The Instigator
Wizofoz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nicholaspanda
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,651 times Debate No: 111195
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Wizofoz

Pro

Many people have an array of beliefs, often believed because of "intuition", "contemplation" or because they have been presented with claims that are emotionally attractive, but that they lack sufficient skills in critical thinking to reasonably evaluate the reasonableness of these beliefs.

Some of these are overtly harmful.

Belief in "Bretharianism"- the ridiculous belief that the body can be sustained by air alone- has led to deaths and people seriously damaging their health because of this belief.

Belief in various alternative medicines has led to people to both injest harmful substances, and forgo medicine that would actually be effective, once again leading to deaths and injuries.

But I want to go further and suggest that even beliefs which might be or at least seem to be harmless on theior face, are ultimatley harmful if they are believed without sufficient justification, as they can casscade into deeper, more harmful beliefs.

Forminstance, the belief in a Diety may seem harmful. But the ompact oif thinking there is an all seeing, all powerfulmbeing has immense implications, as does the belief in an afterlife, and thus even the initial belief should be sufficiently justified.

I would challenge anyone wishing to debate this to show that any belief held without sufficient evidence could be beneficial, or indeed not at least potentially harmful.
Nicholaspanda

Con

I want to thank my friend for providing such an interesting and fascinating debate! I wish you good luck, and I hope we can reach a conclusion by the end of this discussion.

Willaim James, argues against the work of William Clifford and discusses five (I'll be addressing two for brevity) instances/problems where a belief can be held without sufficient evidence: "Forced and Avoidable option" and the "problem with evidence". As explored by James, each of these contentions contains deeper levels of complexity which cannot be fully explored here; all citations will be listed below (or in comments if I run out of space) and you can look into the arguments further if you wish. Below is a basic consideration of each contention.

Forced and Avoidable option

In many scientific cases, we often allude to the fact "evidence is always needed." However, James asserts that our beliefs are followed by consequences and that there are circumstances in which it is better to act than not, even the action itself not being based upon sufficient evidence. When this happens we’re facing hypotheses, and we must evaluate which one of them is the best option. [1] Initially, James calls this the "genuine option" which is based on the following principles: forced, momentous, and live.

Forced -
an option for which there is "no possibility of not choosing" [2]
Momentous -
an "option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later proves unwise" [3]
Live - "a living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones" [4]

James argues when we're placed in a situation about our religion - and can't provide sufficient evidence - we're left with a "leap of faith." Furthermore, James believes that faith is a genuine option. "There is so much to lose if we err with respect to religion; we must take a position even without sufficient evidence." [5] In fact, there are a lot of instances where we take stances; for example, political matters.

Additionally, James argues that even if a person's belief is false there are "still pragmatic reasons to sustain it." Jeff Jordan states "The doctrine of a future state is so strong and necessary a security to morals that we never ought to abandon or neglect it.” In other words, he's referring you still have object values and morals in that said belief. [10]

For my own benefit, I'll be addressing Christianity; and how some people believe that Christianity has "insufficient evidence". Many non-believers ask "Where is your evidence?" or "Nope not enough evidence." Most Christians don't have answers to these questions; in fact, many Christians don't rely on evidence to justify God's existence! They simply believe. Question: Is justification needed for Christianity? No. According to Christian Reformers, it is "entirely right, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all; in this respect belief in God resembles belief in the past, in the existence of other persons, and in the existence of material objects." [6] I'm sure there are other religions as well that hold to the same standards, but I'm probably unaware of them.

The Problem with Evidence

Adapting off James first argument, he later introduces the problems with evidence, i.e it leads to self-contradictions and infinite regression. James states, "What is the evidence for the belief that all beliefs require evidence?" [7] He calls this the 'incoherence problem." Some people call this the 'why-regress', because whatever you do "you can still ask why." [8] Paul Copan expands this and writes, "
What evidence can you give that all beliefs require evidence? This is like saying, “If you cannot prove something scientifically, you cannot know it.” This prompts us to ask: “How do you know this? How can you scientifically prove that all beliefs must be scientifically provable?” [9] This example shows that you get into the contradicting, confusing, and most importantly, logically invalid conclusions. However, James and many theologians tell us that evidence is "important" and "valuable", but insisting on evidence has its limits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I've given a philosophical view that was adapted from William James and provided evidence that sufficient evidence isn't needed for any belief. I will be intrigued by my opponents rebuttal.

