The Instigator
TeamFuzzyPandas
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dafrill11
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TeamFuzzyPandas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 28387
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

TeamFuzzyPandas

Pro

Not having evidence [ec] can lead you to have a belief that isn"t true [re]. One might say that it is fine to hold an untrue belief [i] so long as it only affects the person who holds the belief [q]. However, in the words of William K. Clifford, " No one man"s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone" [ri]. Since a person"s beliefs shape his actions [s] and all actions affect others in one way or another [s], then there is no way to hold a belief without it affecting someone else [ri]. And when that belief is an untrue one [ec], the holder is disadvantaging others [re].
dafrill11

Con

What about religion?[i] People believe in religion without any real evidence and it does not cause any harm to anyone [ri]. And as William James said "Weigh what gains and your losses would be if you should stake all you have on heads, or God"s existence: if you win in such case, you gain eternal beatitude; if you lose, you lose nothing at all." [s] Basically, if you are right [ec], you gain the rewards [re], if you are wrong [ec], you suffer the consequences [re]. It does not affect anyone else.[q]
Debate Round No. 1
TeamFuzzyPandas

Pro

However, in many instances, religion does affect others [ri] because many extremely religious people try to influence the behaviors of others and even governmental policies [s]. Two major issues that they fight against are gay rights and abortion [q], which gives millions of people struggles everyday [i]. Now to address your second point, there is actually evidence to justify believing in religion [ri]. to quote Allen Wood, "You should believe what evidence or rational argument justifies you you believing, and with the strength that evidence or argument justifies it."[s]. In this case, that evidence would be the Bible [q].
dafrill11

Con

True, but the point is that all of those things are due to people"s actions[ri], not the belief itself[q]. In "The ethics of belief" by William K. Clifford, he says, "Even when a man"s belief is so fixed that he cannot think otherwise, he still has a choice in the action"[s]. Therefore, beliefs[ec] do not directly lead to harm[re], people"s actions[ec] lead to harm[re].
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
TeamFuzzyPandasdafrill11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is obviously one person with two accounts arguing with himself. His Pro side won because he showed that beliefs affect our actions, and his Con side failed to refute that point.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
TeamFuzzyPandasdafrill11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Because the framing of the debate used the strong wording of "should never" the burden of proof fell onto Pro to show why there "should" be no exceptions. Con does a fair job defending the status quo.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
TeamFuzzyPandasdafrill11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The fact that it is even conceivable that someone could legitimately argue that religion has not caused harm to self or harm to others is astounding to me. Tell that to the victims of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, child sacrifices, faith-based genocides (Rwanda being one example), not to mention infringement on secular and free society by theofascists such as Pat Robertson or the basically any recorded Ayatollah. Truth is worthy of loyalty in and of itself, and insufficient evidence is a dangerously quick route to falsehood and deceit.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
TeamFuzzyPandasdafrill11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate was bad and you should both feel bad.