Yes. And I teach my children not to believe something just because an adult says it. Research explore and only accept things that make sense to you.

Absolutely I would change views if I found evidence contrary to my beliefs. I work in healthcare and science is always coming up with New and better ways of treating patients

Yes, I require some measure of corroboration. There are areas where I have no direct expertise and rely on trusted specialists, but to me that in itself is using evidence - supplied by someone else's expertise. And someone pointing to evidence in conflict with something I think to be true would need to do a good job, use logic and evidence, and themselves be trustworthy, and I would still research myself and change my mind if it proved out. But Leo's are like that.

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?

Yes, evidence. Yes, will change my belief.

I think most agnostics/atheists tend to be fact-based, so I'd say, for me at least, the asnwer would be yes. As for challenging a belief of my own, I'd be willing to listen to what someone had to say. Belief, no matter what it is, is just that: a belief. However....again, we tend to be fact based.

I don't believe in myers-briggs as they have already been discredited even before I really knew much about them - Seems more like a party game than something to believe in. I don't disrespect party games or Halloween fun - I don't believe in astrology though I read my stars in the paper for fun . I have worked as a lab tech in many places one was a processed cheese factory all the cheese was the same, every process they went through was the same, except for the labels which were stuck on by gigantic steel machines so all the major supermarkets brands were exactly the same. Cosmetics also , just put in different pots different prices Absolutely I would change my mind if I found out that was being had - and it isnt a belief for me its just identifying the scams

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

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 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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I require evidence for any sort of claim for something being true or false. Without evidence to prove what is being put forward, there is no substance to an argument without proof to support the claim. Facts become facts through scientific evidence, reason, logic, demonstration, and testing the results. When different tests provide the same results, it is no longer subject to opinion. I would absolutely be able to change my opinion when presented with evidence to prove me wrong. That's how science works. Opinions don't change or affect facts but if you are logical, facts should mould your opinions.

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."

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.

Yes, I need evidence for other things. So, I know they are true and not made to con people. Only religious fools and kids believe in imaginary things.

I realize this is a bit long, but I thought it worth posting if it helps anyone sort out thi subject: A QUICK LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION, ETC.

Over the past several months, I have read a number of unsubstantiated claims and invalid arguments on this site, generally addressing either some political or religious issue. Some of them I have agreed with and some I have not, but in either case it was in spite of the nature of the statement rather than because of it. I assume that I am addressing an intelligent audience (some here are saying, “Man, that’s a wildly dangerous assumption!&rdquo, so I thought, why not touch upon the differences among truth, fact, and opinion, since so many seem confused about those differences.

First allow me to point out a crucial matter about opinion. Believe it or not, many actually think that any conclusion they hold about some issue or another is unassailable since it is their “personal opinion.” I should clarify that belief immediately: personal opinion is unassailable ONLY IF ONE KEEPS IT TO ONESELF. As soon as one offers that opinion to others, an indication that he/she is seeking agreement, an obligation exists to provide evidence and logical argument showing how that evidence supports that opinion. In the absence of evidence and logical argument, no one has any reason whatsoever for accepting the opinion. Indeed, one wonders why the person who expresses it believes it. “Because I say so,” does not constitute a sound argument.

Speaking of opinions, however, this would be a good place to remind ourselves of the difference between opinion and fact. Many, here, will wish to simplify matters and dismiss the issue by pointing out that facts are true and opinions are not, but that just confuses the issue; the matter of truth and falsity is another part of this subject, one which I will address separately but in the same context. Here is what we need to remember: that which is factual by nature can be proven true or false; an opinion can never be proven true or false, only more or less valid, depending upon the logical presentation of evidence to support the opinion. So if one were to say, “ The outside air temperature on the other side of that window is 74 degrees Fahrenheit,” that statement is of a factual nature because it can be proven to be true or false. It either is 74 degrees Fahrenheit or it is not. If the speaker were to have added, “and that is uncomfortably cool,” that would be an opinion. It is neither true nor false nor can be proven to be. If I said that the speaker believed 74 degrees Fahrenheit to be uncomfortably cool, that would be a fact; It could be proven true or false, in this instance simply by asking the person. Do you see the distinction?