Citations

1. https://commons.pacificu.edu...;
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. https://commons.pacificu.edu...;
6. Reason and belief in God.” In Faith and Rationality. University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, third edition, pp. 16-93.
7. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...
8. http://philosophycommons.typepad.com...;
9. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...;
10. James, W. The Will to Believe and Other Essays. New York, Longmans, Green, 1897.

Debate Round No. 1
Wizofoz

Pro

May i start by similarly thanking Nichlaspanda for not only joining the debate, but doin g so in such a positive, thoughtful and interesting manner. Your response has at least focused my view, even if I do not necessary think it has refuted it.

I would talk about your citation of the idea of forced and avoidable options thus-

The idea of forced options seems to be applicable to things like split-second decisions, e;g whether to swerve or brake when presented with an obstacle while driving a car. I would say that I don't think this counts exactly as a "belief". You are faced with two options, and know you must choose one. You do not necessarily "believe" in one over the other- you just had to do SOMETHING and you may have done so with no actual belief that it was the better option. You choose braking, but close your eyes as you still believe you will probably hit the deer in the headlights, only to be surprised and relieved when you stop in time. Your actual belief at the time will be related as "I REALLY thought I was going to hit it!!"

For momentous I would argue that if the decision is trivial and the outcome reversible, likewise the amount of evidence that would count as "sufficient". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as stated by Carl Sagan, but the opposite is also true- trivial claims can be accepted with no need for overwhelming evidence. and doing so does not involve what I would state as a dangerous propensity to believe without siufficient evidence.

With the "Live" situation- two conflicting hypothesis- this is a perfect time to practice critical thinking, and withhold belief in BOTH ideas until evidence is presented making one more likely.

"James argues when we're placed in a situation about our religion - and can't provide sufficient evidence - we're left with a "leap of faith." Furthermore, James believes that faith is a genuine option. "There is so much to lose if we err with respect to religion; we must take a position even without sufficient evidence." [5] In fact, there are a lot of instances where we take stances; for example, political matters. "

In this, I think James contradicts himself- If there is so much to lose if one errs with respect to religion, is it not a very good idea to try and be as close to truth in ones religious beliefs as possible? So taking a position without sufficient evide3nce is good way TO err, not to avoid error. In some ways, he is simply re-stating Pascal's Wager- and this idea has been debunked, as there is no more evidence that believing will gain one favour to a deity than not believing will. It can, in fact, be argued that if a deity gave us the ability to reason, then no good reason to believe in his existence, that it is in fact the deities desire that we DON'T believe in him. For all we know, the one unforgivable sin for which eternal, torture is the penalty is gullibility, while god actually wants the critical thinkers with him in heaven!

"Additionally, James argues that even if a person's belief is false there are "still pragmatic reasons to sustain it." Jeff Jordan states "The doctrine of a future state is so strong and necessary a security to morals that we never ought to abandon or neglect it." In other words, he's referring you still have object values and morals in that said belief. [10]
"

In this, James is trying to say that morals simply believed are superior to those derived from secular co-operation, and here I vehemently disagree as it has been shown over and over that submitting to imposed morals under the guise of faith have consistently led to very bad outcomes- one has only to look at the atrocities perpetrated by those who sincerely believed they WERE sustaining a "security to morals" as they stoned the adulteress or flew the 757 into the WTC.

"
For my own benefit, I'll be addressing Christianity; and how some people believe that Christianity has "insufficient evidence". Many non-believers ask "Where is your evidence?" or "Nope not enough evidence." Most Christians don't have answers to these questions; in fact, many Christians don't rely on evidence to justify God's existence! They simply believe. Question: Is justification needed for Christianity? No. According to Christian Reformers, it is "entirely right, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all; in this respect belief in God resembles belief in the past, in the existence of other persons, and in the existence of material objects." [6] I'm sure there are other religions as well that hold to the same standards, but I'm probably unaware of them.
"

Firstly, if it is OK to "simply believe" in a god, is it any less OK to "simply believe" that a snake bite will be harmless, that a jump off a cliff will not kill you, at that this god you believe in wants you to kill infidels?

