Thread: Do Animals have souls?

I believe that animals have souls. By "soul" I mean existance in spirit after the death of our physical bodies. Of course I believe that their energy is not as conscious or aware as our energy but I believe that is what they strive for in their own evolution and reincarnation cycle.

What is soul?

The soul is the spiritual, rational, and immortal part in a living being; that part of a being which enables that being to think, and which renders the being a subject of moral government. Sometimes, in distinction from the higher nature, or spirit, of an existence, the so-called animal soul, that is, the seat of life, the sensitive affections and phantasy, exclusive of the voluntary and rational powers. In distinction from the mind, the moral and emotional part of presence's nature, the sensation of feeling, in distinction from intellect. The intellect only- the understanding. The base of knowledge, as distinguished from feeling.

In a more general sense, "an animating, separable, surviving entity, the vehicle of individual personal existence."

we eat beings with soals then if u belive animals have soals. mmm bacon...

Death is a part of life. Believeing that animals have souls doesn't mean you believe its wrong to eat it.

My view on souls, or should I say, lack of souls:

I hope you guys/girls understand that you're just a complex pattern of carbon molecules. The same kinds of molecules that make up that tree you see out your window or the dirt that it's growing in. So you're trying to tell me that just because your carbon molecules are put together differently than the tree or the dirt that you have a soul and the dirt doesn't? Sounds pretty unlikely to me. Your body is about 90 or 95% water. Does your bottle of Coke have a soul? It's mostly water too, and the plastic bottle (as well as many of the other ingredients) is a bunch of carbon.

I believe EVERY living thing has a soul. From the most useless algae to insects, all mammals/reptiles/whatever. Everything that is living has a soul. Plants respond to light changes. They will naturally bend towards the sun to get the most light, just as a human would be drawn in the same basic way towards something he/she wants. Everything living has consciousness.

Lucius, your theory is interesting, though I don't completely agree with it. Rather than us requiring to go through various 'stages' before being able to become a human, it would make more sense that each and every tiny piece of life is just a manifestation of the entire collective consciousness. I could have been a piece of sea weed in my last life, is basically what I'm saying I think that we all existed from the very beginning of.......existence... but we knew our basic instincts and what we wanted to experience, and so we chose the most suited life form, be it a dung beetle, penguin, eagle, etc. I think the choice mechanism runs right to the core of any soul.

Originally posted by Awaken
Plants respond to light changes. They will naturally bend towards the sun to get the most light, just as a human would be drawn in the same basic way towards something he/she wants. Everything living has consciousness.

Plants don't bend toward the light because they have a soul or because they are concious!! Please, please, please study up on your biology before making an assertion like that. That characteristic is the result of pure evolution! It is a physical process governed by chemical reactions, it's called "phototropism". Please research the subject and get back to me.

Hey, everyone's got a right to believe what they want. I hope no one tries to claim that their's is the only correct one. And, science cannot explain everything.. far from it.

Everyone can believe what they want, but there is only one correct belief. Please give me an example of something science cannot explain.

Paranormal activity.

Please give an example of "paranormal activity".

All of it, that's the point.

The Law of Large Numbers and Confirmation Bias. Research those.

No.

When did ignorance become a point of view?

Man, I could ask you the same question. You're quite the hypocrite in this particular case.. no offense, though, I'm still okay with ya.

I'm ignorant? I'll ask you once more, very nicely, please go and research the Law of Large Numbers and Confirmation Bias.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Awaken

Plants respond to light changes. They will naturally bend towards the sun to get the most light, just as a human would be drawn in the same basic way towards something he/she wants. Everything living has consciousness.

Plants don't bend toward the light because they have a soul or because they are concious!! Please, please, please study up on your biology before making an assertion like that. That characteristic is the result of pure evolution! It is a physical process governed by chemical reactions, it's called \"phototropism\". Please research the subject and get back to me.[/b]

I think you pointed out exactly what I was talking about in the bold text above...I'm not saying a plant says "hey look at me, I'm conscious!!"
What I'm saying is that the same life force energy which exists in plants is synonymous with that of humans, dogs, iguanas, whatever. If a plant isn't getting enough energy, it bends towards the highest energy source. Regardless of how it does it, it's still a property of the survival mechanism, and therefore it's still a manifestation of life in general. Plants, like anything else with a cellular structure, adapt to their environment like humans do. The manifestation of our 5 senses is just the human way of interacting with the world, but we work on the same basic principle as everything else...If there is a lack of energy, plants suffer just like humans or any other creatures do.[/b]

