Thread: Do animals have souls?

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Since it's a religion vs. science project, do you want external evidence that animals, or anything, has a soul?

Or do you want religious evidence that animals have souls?

I'm just curious to see both the spiritualist's and the non-spiritualist's perspective, with or without evidence.

What is a soul?
I think it's an arbitrary distinction tied into western psychology. Wasn't slavery justified by describing a group of people as being inferior and lacking souls? Wasn't it involved in the environmental utilitarianism of the 1800s, and the whole conceptual framework of humans being separate from and above nature?
The basis for having a concept of a "soul" is the same one tied into these delusions, which more people are seeing through. I don't think you'll get the right answer if you're asking the wrong question.

BohmaN, I really think you should read "The Universe in a Single Atom" by the Dalai Lama if you're writing about science and spirituality. It balances the two disciplines with a lot of insight.

Thanks for the tip! I'll definately check it out

Well there are three definitions of "soul" that I found, each derived from the bible:

"First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person.
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death.
Third, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies."

Most spiritualists believe in the third notion. If animals have this kind of soul too, I'm interested to see how that works with science. I'm afraid that would contradict science too much... But since animals do have a consciousness too (from what I've read), it doesn't feel right that only us humans have souls. Something is missing here...

Everything that lives and breathes have souls.


It is NOT a part of you that survives death and leaves your body to go to heaven! The soul simply means (1) the person themselves, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or animal. This is according to the bible itself.


The first book of the bible clearly shows that the soul is the person.
Genesis: 2:1: And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

1 Peter 3:10: in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.

Exodus 16:16: YOU are to take an omer measure for each individual according to the number of the souls that each of YOU has in his tent.

Genesis 46:18: These are the sons of Zil´pah, whom La´ban gave to his daughter Le´ah. In time she bore these to Jacob: sixteen souls.

Joshua 11:11: And they went striking every soul that was in it with the edge of the sword
There are many many more instances but it is too much to write.

Concerning animals:
Genesis 1:20, 24: And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”
And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so.

Even in day to day talk you hear sayings such as "he was a poor soul, or "he was a lonely soul," or "there was not a single soul in the house," or something like that. Besides the clear proof from the bible, also common sence too.

Lastly the life of a person is simply a soul:

Exodus 4:19: After that Jehovah said to Moses in Mid´i·an: “Go, return to Egypt, because all the men who were hunting for your soul are dead.”
(Moses's enemies were clearly seeking to take Moses's life)

John 10:11: I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep.

Genesis 35:16-19: And the result was that as her soul was going out (because she died)

(these really would contradict those who hold on to the belief of an eternal soul)

Leviticus 21:11 refers to someone who has died simply "a dead soul."

Our soul is mortal because it is just us or the life of us.

(I can use any other translation too and it says this too)

What about John 19:30?

"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

I've never seriously considered this question before now, so I'm curious. If one's soul is "the breath of life," assuming I can trust those interpretations, what is the spirit? Is it the same thing? Does this verse simply show it dying alongside the body? Is it something else?

What do you think, LoneWolf?

A school project about "spiritually vs science"? I would flunk you right away.

Science = rational thought. Oh yeah, sometime that is an opposite of rational thought, that is something we like. yay spiritually. Maybe if most spiritual stuff wasn't a load of crap, it wouldn't oppose science so much, would it now?

-

If you believe in evolution, you Certainly have to think out your belief in the human soul. Have you even ever thought about where in evolution there magically appeared a soul?

Immortal souls exist as much as God, Allah or Buddha. It's most likely a load of nonsense nice to believe.

Besides that your basic paradigms are silly if you ask me, believing in souls and such, i'll still try to give you my view on the animal-soul debate:

I personally, see all the metaphysical human-soul bullcrap as something that was created from the value we give human beings in our subjective world view. If a human cries, we can feel it's pain, because we are evolutionary made that way. We don't see human beings as the lumps of atoms they are, but we see them as concepts, as human beings. We just far more relate to human forms, human concepts, than to for instance a coffee table. All just purely evolutionary.

Lets call that affection for the concept of "a human" the "soul". In That sense of the way, animals do no have a soul, or have Less of a soul. After all, most people can't relate as well with the pain of a pig, as we can with the pain of a human being. We can far more easy see the pig as something closer to a coffee-table rather than something close to a human being.

However, objectively seen, both the pig, coffee-table and human are bunches of atoms. Thus, my personal reasoning is, that if we put value in human existence and emotion, there is no reason we should not put value in existence and emotion in very similar things, similar not in our subjective-human-orientated view, but similar in the evolutionary, materialistic sense.

Thus:

Respect animals.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Third, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies."

Most spiritualists believe in the third notion. If animals have this kind of soul too, I'm interested to see how that works with science. I'm afraid that would contradict science too much... But since animals do have a consciousness too (from what I've read), it doesn't feel right that only us humans have souls. Something is missing here...

