And yet we humans can communicate in multiple ways, be it spoken language, written language and sign language. That victory goes to humans. So much so that some humans are experts at communicating with animals via body language. They're caller animal whisperers. That's observable truth.
I do believe that I fit that category of being a animal whisperer.. I can certainly prove that with dogs. I'm going to have to tell them that it's not their fault. It's other irresponsible people with uneducated dogs that messes everything up... Communication comes with education. Think of it this way. Human born little to no contact through life to your current age.. How exactly is this human being going to be... Education sets standards of knowledge. Science ratifies that knowledge. There's still too much unknown to really say.. what they are capable of. We have yet to effectively push that boundary. What if in time. Fido is driving miss daisy and knotting the driver instead. What if in time we created real life Mr Peanut butter. What if we don't assume that we know everything. I say fuck it in a bucket. Fucking push boundaries like they have never been pushed before.. December 23rd 2015. I made a promise to the community. I intend to follow through NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE BY ANYONE...
I think with any label you need to measure cause and effect. "Evil" is a label, and it can be measured. There is a difference between making a dog aroused and trying to bone a chihuahua for example.
You missed the mark, you are looking at it from your perspective. Most people would say zoophilia is evil. Do you see how your version of evil differs from the evil of others? What you see as good, society sees as evil. It's totally subjective.
A lot of people say a lot of things are "evil" though, just because it's not their personal preference, or scares them somehow, a classic example of this would be homosexuality. It's one of the reasons why I think applying non-specific labels to things like that is rather stupid.
It still doesn't invalidate my point. No amount of talking will change reality no matter how hard you try.
Consider that the room that the two men are locked in has a roof light. The weak man says they are both going to die if they don't work together and suggests that the strong man should lift the weak man up who can then climb out of the roof and promises to get a rope so that the strong man can pull himself out as well. The strong man on the other hand says that he doesn't need the pathetically weak man's help and refuses to cooperate. After two days he kills the weak man instead, drinks his blood and eats his flesh to survive. But a few days later the strong man dies of thirst anyway, still captured in the room.
That's a terrible example given my point - only the strong survive. And the strong man DID survive but only for a few more days than the weak one. And death is guaranteed to ALL living things, that is a fact of life. The only truth still remains, only the strong survive. Sure, the weak man could've manipulated the strong man into helping him escape but the strong man was going to have none of it.
Why do you assume that the weak man, lifted up by the strong man, would not have fulfilled his promise to get a rope to save the strong man as well? Cooperation is what makes humans as successful as we are. We cooperate all the time in reality.
You're a naïve idiot. The weak man could have just as easily used the strong man to escape and could've walked away without helping the strong man JUST BECAUSE HE CAN. Words don't mean shit. I swear to God, I really don't understand how adults can be THIS naïve. In emergency situations you'd be one of the first to die if you keep up your gullibility.
We can't see particles with our eyes but we know they are real. I use the same empirical test for anything regarding God or Gods. So far nothing has been provided to verify the existence of God but I won't say God isn't real as I have no idea if he is.
Wow, this statement is quite rational. I wonder how believers would take this? LMFAOOur ignorance is God;
what we know is science.
God is basically a statement describing ignorance.
God <--> "I do not know"
When people's knowledge dries up, God, gods or religions are always invoked to compensate for this ignorance.
What happens after death? - I don't Know! (Romans 14:8 ... whether we live or die, we belong to God.)
Who created all this? - I don't know! (Genesis 1:1-31 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...)
The Bible, all religions start where our knowledge ends. Thus, knowledge and God seem to be fundamental opposites.
I know a lot and therefore I need just a little bit God
I'm all ears. And I personally can't see the incompatibility with materialism and spirituality, after all we are material beings living in a universe made of materials. One doesn't have to take precedent over the other, I've never understood why spiritual practitioners always condemned the physical. It sounds to me like spirituality is a great way to make mental slaves out of believers. The more I speak to spiritual believers the more I begin to understand the rationale behind atheism...
What evidence is there to corroborate your claim?
