Humans are egotistical when it comes to god.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is evidence of an equivalent moral code, well if a "welfare
campaigners" say so it must be true. You did read the whole thing
correct? You like you do with many of the sciences read into things
what you want to see.
Kelly

Yet again, you ignore a simple question and blather on about nothing.
Scientists don't read into things what they want to see. This is exactly what religion does. Ignoring anything which contradicts their dogma and persecuting anyone who dares speak out against religion and for the facts.

Come on then Kelly, do you believe we humans have souls and animals do not?
See if you can answer this question with an honest "yes" and reveal the true extent of your brainwashing against all reality.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Bekoff was able to show--after at least a decade of painstaking observation and analysis--that canine play is actually a complex social interaction in which the participants constantly signal their intentions and check to make sure their behavior is correctly interpreted. Dogs that cheat--promising a playful bite but delivering a harsh one, for example--te ...[text shortened]... r animal that has shown it will hurt
them, you have turned it into a group agreement.
Kelly

Try to thnk before you open your mouth occasionally.

You probably wouldn't believe dogs could have their own morals until they started building prisons or removing paws for stealing bones, right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm simply bringing up what was bought up about the mirror that
shows us animals are self aware, with regard to morals, show me that
animals know right and wrong.
Kelly

Did you read the links posted? If you did, then you'd see I did back my claims up.

Face it Kelly, you've been embarrassed on this one. Back down.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You illustrate my original thread title perfectly.

Yea, I guess I do if that means I have to accept a dog acted
dishonestly and the other dogs then got together to shun it. If that
seems so reasonable to you, and my rejecting that makes me some
how the one with the ego issue it must be true. You have been watching
to many Disney cartoons with speaking animals if you really buy
into that one, I guess cartoon fantasies have spilled into the
mainstream thinking of today’s educated people, Disney science would
be a good name for that. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you regard being stupid as a requirement of your religion?

Do you believe we live in a reality with speaking animals that make
promises to one another to live in yours?
Kelly

Originally posted by howardgee
Yet again, you ignore a simple question and blather on about nothing.
Scientists don't read into things what they want to see. This is exactly what religion does. Ignoring anything which contradicts their dogma and persecuting anyone who dares speak out against religion and for the facts.

Come on then Kelly, do you believe we humans have souls and an ...[text shortened]... ion with an honest "yes" and reveal the true extent of your brainwashing against all reality.

Yes, I believe we have souls; no, I do not know if animals have them.
I'm not the designer, maybe you can prove it one way or another?
If not I'd say you are just spouting off your beliefs as facts and,
attempting to avoid the issue of right and wrong among animals with
regard to them killing another. Are animals doing anything wrong when
they kill another type of animal, if not is it wrong when they kill the
same type of animal that the killer is? Or is it like I have said, when
animals do it, it is just animals acting as animals being true to their
nature, so their isn't anything being done wrong?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Did you read the links posted? If you did, then you'd see I did back my claims up.

Face it Kelly, you've been embarrassed on this one. Back down.

Back down, you guys are the ones living in a fantasy here, with dogs
making promises, mirrors giving people reason to think that animals
are some how self aware like we are, because of some reaction the
animals gave that makes the person watching them think they can
understand the animals thought process, and then the person moves
on to think they can grasp the animal’s level of understanding. You
are seeing what you want to see, and calling me in error because I
disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you believe we live in a reality with speaking animals that make
promises to one another to live in yours?
Kelly

You really are a pathetic loon if you think that because someone accepts that animals communicate with each other that must mean they think the world is just like the Lion King. Your uneducated, brainless posts are an embarrassment to the human race.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you believe we live in a reality with speaking animals that make
promises to one another to live in yours?
Kelly

I think we are talking about raw emotions here Kelly, with social animals, there are social connections between the animals, otherwise they couldn't be social, there 'moral code' I think would be limited, and a lot less sophisticated than our own; but breaking it would mean a response from the rest of the group.
The response from this could be described as guilt (from the animal being shunned), or something, but added stress levels have been found within the animals, at least in some sense this is a feeling; a feeling that in itself makes the animal in the future follow the group line.
Which is basically the idea of right and wrong (the group line).

