of evidence. This doesn't mean that in everyday cases I reject every single claim that is not presented with evidence. An example would be when a person tells me they had a hamburger yesterday, to which I'll go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt, tentatively. Why would I believe this person, one might ask? Because eating a hamburger is something that people do on a daily basis, justifying my belief that the person ate a hamburger the day before. However, this doesn't mean the person wasn't lying to me. Regardless, this belief is a matter of practicality, that is tentatively granted. My example is an everyday occurrence, and really has no bearing on my actions, but beliefs of the supernatural, or that a deity is somehow guiding our lives, dictates a persons entire worldview, subsequently affecting how they react to situations. An example of that would be when a person who believes that prayer works, gets sick, proceeds to pray, instead of seeking medical attention and ends up dying. See how that belief affecting that person? This is why it is not right to believe in anything without proof, because it could be wrong.

  • Belief is an over used concept

    I don't 'believe' in god or anything else....I come to rational conclusions based on the evidence provided. The bible, by the way, is not evidence, it's simply a rehash of numerous in provable events. And just because lots of people rehash these stories it doesn't make them any more valid.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.