Secondly, the last part of the statement is simply false. There is evidence of the past, of other persons and material objects. Believing in one of the thousand, contradictory deities in no way resembles that.

In regards to the so called "problem of evidence" I think this is lapsing into hard solipsism, and as such a similar response is appropriate.

How do we know we need evidence? The continued reliable results of assuming it as axiomatic. Just as we cannot know the objective Universe conforms with our subjective perception of it, the assumption that it does allows us to at least maintain the illusion that we are alive, uninjured and happy, and the assumption it doesn't leaves us at least seeimg to be dead!!

Similarly the assumption that things for which there are evidence are true is borne out by our experience of this- the evidence that there is fuel in your car seems to inevitably lead to the result that your car runs. Do we know for sure that your car won't run forever without filling up occasionally? No. But there is evidence to the contrary and experience seems to show that that which is evidential closely conforms to our best model of reality.

What practical things in your life do you actually act on absent evidence?
Nicholaspanda

Con


Hello. I want to thank my friend for providing a response - rather quickly I might add. I've had to give your response a deeper thinking.

Rebuttals

As stated in my first round, each contention has a deeper level of complexity. Here, I'll be expanding each of my key points: "Forced and Avoidable option" and "The Problem with Evidence" and while simultaneously giving a rebuttal.

Forced and Avoidable option

My friend provided his opinion that "The idea of forced options seems to be applicable to things like split-second decisions... thought I was going to hit it!!" For clarification, while this might be one definition of the word "forced" as anyone can see I gave the explicit definition when in the context of belief, in the first round: "no possibility of not choosing". This doesn't advert to just "just split-second decisions" but in fact, you basically must choose a side. Fabio Lambert at Saint Benedicts College recognizes this and writes, "An option is forced when there is no possibility of suspension of judgment; that is, where only two excluding hypotheses are available, and not to choose is the same as choosing one of them. On this case, not believing p is the same as believing not p. If someone tells you: “believe or perish”, you either believe or don’t. If you simply ignore it, then you just don’t believe." [1] Additionally, I'd argue my opponents' example about "swerve or brake" is objectively invalid; namely, because it's irrelevant when we're talking in the context of faith and belief.

As for my friend's argument about genuine option "momentous," I don't really understand their point in the first sentence. It's worded funny so I'll let you clarify in the second round. The quote stated by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is somewhat funny but also irrelevant. Many biblical scholars along with scientific adequates have disagreed with this quote for years! The problem with this quote is that Sagan never explained what an "extraordinary" claim is; therefore it is subject to scrutiny. Noted philosopher, Timothy Fox, writes "
If an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary kind of evidence, then shouldn’t the extraordinary evidence also require an extraordinary explanation to support it, and so on? We’re stuck in an infinite regress, which makes the skeptic’s request impossible." [4] Additionally, William Craig says if we follow Sagan's logic we'd have to rule out all sorts of claims we behold to be the truth. [2] In a debate, Willaim Craig provides an example against Sagan's logic, "In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly, improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred." [3] Another great example, is the universe coming into existence uncaused from nothing and the existence of the multiverse are both extraordinary claims. Do atheists have extraordinary evidence to support them? Yet somehow those claims are less extraordinary than there being a God who caused the Big Bang and brought our finely-tuned universe into existence. [5] And lastly, I would just like to say that Carl Sagan died a Christian; which is a belief.

As for my opponents comments about the option "Live", I agree with them. I would actually concede that a person should "withhold" both ideals "until evidence is presented making one more likely."

"In this, I think James contradicts himself- If there is so much to lose if one errs with respect to religion, is it not a very good idea to try and be as close to truth in ones religious beliefs as possible? So taking a position without sufficient evide3nce is good way TO err, not to avoid error. In some ways, he is simply re-stating Pascal's Wager- and this idea has been debunked, as there is no more evidence that believing will gain one favour to a deity than not believing will. It can, in fact, be argued that if a deity gave us the ability to reason, then no good reason to believe in his existence, that it is in fact the deities desire that we DON'T believe in him. For all we know, the one unforgivable sin for which eternal, torture is the penalty is gullibility, while god actually wants the critical thinkers with him in heaven!"

