Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

However, Pro and I seem to disagree on some claims. I'll address them below: Forced and Avoidable option My friend offered up a question which states, "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? " My answer: This is a two-part response. (1) Yes, believing in a belief which has evidence is acceptable (2) Yes, unless it follows any of the "genuine options" as described by William James Pro later states, "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 the 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. " In many ways, Pro uses the same logic as William Clifford - which has been debunked. My friend seems to assume (as he has done throughout this debate) that believing without sufficient evidence will always be harmful. This seems to be logically invalid. William James emphasizes that there is no evidence that supports this claim. In fact, my opponent just seems to assert it. "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 resurrection as an example of why one must have extrodinary evidence is a perfect example of my case. .. 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. " I will accept your compliment about me, but I will not accept your logic. For anyone still reading, all I was trying to demonstrate was that asking for evidence after evidence is just ludicrous. In case they didn't read my whole objection, I asked them to answer, "what is the belief that all beliefs require evidence? " What is funny is that many atheist philosophers say that we might not ever know the evidence in this century, but we might in the next or the next. Examples include Peter Lipton and Micheal Friedman. I recommend you look into their work. Pro states, "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 group dependent upon the dynamics and structure OF the group, is malleable, situational and always open to interpretation. No better example of this exists then Lane-Craigs circular and inconsistent view of belief and morality. .. 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 Craig and his ilk could have to a religiously inspired terrorist are 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. " Pro's definition is somewhat esoteric. To sum it down, I'm referring to objective morals which are valid and binding whether we believe in them or not. "Actions like rape," Craig writes, "animal cruelty and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations. " [1] As for Pro's comment, "views the existence of objective morality as evidence of an over-arching consciousness that they call God. " Yes, I'd be happy to concede that. In fact, many theists and atheists agree that if God doesn't exist then moral values are not objective in this way; for example, people like Micheal Ruse and Christopher Hitchens. [2] Afterall, atheists don't have any moral obligations for anybody to fulfill - if you don't believe then I recommend you look into the works of Massimo Pigliucci. So who are you to judge that the Nazi ethic was wrong? Who are you to judge that the Africana apartheid is wrong? As for my friend's example about Craig defending "various atrocities committed by the Israelites" is a just big LIE! I would also like them to reference a link to that assertion. In fact, Craig defends the view that has to be a problem with biblical inerrancy. Many OT critics are skeptical that these events even occurred. Additionally, atheists and theists alike know that in the Bible there literal and figurative interpretations. The link below is one example of Craig's response. 1. . https://www.reasonablefaith.org...;Moving on, Pro believes that my answer to his question about "religion" and the "snake bite" was incorrect. However, I disagree. My opponent seems to believe that we must have evidence that is represented and shown in the physical. I (and every other Christian) don’t believe that the God of the Universe is required to present or even express himself in within the limitations of the physical. Jesus says that “God is Spirit” (John 4:23). We believe in many things that exist that have no physical “proof. ” No one denies that love, beauty, and wisdom exist. These are not physical things. There are realities beyond the physical. We see evidence of these but no physical proof. We also see evidence of God but no physical proof. To say all that exists is the physical is very narrow, unenlightened view that most reject as nonsense. And once again, my friend asserts that me believing in God is harmful, but he has no arguments for that conclusion! Dropped ArgumentsMy opponent has completely dropped all three "genuine options. " Yes, he responded to some of the examples, but never the argument. Additionally, Pro completely dropped my case on the "social impact. " - which is a major part of my case. And lastly, he never addressed the problem with evidence. Why Should I get the Vote1. I believe I have shown that beliefs don't always need "sufficient" evidence2. I had sources, while on the other hand, my friend didn't bother once to provide any references to his argument3. He dropped three of my contentions and didn't bother to respond to themSources1. . https://www.reasonablefaith.org...;2. Ibid