Is it wrong to believe something on insufficient evidence?

In court, it can be Criminal.

If the state requires four elements to be proven; like motive, witness,  evidence (and Proper Identification of Evidence),  proof that a Law Was Broken;   All Four  Must be proven,  not "guessed on" for a conviction. 

The rant posted by Nous is quite amusing. Nonsensical, but amusing.

There is insufficient evidence to believe that anything is real and that you are not living in the Matrix. And yet I'd be willing to bet that you believe everything is real. Assuming you exist of course.

The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world!

So atheism is not a conscious decision or a belief but a realisation!

The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Research shows whilst education reduces religious belief each year of further education reduces religious belief by up to 10%!

I'd replace the word "wrong" with "ill advised".

Einstein believed in the relative nature of space time long before we had the tools and ability to confirm it.

Without a belief in something exceptional, we would have no reason to pursue the sufficient evidence you require.

1) Is it wrong to believe something on insufficient evidence?

Only if the belief is wrong...

2) WK Clifford famously said "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. "

Didn't he believe that "upon insufficient evidence"?

Isn't that a remarkably ironic statement?

(Not to mention: thoroughly subjective?)

3) This is because by believing in things without sufficient evidence, you limit your thinking

Isn't the reverse true?

If not, where's the sufficient evidence supporting that unbelievable claim?

4) and create the possibility for damaging, perhaps deadly, errors to occur.

So also: if you refuse to believe in things without sufficient evidence.

Believe what you wish. No one cares. 

I agree and I have had enough proof of God's existence to carry me through a lifetime. How sad for you that you haven't.

No, it’s just ignorant.