Lunt

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 23, 33

If you can, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, guys.

I think I would revel in an eerie sort of glee.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3379447-...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/10023...

I lost track.

I was told today that I am devoid of morals, because I don't understand the difference between right and wrong.

Whilst I have my own subjectivist stance on morality in general, I'd like to see how others feel in terms of describing an act to be right or wrong.

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/08/ball_state_backped...

When there is no tangible form of evidence to support a theory, why should we entertain it with the same level of respect as a theory that has been documented, supported, analysed and agreed upon scientifically?

Certain laws are in place to ensure safety but at the expense of what we can do. Most people consider the cornerstone (i.e. murder, theft, assault) of this acceptable as they believe it generally allows for a more secure society.

So, two questions. At what point does it become unacceptable to place collective security over collective security? And two, what are the implications of a lawless society?

And why, of course.

How many of you would be of the same faith, had you been brought up in a different environment/home?

This universe was not designed for us.

It is possible to have a moral conscience without being religious.

Just curious to see the level of responses offered.