Limited basis for discussion. here…
Nothing if it’s an informed decision. Often, I enjoy believeing in “little people” and IPUs.
Well, I do believe in fairies . . .
If you were on the jury hearing my case, I would certainly hope that you “just believed” I was innocent.
Just believing is fine. Expecting others to believe the same as you, with no supporting evidence is completely different.
believe == to accept something as true without absolute proof.
the 1st problem with the definition is the word ABSOLUTE.
what is the difference between a proof and an absolute proof. Something is either proven or it isn’t, there are no degrees of proof. There are degrees of PROBABILITY.
Reality isn’t like mathematics. There are liars and people hiding information so there is often UNCERTAINTY about many things, therefore:
believe == to accept something as true without sufficient evidence.
therefore belief is stupid by definition.
I would take issue with dal_tigmar’s definition. To “believe” is surely to merely ascribe a probability of truth of greater than 50%, whatever the evidence? I believe it will rain tomorow, I believe Liverpool will win the Premiership, I believe the defendant is guilty. Who says what level of evidence is “sufficient” for such beliefs?
The idea of faith is perhaps a little closer to dal’s, in that one somehow modifies one’s ascribed probabilities to nearer certainty.
Perhaps if the OP could return and pose the question in more detail we might progress.
Ever since that darn scientific method came along, it’s been proof, proof, proof. We were all taught in school how every great thing that’s come out of peoples’ heads in the past couple hundred years is because they had an idea and then proved that it was right, rather than just believing that something was right and getting along with their lives, and that everything before that that sucked completely sucked because people just believed in it and didn’t bother testing anything.
Well my grandmother beieved that people were breaking into her house, stealing her good underwear and leaving inferior ones in their place.
As to what is wrong with that I leave that to the reader to decide.
Upon reflection, I find that by “informed” I mean “well informed”.
[Eve quickly hides Degrance’s grandmother’s good underwear where no one will find it]
Hey what’s this underwear doing in my vase???
Everyone should believe in something. I believe I’ll have another beer…
I believe in underwear.
Most of the time. 
-In what? Buddhism? Islam? Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Zororastrianism? Scientology? Shinto? Rastafarianism?
How about the Druids, the Pagans and the Wiccans?
Astrology? Phrenology? Telepathy? Pyrokenesis? Palmistry? UFOs? Ghosts, poltergeists, leprechauns and unicorns? Yggsdrasil, the Minotaur and Yeti?
-What’s wrong with believing in the known, repeatable, verifiable laws of physics?
-You mean like how some people believe that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS? Or how other people believe that being stoned to death or having a hand amputated for petty crimes are perfectly valid punishments?
-Would you believe me if I told you I was a deposed Nigerian prince trying to smuggle twenty million, five hundred thousand dollars ($20,500,000 USD) out of the country?
You can believe whatever damn fool thing you want.
When you use those beliefs as the main impetus to pass laws restricting my freedoms, or to restrict the learning my kids get, or to intrude on my life, that’s when I get pissed.
What’s wrong with just believing? Nothing, but consider my mini dissertation.
Belief and knowledge, what’s the difference?
Both are basis for behaving, which includes both feeling and acting.
Right away, first, when knowledge is available, there is no need to believe, in order to act. The trouble is to make sure it’s knowledge, not make-believe knowledge. So if you are not sure of your knowledge, ascertain your knowledge before acting.
Second, there is degree of certainty in knowledge. Degree of certainty means probability. Act on the most probable certain knowledge.
Now, aside from acting there is also feeling. Feeling ideally should also be founded on knowledge. But if feeling is just feeling, not involving action, then one can indulge in the luxury of feeling, for the sake of feeling, without knowledge but based solely on believing.
For example, you want to feel that you are saved from eternal fire, then you have to believe that Jesus saved you by your simply accepting Him as your personal Lord and Savior; and presto! you are saved and you can now go about life feeling you will land in heaven when you die.
The very big problem is when you have to act and you don’t have any even just probable knowledge. For example, there are two buttons: hell and heaven, and you have to press one; if you don’t press either you will go to hell just the same; if you press the wrong one, you will also go to hell. So, now you really have to believe in order to feel OK even should you press the wrong button and land in hell – for then you land in hell with a good feeling before landing.
Does that make sense? More than not to believe and having to press either button and land in hell for pressing the wrong one – even without any fault on your part. And should the button be the heaven-bound one, then you have the bonus of having a good feeling in addition to getting in heaven.
Still does not make sense? That feeling good is better than feeling bad or not feeling anything when you have to act and you can’t have knowledge, even probable knowledge, and you might have to land in hell? Then consider the following account below.
In a debate on primacy of the state over the church, the fact is that the state is in charge of the church in a society dedicated to democracy in the best tradition of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Now, those who insist on believing that the church is above the state or independent of the state, they feel fine; even though they know that they can’t even so much as point a finger in someone’s nose in the name of their church if the state does not allow it. So the state just let them believe anything and anyhow and anytime as long as they don’t act on their beliefs, so as to even just point a finger at someone’s nose in the name of their beliefs.
The state is happy that the church feels fine about its being above or independent of the state – just so long as it stays in the realm of beliefs. So both state and church are happy. But the happiness of the church is one of self-delusion, founded upon beliefs. That way of feeling good is very important for church people, and it’s founded on belief.
So, there is nothing wrong with believing, just don’t act on your every belief however convinced you are, in the absence of even just probable knowledge. And specially don’t act on every religious belief unless it’s not harmful to your health or to your neighbors’ or it’s not going to get you in trouble with the law.
Susma Rio Sep
appears in full 70s regalia
I believe in music.
I believe in love.
Thank you.
exeunt
I believe i can’t find the OP…
was it deleted or something?
Pfah, who needs an OP.