Is proof nessecary?

I am an atheist.
If proof of gods were produced, I could no longer be an atheist.
Evidence trumps belief or disbelief.
That does not mean I would become religious.
Neither does it mean I would change my behaviour because I try to live a good and moral life for which we do not need gods.
I would not worship god if proven to be real because no god that demands worship is worthy of it.
So, the only thing that would change if you produce proof of one or more gods is that I could no longer say I don't believe in them.
If you want to claim something exists, yes, you have to produce evidence.
If you want to claim something exists as a mental concept in the minds of those who believe in it, then you do not need evidence as there is no way of objectively establishing that the concept you have is identical to anyone else's. It would remain as real as fairies, which may be real enough for some people.
No one should be silenced but those who wish to make claims of objective reality probably need to back them up with evidence. We can ALL learn if we have the grace to recognise that we do not know everything and that our truth is just one snapshot of one version of reality. I am willing to be convinced. How many believers are willing to probe their beliefs?

Proof is only needed if you want other people to take your bald assertions seriously.

But from your viewpoint, is proof of god nessecary to believe in him/her/shim?

- If there was proof, then it would not be "believe" but "accept".

Yes, proof is necessary. Without that you're apt to believe in whatever nonsense comes along that you take a fancy to. If proof of god were discovered then I'd believe in god's existence but would still not worship him. For example, I accept the proof that Darn-old Trump is the president but since he's a big bag of sh!t I'm not going to respect him.

No, proof of the presence or absence of gods would not likely change many people's viewpoints or behaviors

"Proof" is not necessary, but it is impossible for me to believe that any god exists without sufficiently compelling evidence.
If evidence that I found convincing was produced, then I would believe in a god (or gods) to the extent that the evidence provided for - it would not be possible for me to 'choose' not to.

There would be no reason for me to silence anyone who had genuine evidence because I really don't care what the facts are, only that what I accept is factual. Accepting that a god exists would not necessarily mean that I would 'worship' it or accept anything that was written about it in religious texts.

NO THIS IS DISCUSSION...PERSONAL PROOF IS FOUND THRU PRAYING AND REACHING JESUS...THEN HE SAVES US WHEN WE REPENT...THE WORLD AND UNIVERSE ARE PROOF....AND MILLIONS HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH IS PERSONAL PROOF...IF U DONT WISH TO LEARN THEN USE THE X IN THE CORNER...QUITE SIMPLE...U WONT SILENCE MINISTERS...THEY WILL CONTINUE PREACHING TO HELP THOSE WHO CARE.

Sorry, but there can BE no proof, either way.
To disprove God one needs to know everything:
a god thst was within the grasp of a finite mind would, plainly, not be God.
One can only weigh up the evidence.
Minds such as Neeton, Kepler, Boyle did just that and were convinced Christians.

The apostle Paul exhorts Christians to “walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). What we see here is a contrast between truth and perception—what we know and believe to be true and what we perceive to be true. This is where the Christian struggle with a lack of faith finds its basis. The main reason why so many Christians struggle with a lack of faith is that we follow our perceptions of what is true rather than what we know to be true by faith.

Perhaps before going any further it may be helpful to come up with a working definition of faith. Faith, contrary to popular opinion, is not “belief without proof.” This is the definition that many skeptics give for faith. This definition reduces faith to mere fideism—i.e., “I believe despite what the evidence tells me.” Skeptics are right to reject this concept of faith, and Christians should reject it, too. Faith is not belief without proof or belief despite the evidence; rather, faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something. That trust or confidence we have in someone is built up over time as he proves himself faithful time and time again.

Christianity is a faith-based religion. It is based on faith in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ. God has provided us with His Word, the Holy Bible, as a testimony of His faithfulness to His people all throughout history. In its bare essentials, Christianity is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ claimed to be the promised Messiah and the Son of God. His life was one of perfect righteousness according to the revealed Law of God, His death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people, and He was raised to life three days after His death. When we place our faith and trust in Christ alone for our salvation, God takes our sin and places it on the cross of Christ and awards us, by grace, with the perfect righteousness of Christ. That, in a nutshell, is the Christian message. As Christians, we are called to believe this message and live in light of it.

Despite this, Christians still struggle with believing the biblical account because it doesn’t match up with our perception of reality. We may believe that Jesus was a real person, we may believe that He died by crucifixion at the hand of the Romans, we may even believe that He led a perfect life according to God’s Law, but we don’t “see” how faith in Christ makes us righteous before God. We can’t “see” Jesus atoning for our sins. We can’t “see” or “perceive” any of the great truths of Christianity, and, therefore, we struggle with lack of faith. As a result of this lack of perception, our lives often do not reflect the fact that we really believe what we claim to believe.