How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

1) Heaven's gate was a religious group that believed that if they committed suicide their spirits would ride comet Hale-Boop. Police found 39 dead bodies of members who apparently committed suicide due to believing in this BS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28re...

2) Recently, a two year old boy was found with several needles that were found inside his body because his stepfather was following a ritual for the brazilian religion Candomble. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Brazil...

3) In 1692, 19 innocent men and women were hanged and one was crushed by rocks because the residents of Salem believed they were practitioners of withcraft http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/s...

4) Hindu claims that if you look at the sun directly your eyesight will improve. This of course is scientifically false and has led to many losing their eyesight. http://hinduismexposed.wordpress.com/unscientific-...

5) female "circumcision" is a widespread practice in african religions, which cause the deaths of several young women annually. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.ht...

6) according to Islam, it is ok to stone women if they cheat on their husband. http://www.islam-watch.org/MNamazie/Stoned-to-deat...

7) The Aztecs believed it was correct to offer human sacrifice to their god. http://www.essortment.com/all/aztecsacrifice_raif....

Is this enough empirical evidence that it is always wrong to believe in something without any evidence?

Hello,

The question is silly. Lets reverse it and see if it makes sense that way...

How can one prove; everyone should believe in a thing for which there exists no proof?

The word "empirical" has no import in this context, its like people who use the phrase "well technically speaking'" as if there were some other way a thing could be true. The words "prove" or "proof" mean evidence. How can a thing be "evident" but not see-able?

Why would it make sense to just believe anything? What could possibly be the reasoning behind demanding proof for belief, right? I mean, its not like people are able to lie you know!

A demand for proof is the Police Officer commanding, "Keep your hands out of your pockets."

A demand for proof is the freeway driver checking their speedometer as they pass the waiting patrol cruiser.

A demand for proof is the pay-stub one receives after working through the holiday.

A demand for proof is the numbers printed on the temperature selection dial of an oven.

If you never ask, "why should I trust?" how will you learn to differentiate between trust worthy and non; trial and error? How many errors would you need to experience, first hand, before you were able to learn the need for a method of discerning truth from non; before experiencing the resulting error? How many trial and error situations are afforded in nature? There are thousands of "gods"; that's a pretty thick crowd, would a fawn be intelligent to wander into a thicket without caution? Were it possible, would you suggest to a young creature, "do not worry about proof of the lake's safety, go drink by the partially submerged logs"?

In my opinion, a better question would be, "If a thing has no proof of existing, why would people believe in it?" From this question you would have been told about the evolution of the human brain, the mechanics and development of social herd mentalities, leader/follower paradigms, and the psychology of behavior.

Peace.

Compare the results of empirical methodology with faith-based reasoning.

This is going to be a very different perspective

The Root Chakra (red) is responcible for Suffering, Density

The Naval Chakra (orange) is responcible for Time

The Solar Plexus (yellow) is reponcible for You/Me/There/Here/Right/Wrong

Scientifically, FACTS are gathered as EVIDENCE to support or disprove a theory. On the other hand, religion uses faith in place of FACTS and EVIDENCE in order to prove their theology, not a theory but theology. You have to have data to support your theory or you have no theory. Biblical writings do not pass examination as evidence or facts since biblical writings are inspired by invisible beings whose voice only the writer can hear. The belief that these writings are fact, takes a leap of faith in these invisible beings to get it correct and no opposition to the writings are allowed, which means people are not allowed to present real facts to disprove faith-based theology. Based on facts and evidence to support one's assertions, there is no god or other invisible friends.

Lengthy observation of the behavior of believers is all the proof that I need.

You can't prove this kind of statement empirically, but you can disprove it.

("mindfuck!") that's according to karl popper.

No, the point is why believe something for which there's no evidence.

I beg the question

Line up a bunch of cultists and observe their idiotic behavior.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."

-Nietzsche