No not really.

I don't necessarily believe that a juice cleanse will do anything for your health but it doesn't mean I haven't tried it. I won't recommend something that hasn't been verified however I'll still try it myself.

In addition you've grouped some things together with varying degrees of relevance to your point on "belief". Astrology has no backing that I've ever heard, MBTI has some backing but most psychologists agree that it has little merit and work on expanded personality tests, organic food is healthier than artificial as it can be processed better, but the degree of difference has skepticism, and juice cleanses absolutely affect your body but not in the ways that most people hope they will. Grouping things like that lowers everything to the lowest common denominator and they're not all equal in that regard.

Besides of all of that, if you've ever recognized the placebo effect you'd know that if I convinced someone bashing their face against a car windshield would cause them to lose weight, I may build up market share in Safelite. Belief in and of itself can have beneficial effects and removing that would simply negate the potential benefit. In terms of religion, for thousands of years millions of people have been good only for the sake of going to heaven, yes they've also done some bad things and I don't want to side track the discussion, but if there was no belief in god, there would be a lot more people doing very immoral things.

I'd agree that spreading misinformation is harmful, but if someone loves to do a juice cleanse and it makes them feel better and they're convinced it has beneficial effects, as long as they don't recommend it to anyone else is there harm?

I would like have some evidence of any god . But even if is true . I decided myself stay without gods

It's a simple question. Why believe in something that is not yet proven. Hearsay is hearsay. And i don't need junks like those. ?

If someone presents me with a statement, I may base my belief or non-belief on it on many things instead of proof - though proof is always preferable, I may not have the knowledge to correctly interpret that proof one way or the other, or proof may not be available. For example the trustworthiness and expertise, I am not a physicist and am educated in that subject only to A-level; therefore if a physicist tells me something that seems plausible, I'll defer to her greater knowledge of the subject and decide that what she says is probably true (if it doesn't seem plausible, I'll check her academic reputation and see if any other physicists corroborate what she says). Likewise, if my friend says he saw a herd of deer on his way to work, I don't question it because I know deer exist and that he traveled to work through an area where deer live, even though I didn't see the deer myself and he can't prove that he did, either (this is also why I believe the USA exists - I've never seen it, but enough people say they live there to make it seem more probable than not that it actually does exist, however unlikely it seems to the rest of the world). Meanwhile, if someone tells me something that doesn't seem plausible - perhaps my friend arrives at work the next day and says he saw a dinosaur on his way in, I'm rather less likely to believe it because it's implausible due to my knowledge that there haven't been any dinosaurs around here for quite some time. Subjects such as astrology fall into that last category - what proponents claim is so implausible, I don't need evidence either way.

Simply put, yes. That’s not really all that common in my profession, but I wish it was. You can keep your rocks that you “charged” at that “vortex” in Sedona. It’s a rock. You can also keep your reiki and your reflexology. Show me valid research that supports the practice, and I’ll revisit the possibility, but until then: No evidence = No belief.

Yes, I require evidence to believe in anything. I have a higher standard of evidence for things/ideas that are important to me. More importantly, I am willing to suspend/end belief should given compelling evidence.

You are mixing "apples and oranges." Niels Bohr expressed it well in suggesting that there are two kinds of truth: there are the trivial truths, the opposite of which are clearly false, and there are the Great Truths, the opposite of which are also true. Belief in God and similar beliefs are examples of Great Truths, since they cannot be proven true or false, at least as far as we humans are concerned; the other beliefs you mention can be proven true or false so would be classified as trivial truths. As to people requiring evidence before believing in God, such a belief is not an inherent phenomenon in human experience. One comes into this world having no thought of such a thing, subsequently being introduced--and in many instances "brainwashed" into thinking there is even a question about the existence of such aa being. So, as we inherit the situation, we are taught that we must choose, while, in fact, it should be the obligation of those who profess such belief to present reasoned, evidence based argument in support of their belief. Unfortunately for those individuals, however, there is not credible evidence they can present save one: personal experience. The problem with that is that ehy are the only ones who had said experience. One of the principal stumbling blocks we in the Western world encounter is that we become immersed in cause/effect reasoning. It becomes impossible for most even to entertain the possibility that there might not have been a first cause. I find interesting reading the explanations coming from various cultures through which they have attempted to identify that first cause, or as Aristotle called it, the "primum mobilum."

I require proof for everything be it bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, or that my step-mother isn't a witch.I take nothing on faith and it's served me well and saved me money.

Absolutely. Emotions have their time and place but logic and evidence guide me.

