100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: My Doggy | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I had a lovely doggy named suzie for almost '17' years. Her ability to understand spoken words (sometimes only mimiced without sound) truly amazed me then and that too 'without an education'..The ability of an animal to understand another i.e.(me) over a period of time and then respond in a manner convenient with the available attributes of a canine,(eg. YES -with her tongue wholly darting in and out of her mouth & NO- with her tongue very slightly darting in and out of her mouth) together with the other numerous examples of interactual interspeceial abilities has me thinking:
1)Considering Darwins big Bang theory of evolution.."the possibilities of animals being categoritically the superior species on other planets variably (yet unknown to us) in the vast universe." 2)Considering -the theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..and -that the soul is a form of energy ..and -that we have not yet mastered /conquered the dying phenomenon "is it possible that besides re-incarnation..(as confirmed by nat.geo & discovery),souls also transcends into other lifeforms" and coexist without the ability to reveal their past identity? ........Opinions Welcome............. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation. update urself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation. update urself  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Until its confirmed by snopes.com...even then I look for other sources of information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is a fact...I was Shirley MacLaine in my past life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation. update urself Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven. **** it, update me...shoot the link where it says reincarnation is confirmed... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sailorboy4u
on
Thu 03/18/10 09:41 AM
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation. update urself Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven. **** it, update me...shoot the link where it says reincarnation is confirmed... TO:FearandLoathing have u ever had an 'out of body experience'...I have...(and I was not hallucinatiing) Check the book..life after life by Lobsang Rampa.. The art of dying and reentry has been mastered by some...u really should update urself before shooting ur mouth off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation. update urself Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven. **** it, update me...shoot the link where it says reincarnation is confirmed... TO:FearandLoathing have u ever had an 'out of body experience'...I have...(and I was not hallucinatiing) Check the book..life after life by Lobsang Rampa.. The art of dying and reentry has been mastered by some...u really should update urself before shooting ur mouth off Opinions are not facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And T. Lobsang Rampa was a fraud to boot.
At least cite someone credible. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_third_eye_of_t._lobsang_rampa/ http://www.khandro.net/rampa.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does an Almond Joy come back as a Mounds Bar after it is eaten ... ? Auuuuuuuuuummmmmmm ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does an Almond Joy come back as a Mounds Bar after it is eaten ... ? Auuuuuuuuuummmmmmm ... Only if it's been bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"i came back as a bag of groceries
accidentally taken off the shelf before the date stamped on myself" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDcPmraEh8w[/ur] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation.
update urself
Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven. If it were true in the sense that memories survived, it could be proven...and it hasn't been....but those that are both gullible and who want to believe in reincarnation think that it has. have u ever had an 'out of body experience'...I have...(and I was not hallucinatiing)
Semantics...if you can reproduce your OBE in a way that clearly demonstrates your perceptions were not manufactured in your mind, step forward and show the world. u really should update urself before shooting ur mouth off
I love it! For its comedic value...but not for what it says about our educational systems. Opinions are not facts.
Oh, but since maybe, in some contexts, facts are not as absolute as some would like, then therefore, obviously facts are illusion, and opinions are in fact facts, so we can factually declare our opinions facts and the facts of others to be mere opinions. No, seriously, I agree with you. Opinions are not facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot the best part:
2)Considering
-the theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..and -that the soul is a form of energy ..and I have had some very smart new-agey type friends. We've had many conversations in which we've been loose with the word 'energy' - never confusing this metaphoric shorthand for the definitive way that physicists use the word. I thought the only crime we committed was one of deliberately lessened precision in speech... ...but this ridiculous confusion between different uses of this word just has to end. The juxtaposition of the two quoted phrases using the same word (energy) leads me to wonder if I've been wrong. As long as there are people out there who are stupid enough to confuse 'the soul as energy' with the laws of thermodynamics - maybe I ought to never have endorsed the idea that is okay to abuse these terms, as long as it is kept in proper context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot the best part: 2)Considering
-the theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..and -that the soul is a form of energy ..and I have had some very smart new-agey type friends. We've had many conversations in which we've been loose with the word 'energy' - never confusing this metaphoric shorthand for the definitive way that physicists use the word. I thought the only crime we committed was one of deliberately lessened precision in speech... ...but this ridiculous confusion between different uses of this word just has to end. The juxtaposition of the two quoted phrases using the same word (energy) leads me to wonder if I've been wrong. As long as there are people out there who are stupid enough to confuse 'the soul as energy' with the laws of thermodynamics - maybe I ought to never have endorsed the idea that is okay to abuse these terms, as long as it is kept in proper context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Fri 03/19/10 07:57 PM
|
|
Oh, I forgot the best part: 2)Considering
-the theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..and -that the soul is a form of energy ..and I have had some very smart new-agey type friends. We've had many conversations in which we've been loose with the word 'energy' - never confusing this metaphoric shorthand for the definitive way that physicists use the word. I thought the only crime we committed was one of deliberately lessened precision in speech... ...but this ridiculous confusion between different uses of this word just has to end. The juxtaposition of the two quoted phrases using the same word (energy) leads me to wonder if I've been wrong. As long as there are people out there who are stupid enough to confuse 'the soul as energy' with the laws of thermodynamics - maybe I ought to never have endorsed the idea that is okay to abuse these terms, as long as it is kept in proper context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I'm feeling a bit ashamed...I had always assumed that majority (by far!) of adult humans were smart enough to realize that we often use the same words in such differing ways as to give them completely different meanings. I've learned in these forums that there is a shocking minority of people who reject this truth, and a staggering large number of people who are slow to realize it or accept its implications to the thought processes underlying their pet belief system. I now no longer think its completely harmless to use the word 'energy' in a metaphoric sense. Thank you, Redonkulus for educating me...though I've long recognized the principal of equivocation, and the abuse of that principal as a dishonest rhetorical technique and a delusional approach to 'logic' - I don't believe I've ever known that principal had a name. Fallacious reasoning Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example: A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms. Semantic shift The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by treating distinct meanings of the word as equivalent. In English language, one equivocation is with the word "man", which can mean both "member of species Homo sapiens" and "male member of species Homo sapiens". A well-known equivocation is "Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?" where "man-eating" is taken as "devouring only male human beings". Metaphor A separate case of equivocation is metaphor: All jackasses have long ears. Carl is a jackass. Therefore, Carl has long ears. Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey. Switch-Referencing This occurs where the referent of a word or expression in a second sentence is different from that in the immediately preceding sentence; and, especially, where such a change in referent has not been clearly identified. "Theory" One typical form of applied equivocation is demonstrated in the following valid, but untrue syllogism, which revolves around the usage of the homograph "theory", when applied to evolution: Evolution is a theory. Theories are speculative. Therefore evolution is speculative. The source of this equivocation is what linguists term a switch-reference: where, the subject of the second statement is a different subject from that of the first -- as in the case of the homograph bank (which can just as easily designate a financial institution as a riparian zone). The result is that, despite the application of two identical signs (i.e., the word "theory"), the actual referent of the word in the first statement, the actual object in the world which it designates, is an entirely different entity from the referent designated by the identical homograph in the second statement: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quoted for"........oh....never mind. |
|
|
|
|
