On the stupidity of asking, “but where’s the evidence we need evidence for things?”

On Twitter:

There’s a longer answer I have to this that didn’t fit on Twitter, so here it is: it’s a mistake to think that if someone thinks maybe you should have some evidence for a particular thing you believe, they are therefore committed to a sweeping philosophical doctrine about needing evidence for absolutely everything.

Imagine I accused you of taking part in Satanic rituals that involved literally eating babies. “What?” you’d probably ask, “what evidence could you possible have for that absurd claim?”

Imagine I responded, “Ha! By demanding evidence, you’re committing yourself to the claim that we should have evidence for everything! But there’s no evidence we should have evidence for everything! I WIN I WIN I WIN!!!”

If I did that, you’d probably be wondering if I’d gone completely insane.

When I look at a question like, “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” my approach is pretty simple. I don’t believe Joseph Smith’s claims about the book of Mormon, and I don’t see any better evidence for the claims of Christianity than the claims of Mormonism, so I don’t believe the claims of Christianity either.

I do not need any sweeping philosophical theory to do that.

This is really not that hard.

Francis isn't the Pope the Catholic Church deserves, but the one it needs right now
William Lane Craig rationalizes his lie about Ehrman
Why do Christian philosophers of religion believe?
I've read Draper's paper, and I am puzzled