I don't think the word "soul" really applies to spirituality, and it isn't used much because of the semantic origin that you described as the first and second definitions. A lot of the words we use get tied up in these different contexts and lose their original meaning.

"Soul" doesn't work with science because it is a concept that ultimately does not exist. You really have to be specific about what it is you are looking for if you are using a scientific context. Spirituality and science can coexist because they are, for the most part, empirical. It's just that personal experience is subjective and science is objective, but they are beginning to benefit more from each other.

Good luck with your project

Neruo, buddy... I agree with some things you say, but I think others are ignorant and judgemental. Don't take this personally, or any of the other things I've said to you, because I may disagree with you but I do not mean to insult you.
You seem to dismiss a lot of things at face value just because you see some sign of a "load of crap." Please, just ask yourself if what you say is based on experience or if it's founded by aversion to what seems unrealistic in YOUR mind.

Originally Posted by Neruo

A school project about "spiritually vs science"? I would flunk you right away.

Science = rational thought. Oh yeah, sometime that is an opposite of rational thought, that is something we like. yay spiritually. Maybe if most spiritual stuff wasn't a load of crap, it wouldn't oppose science so much, would it now?

*Opinion based on judgement?*

If you think spiritual stuff is a load of crap then you're cheating yourself out of a lot. I can't help you with that.

Originally Posted by Neruo

If you believe in evolution, you Certainly have to think out your belief in the human soul. Have you even ever thought about where in evolution there magically appeared a soul?

I completely agree with you, and this is what I've been trying to say in the above posts. A "soul" in this sense is a human delusion. It is a concept. And if, like me, you think that concepts are illusory, maybe you haven't looked into every shade of "spiritual stuff."

Originally Posted by Neruo

Immortal souls exist as much as God, Allah or Buddha. It's most likely a load of nonsense nice to believe.

Buddha was a normal human being, although he was wealthy during the first part of his life. He showed that you don't have to be any special being to be free of suffering. Now if you want to tell me about some nonsense that's nice to believe...why didn't any major historians in the region at the time say anything about this Jesus guy....but I don't want to make anybody angry

Originally Posted by Neruo

Besides that your basic paradigms are silly if you ask me, believing in souls and such, i'll still try to give you my view on the animal-soul debate:

I personally, see all the metaphysical human-soul bullcrap as something that was created from the value we give human beings in our subjective world view. If a human cries, we can feel it's pain, because we are evolutionary made that way. We don't see human beings as the lumps of atoms they are, but we see them as concepts, as human beings. We just far more relate to human forms, human concepts, than to for instance a coffee table. All just purely evolutionary.

Lets call that affection for the concept of "a human" the "soul". In That sense of the way, animals do no have a soul, or have Less of a soul. After all, most people can't relate as well with the pain of a pig, as we can with the pain of a human being. We can far more easy see the pig as something closer to a coffee-table rather than something close to a human being.

However, objectively seen, both the pig, coffee-table and human are bunches of atoms. Thus, my personal reasoning is, that if we put value in human existence and emotion, there is no reason we should not put value in existence and emotion in very similar things, similar not in our subjective-human-orientated view, but similar in the evolutionary, materialistic sense.

Thus:

Respect animals.

Thank you. Exactly.
Funny thing is, this is essentially the same thing "spiritual loads of crap" explain.

Originally Posted by Silvanus350

What about John 19:30?

"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

I've never seriously considered this question before now, so I'm curious. If one's soul is "the breath of life," assuming I can trust those interpretations, what is the spirit? Is it the same thing? Does this verse simply show it dying alongside the body? Is it something else?

What do you think, LoneWolf?

In the Bible, the words translated "spirit" basically mean "breath."

"The body without spirit is dead." (James 2:26) So the spirit is that which animates the body.
It is the spark of life that keep the cells and the person alive, the life force.

As Jesus' spirit went out of him, he was not literally on his way to heaven. Jesus was not resurrected from the dead until the third day, and it was 40 days later that he ascended to heaven. (Acts 1:3, 9) At the time of his death, however, Jesus confidently left his spirit in his Father's hands, fully trusting in God's ability to bring him back to life.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Thus:

Respect animals.

Plus wear their skin because it looks cool.

some NDE patients report seeing long lost pets in their NDE. not alot of NDE patients see their pets, but a few did....

I read the first post and please can you look up for the definition of soul?
Soul isnt a little ghost that lives inside you and keeps you safe. Soul has 2 definitions and I will like you to specify wich one are you talking about.
1.- The first ones who ever spoke about a soul were the greeks, soul's something we have and animals dont, soul is intelligence, conciense and all that. (I cant explain properly im spanish cant find the words lol)
2-. definition its the religious definition that some religions uses.

C.S Lewis put it well,
"we dont have souls, we are souls"

Originally Posted by Matt5678

C.S Lewis put it well,
"we dont have souls, we are souls"

Exactly.

