Belief Is Dangerous And Should Be Avoided

I will address my opponents rebuttal and conclude the debate. REBUTTAL Pro did not like the comment I made about meanings for belief and I agree that our original definition is the only valid one. I was making a statement about belief and provided a link for that statement. Does the addition of ideas or experiences really change the definition? Do we not place our confidence in things we experience and learn from or don't we trust that our ideas are sound? I think we must if we are to ever make any kind of determination of the world. Nevertheless I am not attempting to undermine the definition but find the proper texture implied. Many beliefs do in fact come from the environment we live in. Encouragement or criticism from society determines ones self confidence most of the time. We find encouragement to believe doctors are for our well-being. Your environment puts belief and thought in your day to day life. We must find where beliefs come from if we are going to determine if we should avoid them. We should determine if having beliefs causes enough harm or threat, that we should rid ourselves of it. If our greatest beliefs are about ourselves and naturally form from our perception of our world, environment, and learning, then why avoid it? My opponent conceded that it is not in our best interest to avoid belief in ourselves. He further says I asserted the notion but I provided links for the thought. My opponent then tries to change the debate himself by saying that he is only trying to show beliefs have negatives. His resolution says that belief is dangerous and should be avoided. He is asserting that all belief is dangerous and all belief should be avoided. I do not disregard my opponents statements about negative illusory, or irrational beliefs. I don't think it's smart for my opponent to disregard the positives I presented. He then attacks me for posting quotes from links that I cited. The intent of my sources are clear about beliefs and religion being productive in society. I gave the link and any person can see that I got my inspiration from the article I cited. Of course I used the link to support my case. My opponents links and sources are scattered and you are unable to determine where his sources were included. Pro makes the concession that our brains look for signs and patterns as my source suggest but he ignores the conclusions of those studies. It would be correct for one to say, that just because you prime a lawnmower, doesn't mean you will start it. But, why would you prime it if you was not going to use it? I have shown that belief is a by-product of our nature and we are primed to believe, why shouldn't we use it? I have not seen a good reason why we shouldn't. My opponent obviously chooses not to believe in nothing at all and avoids it. He never shows us if there are other ways other then belief. My opponent shows us that he believes that belief itself is unnecessary. In many ways belief is a part of our nature, meaning in numerous ways. "It is not obvious that the rules of justice are, in fact, inseparable from the species. Given that Hume finds justice to be natural in this sense, it is possible that many other features of human nature, including certain beliefs, may turn out to be inseparable from the species. "[1]RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL Superiority- For this contention to work my opponent needed to show that most belief systems develop a superiority problem. Injustice- Again my opponent had to show that injustice is a overwhelming flaw in belief systems. Vulnerability- My opponent used these points for his argument so he naturally must defend them and define them. My opponent had to show that vulnerability is dominate in belief systems and because so, beliefs must be avoided. Distrust- Again my opponent assumes the role of author when he puts others thoughts in his argument. My opponent had to show that distrust is a major by-product of belief systems and therefore we should avoid beliefs. Helplessness- If we have no example of helplessness then how can we discuss it? Anyway my opponent never shows us that helplessness forms because of beliefs or that we should not have beliefs because of helplessness. 1) My opponent rather correct grammar then approach the point I made and he never does. Then he agrees that we must have a certain amount of confidence in perception, to have confidence we must believe. This concession by my opponent negates the resolution. My opponent then tries to shift his burden and the debate meaning, after he attacks my creditability. My opponent naturally could not show that all beliefs in the world have a degree of danger if we debated about it for a month. My opponents goal here was to show that beliefs are dangerous and should be avoided. Naturally some beliefs are dangerous but that does not mean all beliefs should be avoided. 2)Facts and knowledge can not be assured and therefore perception can give us knowledge and we can obtain beliefs from that perception. My opponent then makes assumptions without any evidence, that because we did not have proper understanding of illnesses that it was incorrect to have a cure in belief. He did not show any case of death or harm. My opponent says I assert alot but his whole case rests on assertion without justification.3) I never claimed that 'humors' was not founded in belief but instead that lack of knowledge had as much to play in its use. My opponent never offers use any satisfactory reason to exclude belief based on the evidence he has provided. If we did not have beliefs about certain things then we would not have facts or a belief about what are considered facts. If we did not have confirmation bias then we should not be able to exclude illogical theories. We could not exclude theories that have no evidence or reason.4) People can be cruel regardless of belief. Everyone has beliefs no matter if they are productive or not. We would not normally think of cruelty as being a actual belief. A person may have beliefs but it doesn't mean cruelty is apart of those beliefs. A person can be cruel separate of their beliefs. One can choose not be cruel even if their beliefs call for it. CONCLUSION The conclusion is, even though Con tried to discredit my use of sources, he never showed us that beliefs are dangerous enough that we need to avoid them. That was the resolution and my opponents job to prove. He failed in that job and I would ask a vote for Con. SOURCES: [1] . http://www.humesociety.org...