Depends what your trying to prove and if it's an issue worth debating. Time is precious life is short.

Evidence based everything - physical, social, economic, medicine and health care, politics. I'm a devout Whatworksian.
It means I often get mistaken for a liberal, but I just look at the world and think 'What works? What provides that old chestnut of the greatest good for the greatest number?'
And the answer is often Sweden. Well, the Scandinavian model of social democracy and regulated capitalism anyway.

And I am certain you stay away from exposure to Kryptonite.

Personally I feel it's illrational to believe in anything that has no evidence to suggest it's true.if anything is a matter of any inportance and one does not question it without reservation or conviction that would be illlogical.truth is what the facts are.

Yes. To do otherwise leaves one open to the whims and whiles of charlitans.

I like proof for everything, due to I have been lied to so much in my adult life. Beleiving in god is living a lie and I'm glad I;m an atheist.

Short answer is yes I believe in things that aren't directly or easily measured. Examples: black matter, love, there is definitely something about the zodiac that labels personality traits and a common energy that others can pick up on. The law of attraction. The idea that most humans want to be good but are primarily self focused.

Hypothetically, yes.
I don't think the "beliefs" I have are as unsupported as gods.

I don't have evidence other people feel love. They act like it, sometimes, they say the words; but it doesn't conclusively prove they feel it. However, I believe it is often the case that they do.
In part because I feel it, setting a precedent, confirming the existence of the experience. Also in part because I can't imagine why the world would perpetuate such an illusion.
Reasonable certainty goes for most things. If someone wants me to question it, they better bring something to make me doubt my heretofore evaluations.

This is a story emphasizing getting information from the trusted source.
Many years ago (once upon a time) A component fitted in a mobile toilet block required very frequent servicing.I contacted the manufacturer of the toilet many times and was told we have fitted over 5,000 and had no problems.I contacted the manufacturer of the component who told me I had the ones specifically product for the fire service.I could could buy a similar product designed to work in corrosive situations such as toilets but dearer.

9

Actually, yes. I am skeptical of anything or one if what they say sounds off to me. I do admit I am nieve and too trusting. After being a repeated fool now I'll say ok, then research.

I don't fucntion too much on "belief" to begin with but yes, show me I'm wrong and I'll adjust.

No need take fun out of life, leave that to the church

Of course, why not? I remember finding breast lumps about 30 years ago, in my 40's, and being told in no uncertain terms that coffee was the culprit, I must never have coffee again. Now, it's "drink 2-3 cups a day for heart health".... I never gave up the coffee, anyway!

Yes, I don't believe in things other than religion for which there is no evidence. This includes Santa Claus, Unicorns, space aliens, astrology, vaccination/autism, Leprechauns, etc.

That said, I sometimes to things that assume unproven assumptions if I determine that the odds of them being effective are worth the cost. For example, I take a multi-vitamin with 50-odd ingredients even though it may just give me expensive urine, under the assumption that the chance of it helping is worth the small price.

I personally indulge in only one very controversial habit, as far as I know; I take supplements, which time and again have been "proven" to be non-beneficial, accordingly.

But, here's the thing; I only take them if/when I have experienced a definite, notable change in the condition for which I take them. OK, perhaps there is a placebo effect, call it what you will, but every supplement I take has alleviated a malady of one kind or another. And you can show me all the "evidence" you can find to disprove their worth, but as long as they continue to help me feel better, I'll use them.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that the evidence of the supplements working for me, i.e., relief or enhancement of a physical sensation, will override words on a paper, no matter how they're arranged.

If you can demonstrate a claim with testable, repeatable verifiable falsifiable facts, I will adjust my beliefs to reflect reality. I accept no major assertion without supporting evidence.

I wrote a post on here some time back stating that we all believe in magic. As you can imagine I got quite a few nay sayers but the gist of it goes like this.
Belief is not the same as knowledge or reason. We may empirically know that urging a sports star on TV will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome, yet we still do so. Similarly a golfer will lean to the left or right in an endeavor to alter the trajectory of an already stuck ball. Away from sports, how many have not openly wished for a traffic light to change and said "yes" when it does? Maybe pushed the button of a lift or crossing more than once or just pushed it when there is other people waiting, who obviously pressed it before you showed up. Will your magic fingers tip the balance and make things happen faster? Of course not but that does not stop us from believing it might, otherwise why do we do it?
You may scoff at this idea but think on it next time you cuss an incompetent, slow or tailgating driver who is in no position to hear you