Atheists, do you believe every belief should be supported by evidence?

Question

If so, what evidence do you have for believing that?

Jett: How can you believe beliefs are dangerous? Isn't that a belief?

whose: You've assumed too much about my question.

Perhaps I left "belief" as too vague a term. I meant all conclusions of the mind, not just religious ones.

Answer 1

No, just the ones that are trying to force themselves into the laws, schools and government of countries.

Answer 2

No, I just don't care whether there is a god or not. It won't effect my life.

I tend to view religion as a people can believe in what ever they want and I won't care as long as they aren't overly aggressive or annoying in trying to convert me (cough....Jen) or harming other people with their beliefs. If a serial killer needs god to stop murdering people, good on them, I'll actively encourage them to find god.

Frankly the idea of no god is the most comforting one to me. I don't like the idea of some benevolent person watching over me and the idea of eternal life just scares me. I don't want to be aware forever; I like the idea that my consciousness will one day end.

Thirdly, the idea that some one created me with the expectation that I would believe in them or be damned forever just seems unaturally cruel. When I look back on my life so far it seems to be a forgone conclusion (ever since I was very young) that I wouldn't have any religious affliation. I generally wouldn't even call myself an atheist, rather opting for none if people ask me what religion I am. It is a sutble difference.

I like it when beliefs are supported by evidence. But, I tend to subscribe to the only reality is in your mind view, rather than the view of there being one external reality. Unfortunately I don't remember the article name in order to cite it but I do recall reading something where a person saw monsters and had all the physiological responses associated with fear (of the monsters) even though no one else saw them. So if another person's relatity is such that it allows them to believe in a religion I just assume they are perceiving the world differently than I am and leave it at that.

Answer 3

Absolutely.

Simply, the evidence would be that my beliefs that I have are because of evidence that I attain or review. The end result, my beliefs, are the evidence that I need evidence to support every belief I hold.

It's a circle. It's neverending.

I hope you have a headache now.

Answer 4

ideally yes, but practically it is not always possible.

belief is for general philosophical principles that cannot be directly supported by evidence or "known" in any other way.

for instance i believe that my senses convey somewhat accurate perceptions of an objective reality. this seems to be useful but i can't really say that i *know* it's true.

certainly i would say that belief should not be held when it is *contradicted* by a preponderance of evidence.

i find that i am in pretty good agreement with this little essay:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

but this is my personal opinion, not a universal prescription!

Answer 5

Yes, otherwise it's just a fantasy or delusion. Simple really. It just doesn't do me any good to believe that little grey men are following me around in tiny helicopters documenting my every move waiting for me to do something 'bad' so they can torment me.

Evidence is the difference between delusion and reality.

Answer 6

Yes. Beliefs are dangerous, beliefs allow the brain to go on auto pilot. A brain which is not thinking is clinically dead.

Evidence? Hundreds of millions killed and/or tortured, among them many women and children, directly as a result of beliefs taken too far.

EDIT: No, a direct observation (Read above)

Answer 7

circular logic. yes, every belief should be supported by evidence.

rene decarte said, "i think therefore i am." it is the one premise we have to accept in order to reason. we exist...we are real...that is the only thing we can be 100% sure of. everything else we need to gather evidence in order to believe, or we fall down the slippery slope of believing anything.

Answer 8

What a stupid question.
If you can't understand why people feel they need evidence to believe in something, I would ask you why do you believe in whatever you believe in. It's because of either evidience (which others may or may not find as convincing as you do) or blindly following something you've been spoon fed. If it's the first I respect what you believe even though it may be different to what I believe. If it's the second I pity you because you are mind-washed.

Answer 9

Of course, why shouldn't they be? My evidence would be an entire history of how faith and religion has harmed humanity. The dark ages, the crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition are pretty good examples.

Answer 10

Yes, as one says: "Remarkable claims" need to be backed up by "Remarkabale" evidence...If I had say found something that was important to the existence of civilisation, I don't think many people would be interested in my tale, but would obviously be more interested in the proof...

Answer 11

umm. yes? that's sort of what life is all about. im actually more of an agnostic, but really. why should you shun logic? you're trying to prove your faith is the correct path through logic.... so it must be important to you as well.
what evidence do i have that everything should be supported with evidence? a thought process.... the ability to know when something sounds like BS and not listen to it...
should you come across a kidnapper who says "there is candy in my van" you would use logic (hopefully) to reason that that is a lie, and not follow him. that's why it's right.