I think if you say "there is only one correct believe" you might have a point saying like, "alot of people might ultimately not be correct on a few points" but I think the truth is that this doesn't really matter. I think it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the world is the way it is, and it doesn't matter how you explain it(spiritually or scientificly), although it might hold personal value to you(like it does to me) I think it doesnt matters. What matters is, like I said, we are here in this world, in this universe and there are certain things we have to deal with, and I think that regardless of what you believe you must treat every single thing with the greatest respect, love and compassion(yourself,others beings and the planet). I think we all have to do our best to help eachother out, to be kind to one another, to be kind to animals and nature, to make this world a better place, to bring more peace and harmony. I feel that every should believe in that, regardless of what they might believe on a higher(or in their eyes not so high) level. ^_^

A bottle od Coke may be of the same physical substances as our bodies but it is not alive.

A dried trunk of a tree is dead, yet it was alive. Can science inject some chemicals into it and make it alive again?

Has science ever produced life with only chemicals? Life can only be a product of life.

I have a soul and God is my father.

"Paranormal" activity, for example prophetic dreams. But not of those kind that you dream a certain object and then you actually see it in waking life.

Of those kind that you dream minutes of sequences that will later prove to be the exact mirror of some future sequences in waking life. I'm talking from personal experience.

Originally posted by Awaken
If a plant isn't getting enough energy, it bends towards the highest energy source.

Incorrect, it is impossible for most plants to \"bend\" towards an energy source when it is not getting enough energy (an exception is the sunflower, but it actually would bend less if it were recieving less energy because that process consumes energy which it doesn't have). \"Phototropism\" means that the plant naturally grows towards an energy source.

But regardless, how does this in any way suggest that plants or humans have souls?

Originally posted by Lucious+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lucious)</div>

I think it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the world is the way it is, and it doesn't matter how you explain it(spiritually or scientificly)[/b]

I agree with you on a certain, practical level. However, I think that it's important to always strive towards truth, in whatever direction it may take you. Many of the greatest advances in technology and medicine would not have been possible without this drive to understand reality (ie. germ theory).

<!--QuoteBegin-limited755
Has science ever produced life with only chemicals?

Actually they are starting to come very close. This very topic was reported on in a recent issue of Scientific American. Here's the gist of the article:

Before the evolution of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the earliest organisms were \"brought to life\" by a similar chemical compound called ribonucleic acid (RNA) which is basically a long chain of molecules called neuleotides (molecules constructed of amino acids and such which are fairly common). This primitive RNA also would need to be contained within some sort of a membrane in order to \"come to life\". Similar to today's cells, this membrane would have consisted of a mass of fatty acid molecules. The problem facing scientists was figuring out how the free nucleotides could have gotten together to form a chain and somehow end up inside a fatty acid membrane.
Then they discovered a very rare type of clay (the name escapes me right now) deep underwater near thermal vents on the ocean floor. The unique properties of this clay deeply intriqued scientists, they found that if they poured a mixture of nucleotides onto the clay while submerged in water, the clay acts like a sort of \"molecular sieve\" which spontaneously arranges the nucleotides into a chain formation. Not only that, but when a mixture of free fatty acids are also added something even more exciting happens. The fatty acids spontaneously form a spherical membrane quite similar to the ones observed in cells today and the primitive RNA chains end up inside the membrane!
This discovery has prompted a race to see which group of researchers can create the first cell in a lab that can live, reproduce and evolve. Currently, it is estimated that the first life of this nature will be created within ten years.

Originally posted by limited755
\"Paranormal\" activity, for example prophetic dreams. But not of those kind that you dream a certain object and then you actually see it in waking life.

Of those kind that you dream minutes of sequences that will later prove to be the exact mirror of some future sequences in waking life. I'm talking from personal experience.

As I stated earlier in this thread, goto Google and research the Law of Large Numbers and Confirmation Bias. Besides, last time I checked hearsay wasn't a viable substitute for empirical evidence. How do you expect science to explain something that hasn't even been proven to exist? That's like asking Darwin to trace the origins of the unicorn.

As I stated earlier in this thread, goto Google and research the Law of Large Numbers and Confirmation Bias.[/b]

That's like telling you to go read the bible and believe it.

How do you expect science to explain something that hasn't even been proven to exist?[/b]

I thought your whole outlook was that science proves everything in the first place.. so what proves something FIRST, then?

[quote]

I thought your whole outlook was that science proves everything in the first place.. so what proves something FIRST, then?

Step 1: Discovery
Step 2: Analysis
Step 3: Explanation - return to Step 2 if explanation becomes unacceptable because of a new theory.

Since "paranormal events" such as prophetic dreams have not been empirically recorded/discovered, they cannot be analyzed or explained. Hearsay is not a substitute for empirical evidence.