Originally posted by Bad wolf
I think we are talking about raw emotions here Kelly, with social animals, there are social connections between the animals, otherwise they couldn't be social, there 'moral code' I think would be limited, and a lot less sophisticated than our own; but breaking it would mean a response from the rest of the group.
The response from this could be described as ...[text shortened]... ture follow the group line.
Which is basically the idea of right and wrong (the group line).

We can call a truth table within a software program right and wrong,
to, that does not mean your computer understands right and wrong,
it only means that it is programmed to behave this way or that
under certain conditions nothing more. Within the animal world you
are projecting something here within it, human knowledge of right
and wrong, when you cannot 'know it' you simply think you see it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, I guess I do if that means I have to accept a dog acted
dishonestly and the other dogs then got together to shun it. If that
seems so reasonable to you, and my rejecting that makes me some
how the one with the ego issue it must be true. You have been watching
to many Disney cartoons with speaking animals if you really buy
into that one, I guess ca ...[text shortened]... am thinking of today’s educated people, Disney science would
be a good name for that. 🙂
Kelly

Disney science is better than any religion. At least it's science. Real science. As opposed to creation, er, science. Creation science. What an oxymoron.
So I guess you base your so-called superiority over animals based on your idea you can overcome any animal, right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can call a truth table within a software program right and wrong,
to, that does not mean your computer understands right and wrong,
it only means that it is programmed to behave this way or that
under certain conditions nothing more. Within the animal world you
are projecting something here within it, human knowledge of right
and wrong, when you cannot 'know it' you simply think you see it.
Kelly

Okay, you are trying to equate computer software to the being morals of these animals, they act a certain way because they are 'programmed' (I don't really like this word, I prefer evolved, but I digress) a certain way, they don't understand why they they act this way, they just do.
- Here I must say, fair enough, they have some limited morals, they might not understand them, but it is worth noting, they would also raw emotions attached to them as well.
(which may be important in recognition of how badly we treat these animals)

Well then I say humans are also a computer program, a much more complicated one mind you, with the higher reasoning power we have we are able to recognise why those moral values are in place, we are also able to further build upon them; attaching more values to it: creating a strong picture of good and bad.
Much more than animals.


Now let me make myself clear here, the animals may well not understand these 'morals' and emotions, but they exist, with a varying degree in different species.
We do understand them however.


I tried to work up from the bottom with my reasoning here, looking at how emotions and morals build up, as the complexity (of the social animal) increases.
Looking down from the top i can certainly see how your opinion differs, arrogance you could say. 😛

I hope I've made my opinion more clear, if not please ask how and I'll try to clear up any confusion. 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
Disney science is better than any religion. At least it's science. Real science. As opposed to creation, er, science. Creation science. What an oxymoron.
So I guess you base your so-called superiority over animals based on your idea you can overcome any animal, right?

Disney science, plain ole human science, and religion are just labels
we use to describe our methods and foundations, the reality of what
we are deally with, the truth of it all validates or invalidates our beliefs.
You want to call Disney science better than religion, I guess you have
gone off the deep end in my opinion, you have had smoke blown up
your ass for so long now that you'll believe anything your told. As
this discussion has shown a lot of what you believe through Disney
science is just smoke and mirrors, but you like it so you'll stay with
it. Superiority over animals based upon religion or evolution is a
no brainer in my opinion, if you talk about the position God put us in
or being at the top of the food chain through evolution it doesn't
matter both seem to make that point, my so called superiority is a
reality believe it or not, as is yours deny it or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Okay, you are trying to equate computer software to the being morals of these animals, they act a certain way because they are 'programmed' (I don't really like this word, I prefer evolved, but I digress) a certain way, they don't understand why they they act this way, they just do.
- Here I must say, fair enough, they have some limited morals, they might ...[text shortened]... my opinion more clear, if not please ask how and I'll try to clear up any confusion. 🙂

Programmed or evolved, how do you see them as different from one
another, if is evolved it is the program of DNA, if it is something else
you have to show me how you come to that understanding? If all there
is to life is the physical material we are made of the and the other
forces in the material world bound up in our and the animal make up,
that reduces us to nothing but programmed, to go beyond that makes
the argument for something more which could lead to a discussion on
souls or spirits.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really are a pathetic loon if you think that because someone accepts that animals communicate with each other that must mean they think the world is just like the Lion King. Your uneducated, brainless posts are an embarrassment to the human race.

You should change your label to Dr. Dolittle.
Kelly