Your arguement is interesting, although I do have some issues with it. To address your question and statement, James states that "To avoid error" is the counsel of fear, and we might not see the truth because of it - even if is necessary, for us to see it, to believe upon insufficient evidence. [6] As for the Pascal Wager remark, I disagree with your statement that it's been "debunked." Pascal is assuming that there are no good arguments for God's existence but by the same token no good arguments against God's existence. [8] Wager formulated this arguement so that each side is equal; so regardless of evidence, the decision is morally based on your values and needs (pragmatically). In fact, many theologians use this arguement against atheists and often win. For your last few sentences, I'd argue that God judges us on what we know, not on what we don't. God judges everyone impartially. I'd recommend looking in Romans for more details.

"In this, James is trying to say that morals simply believed are superior to those derived from secular co-operation, and here I vehemently disagree as it has been shown over and over that submitting to imposed morals under the guise of faith have consistently led to very bad outcomes- one has only to look at the atrocities perpetrated by those who sincerely believed they WERE sustaining a "security to morals" as they stoned the adulteress or flew the 757 into the WTC."

The problem I have with this arguement is that you are giving examples based on the social impact of a belief. Willaim Craig argues, that you cannot judge the truth [belief] "of a worldview by its social impact; that's just irrelevant." [9] The problem is that we all know objective morals and values do exist, and each religion distinguishes what values and morals they behold. For example, the Bible has the 'Ten Commandments'. To prove this, Craig further argues, "In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral goods and evils. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good, but then it follows logically and necessarily that God exists." [10]

"Firstly, if it is OK to "simply believe" in a god, is it any less OK to "simply believe" that a snake bite will be harmless, that a jump off a cliff will not kill you, at that this god you believe in wants you to kill infidels?Secondly, the last part of the statement is simply false. There is evidence of the past, of other persons and material objects. Believing in one of the thousand, contradictory deities in no way resembles that."

No. It's not. You are trying to compare something (snake bites) - which has evidence that it can harm you, to something (religion) - which doesn't have any real proof yet. There's no correlation, your arguement is illogically invalid. As for your second statement, could you provide some religions which all reside in the past, other persons, and material objects?

The Problem with Evidence

To begin, I have absolutely no respect for "Solipsists". Your whole arguement highlights my entire point - that asking for evidence after evidence is just ludicrous. Your example about "fuel" and "cars" also highlights my point. Your conclusion on the example isn't a conclusion because I can still ask, "what type of experience?"

As for your last question: Well, one example is I pray. Some people might consider this a judgment based on "absence of evidence" but I don't honestly.

Citations

Citations will be in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
Wizofoz

Pro

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.


Nicholaspanda

Con

I want to thank my friend for such an interesting and insightful debate. With respect to Pro, I will not be adding any new arguments as they would have the inability to respond; unless, of course, he would like to continue this discussion with a part two. 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 Arguments

My 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 Vote

1. I believe I have shown that beliefs don't always need "sufficient" evidence

2. I had sources, while on the other hand, my friend didn't bother once to provide any references to his argument
3. He dropped three of my contentions and didn't bother to respond to them


Sources

1. https://www.reasonablefaith.org...;

2. Ibid
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
It's been a pleasure Wizofoz!
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
124.. Well thanks anyway.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
I will turn into a pancake in 127 days... if I do not kill myself before. Then I would become an angel.
I will turn into a pancake in 127 days.
God told me....
So it does not realy matter what you think is gods nature is. I will have take a choise according To what god told me, or ignore what I was told..
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
@Canis, what links? If you're referring to MY links they are for MY case. And God would never ask anyone to kill themselves; it's un-moral and against God's nature.

- Alexander
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
So it seems all the links mean nothing/ are of any help in my case.. Any other surgestions ?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Well in 125...
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
I will turn into a pancake in 127 days... if I do not kill myself before. Then I would become an angel.
I will turn into a pancake in 127 days.
God told me....
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
god?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Thinking about it.. I will just stick with.."God told me"
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.