Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[ding]

There is no anarchist society unless you want to start re-defining the meaning of a society which would be a truly Marxist thing to do.

Yes, but when society breaks down, there will be no moral compass and it will be anarchy.

 

[ding]

So you've done opium?

Didn't need to to see what you were trying to do.

 

[ding]

How do you know that the natural fundamental forces of the universe didn't create life without any external (supernatural) assist?

Because of the improbability. How do you know it didn't?

 

[Leo123]

How do you know that the natural fundamental forces of the universe didn't create life without any external (supernatural) assist?

Because there is no way life evolved from where there was no life. Please tell us what these 'natural fundamental forces' are. So far no one has been able to create life from 'natural fundamental forces' or whatever, lightning? primordial pool? come on, show us how a living cell with thousands of organelles is an accident.

 

[ding]

Because there is no way life evolved from where there was no life.

What will you say when he asks why not?

 

[ding]

It doesn't make you happier, just clear-headed.

Have you ever heard of the happiness advantage? Because according to the science, my faith - which does make me happy - makes me 33% better than your neutral state clear headedness. Does 33% sound like alot? If I were 33% better than you at something, would that be noticable?

 

[Leo123]

What will you say when he asks why not?

I'll know he is a certifiable loon.

 

[ding]

Why not what?

Why is there no way life evolved from where there was no life?

 

[Leo123]

Why is there no way life evolved from where there was no life?

Because it never has and all attempts have failed. We can splice genes, take parts of genes and make something close to life however it all requires already existing life. You can't just take elements and throw them together and expect to create life no matter how long you tell yourself it would take.

Look at one living cell, it has thousands of organelles programmed to do certain things. DNA is like a code, RNA can assemble codes, etc. Also these elements don't survive long enough for us to make life so the 'billions years' explanation is a non starter.

 

[ding]

Because it never has and all attempts have failed. We can splice genes, take parts of genes and make something close to life however it all requires already existing life. You can't just take elements and throw them together and expect to create life no matter how long you tell yourself it would take.

It's fair to say we have never seen it. It's not fair to say it's never happened. In fact, we know it did most likely happen. The question was did it receive an unnatural assist from existence itself. And to answer that I say it did because of the improbability of life making the leap from inanimate matter.

 

[ding]

It is just how I was raised and have come to be.

Because it couldn't possibly be that we are hardwired for virtue because virtue is an artifact of intelligence because virtue is an extant attribute of existence and that that is why our reality is imbibed with virtue when existence created our reality.

 

[alang1216]

Didn't need to to see what you were trying to do.

So you can compare what you've done to what you've not done? Not very convincing but not surprising.

 

[alang1216]

Because of the improbability. How do you know it didn't?

An improbability based on ignorance, guesses, and wishes.

 

[alang1216]

Because there is no way life evolved from where there was no life.

You meant to say it is beyond your understanding how life evolved from where there was no life.

Please tell us what these 'natural fundamental forces' are.

Hint, they are 4 in number.

So far no one has been able to create life from 'natural fundamental forces' or whatever, lightning? primordial pool? come on, show us how a living cell with thousands of organelles is an accident.

If you believe God did it, how exactly did that happen? Is there any evidence of it?

 

[alang1216]

Have you ever heard of the happiness advantage? Because according to the science, my faith - which does make me happy - makes me 33% better than your neutral state clear headedness. Does 33% sound like alot? If I were 33% better than you at something, would that be noticable?

Your statistics don't apply to any specific individual.

 

[justoffal]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

It's a trade-off, more or less like the Senate filibuster.It is a great idea for getting things done immediately to get rid of the impediments that are stopping you from going where you want to go. However, it's important to be farsighted enough to see the consequences of what you're doing on the other side of that action. Just as getting rid of the Senate filibuster is a mistake, getting rid of our moral compass would equally be a catastrophic mistake.

 

[alang1216]

Because it couldn't possibly be that we are hardwired for virtue because virtue is an artifact of intelligence because virtue is an extant attribute of existence and that that is why our reality is imbibed with virtue when existence created our reality.

Disagree because of the improbability.

 

[justoffal]

Because it couldn't possibly be that we are hardwired for virtue because virtue is an artifact of intelligence because virtue is an extant attribute of existence and that that is why our reality is imbibed with virtue when existence created our reality.

Very good point morality serves no real purpose in the cause of survival whatsoever. In fact it could be argued that it's a detriment so the question remains why do we have that virtue?
The only answer that makes any sense is that it was programmed into us.

 

[ding]

So you can compare what you've done to what you've not done? Not very convincing but not surprising.

The comparison is comparing life without God in one's life to life with God in one's life. A comparison you have not made and I have. So you are the one without a point of reference.

You and Marx are comparing religion to opium. That's a false comparison. It's not religion that fills one with joy, it's God. It's your dishonest arguments that aren't convincing. Except maybe to you.

 

[ding]

An improbability based on ignorance, guesses, and wishes.

An improbability based on what is required for the inanimate to make the leap to the living (which you have no clue about) and the massive amount of information packed into genetics.