Now let’s confuse the issue a bit, perhaps, by examining the difference between truth and validity. It is quite possible, through observing the rules of logic, to arrive at a valid conclusion that is not a true conclusion. In deductive reasoning, which we all employ on a regular, daily basis, we move in our thinking from some general proposition (or premise) through a specific observation, to a specific conclusion, and if we follow the rules (some of which I won’t go into here), we will arrive at a valid conclusion. Consider, for example, this little logical format called a syllogism:

                               Man is mortal;

                               John is a man;

                               Therefore, John is mortal.

I could have left out the conclusion and you could have supplied it, whether you could cite any rules of logic or not, because we think that way normally. Essentially what is happening here is that we have two end terms, “John” and “mortal” that have in common the middle term “man,” so we are able to link them together through the verb “is.” What if the first premise read “Man is not mortal”? The conclusion would have to be that John is not mortal. I can say that the second conclusion is valid, since the rules of logic were followed, but now the matter of truth/falsity comes into play: even though the conclusion is valid, I must also say that it is false, so there is an essential difference between the concepts of validity and truth. Unscrupulous politicians, TV evangelists, and other salesmen know this, so we must be alert to those claims that sound “logical” but about which “there’s something we can’t quite put our finger on that doesn’t sound quite right.” I do not wish this to become a detailed and lengthy discussion of logic, a much too complex subject for this brief note; I just hope for some basic understanding of the terminology when I use it, and the hope that you will be able to identify whether your assertions and arguments are sound or not.

So, it’s possible for someone to express a valid conclusion that is not true, because if any of the facts (evidence) upon which one reasons to the conclusion are false, the conclusion itself must be false. But let’s move forward with this brief exposition and examine truth and opinion in a bit more detail and introduce some other terms that are also pertinent. I’ve already delineated fact from opinion; well, that’s essentially the same distinction we can apply to objective and subjective. An objective view is one based upon factual evidence, while a subjective view is not; an objective view can be proven true or false, but a subjective view cannot. Subjective views of a certain magnitude are referred to as beliefs, and since they are subjective, they are based upon faith, in the absence of factual evidence. Most if not all religious beliefs are held on the basis of faith; indeed, in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, we find the following statement: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The terms “objective” and “subjective” can also be used to indicate something existing in the physical world as we know it (objective) as opposed to something existing primarily in the form of ideas, in the mind, (subjective). Unfortunately, many religious people fail to recognize that the nature of the conclusions they hold so dear are opinions, beliefs, not based upon factual evidence for the most part, and are, therefore, seen as viable only by those who share the same faith in those conclusions. To my knowledge, the only factual evidence possible for support of most religious beliefs is personal religious experience; unfortunately, the only ones of those of which there is public awareness were experiences by those few who reported them, so are essentially baseless for the faithless.

In conclusion, I would say that the worst offenders are those who, instead of proving logically reasoned, factual arguments, provide yet more opinion masquerading as factual evidence, in the vain hope that it will convince their audience. I am particularly concerned by those who argue from a base of ignorance concerning argument. Many even think the term argument identifies a confrontational exchange, but just as disturbing are those who do not know the difference between fact and opinion, and offer opinions to back up yet other opinions, ad infinitum. I will close with an observation by one of my favorite thinkers, Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics, for his then revolutionary atomic model, a model which has since been modified a good bit. At an international conference of physicists, the subject of truth became an issue among the participants, and Bohr said, “There are two kinds of truth, the trivial truths and the Great Truths: a trivial truth is one the opposite of which is clearly false; a Great Truth is one the opposite of which is also True. That sounds suspiciously like the distinction between fact and opinion I expressed earlier, doesn’t it. A final note: learning means always approaching every subject with an open mind, always approaching every subject with questions, whether or not you think you’ve already answered them, never simply hoping to discover others’ compatible opinions in a vain effort to support your own, while rejecting out of hand evidence or conclusions that seem not to do so.

Goodbye, and don’t blame me; I am just another inmate.

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. ?