What is the moral difference between claiming something exists without evidence and lying?
Don't they do equal damage?
Worse, aren't they both equally irresponsible. I smell hair-splitting!!
Don't they do equal damage?
Worse, aren't they both equally irresponsible. I smell hair-splitting!!
Al
Faith is a factor in evidence for Christians, just as logic is the faith of an atheist, the seen versus the unseen, Faith in God requires nothing more than accepting his gift, it requires no explanation, but you do have a choice in what you choose to believe, but your choices cannot change what is changeless, I had a NDE as a teenager and saw a world beyond this one, I never considered the possibility, and I have no way to provide evidence, for what I personally witnessed can never be undone, it only served to remind me that this existence as a human is not our true reality, and no matter what your belief is here, you will be instantly reminded who you really are when your body ceases to exist.... I think science is on the cusp of understanding this fact as they are exploring quantum physics and mechanics, this world might just be a simulation, and I find some logic in that, because I knew I wasn't a body on earth, but that was my temporary identity, atheist are in for a shocker.
antonius
The same. Both are intended to deceive.
Paul
Neither necessarily has any moral or immoral content. Claiming something exists without evidence may not be logical, and may be ignorant, but it isn't immoral. And lying likewise is not necessarily immoral, unless doing so causes harm to someone.
Ernest S
What are you saying?
That all Atheists must necessarily be liars?
Anonymous
There's a big difference between stupid and lying.
In any case, there can be no all encompassing moral differences since morality is a framework of values and principles of conduct to which an individual self subscribes.