Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

As this will be my last chance to do so, may I commend my opponent on a well argued, respectful debate. Perhaps I cold begin by asking the Con to concede a point, while agreeing it does not strictly endorse the premise of the debate. Con has sought, with some success, to show that decisions made without sufficient belief are not NECCESARILY harmful, and I agree that were he successful in this endeavor, he would have falsified the proposition. However, can we agree that it is PREFERABLE to hold beliefs for which there IS sufficient evidence, and in most cases preferable o NOT take on a belief until it is justified? As to the actual arguments- I agree my argument about forced belief was at best badly framed- let me start again. I agree there can be cases where it is NECCESSARY to form a belief without sufficient evidence. BUT it is BETTER if this can be avoided. While I can't prove making such a decision is NECCESARILY harmful, the fact it COULD be is sufficient to sustain the initial premise. If I can re-frame the car analogy in a way that better frames the idea, you have a dichotomy. no way of knowing which belief is correct, but the necessity to believe one. So, now our car comes to a fork- the driver knows one fork leads to safety, the other off a cliff. They must believe that one way is safe, even though they do not have evidence of this. They make their choice. Did their belief turn out to conform to truth? It is irrelevant- the point is, taking on a belief, while it may have been necessary, was as likely to be harmful as it was to be beneficial. IF a third option COULD have been taken- like braking and waiting till the correct path had been shown, it would have been infinitely preferable. So taking on this belief without sufficient evidence was potentially harmful, and had there been several such forks, in other words a series of beliefs, taken on without evidence, it is almost certain at some stage one of these beliefs would have been harmful. I'm going to dal with the remainder of the Cons case in narrative, rather than point form, as I believe it was all interrelated. Firstly, the Con has argued from some pre-suppositions that are plainly false, or at least wildly debatable. I have had to bite my tongue somewhat that someone as seemingly thoughtful and kind as the Con would sight Lane-Craig as some kind of authority, or even as a purveyor of coherent logic. I will get to why shortly. For starters, using the reserection as an example of why one must have extrodinary evidence is a perfect example of my case. Fact is, ther is NO cohesive evidence of the reserection AT ALL, but to suggest what scant, corrupted, anecdotal evidence we have makes it axiomatic that we accept the resurrection as fact is ludicrous. Let me give you an example. I have taken two days to reply because I died last Thursday. I was resurrected this morning. 500 people witnessed my resurrection. Here I have offered anecdotal evidence of an occurrence, PHYSICAL evidence in the form of this communication- clearly to type this I must be alive, and if i had been dead this is evidence of my resurrection- and claimed corroboration. What has the claim of the resurrection of Jesus got that my claim is missing? Yes do you accept my claim, or would it require more evidence than has been presented? This is exactly the kind of belief without evidence I am talking about, and the consequences are not trivial. Next you simply state as a fact that there is no dispute that objective morality exists. I beg to differ. I for one don't believe in any such thing. Morality is a code of behavior decided upon by a a group dependent upon the dynamics and structure OF the group, is malleable, situational and always open to interpretation. No beter example of this exists then Lane-Craigs circular and inconsistent view of belief and morality. Lane-Craig (and, it would seem, the Con) views the existence of objective morality as evidence of an over-arching consciousness that they call God. They assume that as some things are simply objectively "right" this means that God is "right" and right" is whatever God says is so. Craig then goes in to defend acts, such as the various atrocities committed by the Israelites, as having to be morally correct BECAUSE they were ordered by God. So, because things are objectively right, there is a God. Because God is right, nothing is objectively=y wrong if it is at his command. It is clearly a wooly-headed, circular reasoning, commencing with a belief taken on without sufficient evidence, and is very, very harmful. Harmful how? Because it allows the believer to believe there is no wrong, there is only God. The only possible objection Craid and his ilk could have to a religiously inspired terrorist is not that he is evil or immoral, simply that he is mistaken in his particular beliefs- beliefs acquired with no more or less justification than Craig or the Cons. In claiming I missed the point on "religion" versus "snake bites", the Con missed mine. Yes, there is evidence snake-bites are harmful, thus it is justified to belive there are. He himself admits there is no evidence for his religion- and states that this very fact is a reason to believe it! That is, of course absurd in it's face- BUT i am not denying him his right to believe as he wishes. But will he then change the way he acts, the way he votes, his attitudes to the rights of others BECAUSE of this belief? The very fact this is a possibility shows how believing without evidence is harmful. And yes, you pray. An intere3sting answer as I asked for PRACTICAL thins you do without evidence. So you belief that prayer is PRACTICAL is a belief without sufficient evidence. So, time and effort spent praying could be better utilized doing something constructive, so your unfounded belief leads you to the harmful act of wasting your time doing something you BELIEVE, without justification, will have an impact on an indifferent Universe. At a minimum I do not believe the Con has shown a belief without evidence that can be shown to be beneficial. At a minimum I believe that I have demonstrated that beliefs without justification CAN and often are harmful. I believe this is sufficient to carry the debate.