We have a body

Originally Posted by Neuro

I personally, see all the metaphysical human-soul bullcrap as something that was created from the value we give human beings in our subjective world view. If a human cries, we can feel it's pain, because we are evolutionary made that way. We don't see human beings as the lumps of atoms they are, but we see them as concepts, as human beings. We just far more relate to human forms, human concepts, than to for instance a coffee table. All just purely evolutionary.

Lets call that affection for the concept of "a human" the "soul". In That sense of the way, animals do no have a soul, or have Less of a soul. After all, most people can't relate as well with the pain of a pig, as we can with the pain of a human being. We can far more easy see the pig as something closer to a coffee-table rather than something close to a human being.

However, objectively seen, both the pig, coffee-table and human are bunches of atoms. Thus, my personal reasoning is, that if we put value in human existence and emotion, there is no reason we should not put value in existence and emotion in very similar things, similar not in our subjective-human-orientated view, but similar in the evolutionary, materialistic sense.

Thanks, that was some good insight for my project.
And yes I do believe in evolution and I find this soul-thing quite mysterious.

cygnus, I'm not quite sure where you stand in your beliefs. I may be asking for too much now, but could you please explain to me shortly what you think is the true nature of the following. It would probably help me alot in my project if you just wrote a little about these things. One line on each subject and I'd be more than greatful . And I have read your "Has spirituality become disconnected from religion" topic like ten times so I'm clear on what you think about that.

Near death experiences.
Astral Travel/OBEs.
Psi-abilities (i.e. telekinesis, telepathy etc.)
Is there an afterlife?
The seven chakras. An illusion and only a physical body phenomenom? Not a part of any "soul"?

I'm not expecting an answer on all these immense topics, but it sure is worth a try

And by the way, I just ordered "The universe in one atom". Hopefully it will answer some of my questions.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Near death experiences.
Astral Travel/OBEs.
Psi-abilities (i.e. telekinesis, telepathy etc.)
Is there an afterlife?
The seven chakras. An illusion and only a physical body phenomenom? Not a part of any "soul"?

I checked out the book "Sleeping, Dreaming and Dying" from a library a while ago and that gave a good explanation of NDEs. I'm really not the person to ask about the first three topics, so I can't really give a statement on them individually, but...

All of these topics are interrelated in some way -- for example, in an astral projection you might interact with objects that don't exist anymore or are in a different place. I tried explaining this to myself as follows:
When we take in information about the "external" world, the way we react to it creates karmic traces - which really just means a residual mental construction following this reaction. In dreams we encounter familiar people and circumstances, and from what I've read by Robert Bruce, the astral plane closest to the physical contains those objects whose "traces" have carried on from the past as I've mentioned, but in higher planes there is progressively less physical and more mental (i.e. no subjects and objects). The way I see things like telekinesis coming into this picture is that our expectations of the world are in some sense projected mentally (this is a pretty prevalent topic and isn't that subtle; we divide what is "physical" into separate entities with names and expected characteristics) and our collective, human karma has some influence over our experience. If you think moving objects with your mind is impossible, then it is...for you. You could call it a resistance governed by our mental projections, but many people can get past this, and practice telekinesis.

This is something I posted on another thread related to what you might call an afterlife:

Death is a topic that's really neglected in our culture, and as a result, we fear it. We don't want to grow old, we have an almost unshakeable faith in medicine...it's nothing new.
In this country, it's not surprising to see an old person who is senile, and generally treated as an inconvenience. But there are other ways to look at aging, and this is reflected in many places where older people are revered for their wisdom and experience. When you take out this factor (wisdom/experience) you're left with an obsession with superficiality; look beautiful, live fast, die young.

I don't fear death. Of course if I feel my life is threatened I have an instinctual response, my heart begins pounding, etc. But this fear has lost much of its effect on me.
A lifetime is an illusion. Death is an illusion.

Throughout your life (and in past lives) you develop this concept of self. This "ego" is protected by the fear of its dissolution. There is a time during a meditator's experience when the sense of self weakens and the "ego" reacts by sort of... re-asserting itself; but this is a sign of progress because after this you feel less bound by a "self."

The idea of dying actually is somewhat exiting for me. Let me explain why:

When you die, it is really just the gross, physical body that is dying. We have a more subtle, energy body as well (this is related to astral projection), and our true nature is unborn and cannot be altered. People who have gone through this process with the strong intention to remember it and remain aware have detailed the experience that goes along with this, and some request that their body be left alone for several days after their physical body has died. There is an opportunity near this time for some to reach full enlightenment, and others continue into the bardo. (*this is very similar to sleep and dream yogas: sleep yoga, which is very difficult, involves awareness during dreamless sleep, when one can experience non-dual awareness. Dream yoga involves awareness during dreams, which is essentially the same as the bardo*) The bardo is the intermediate stage where you can either react to experience in accordance with your karma (like a non-lucid dream), or realize its illusory nature and influence your next life (everyone is reborn, but only those in the second group are reincarnated. This is why there are many lamas refered to as " 'somebody' incarnate" or something to that effect).

This is why dreams are regarded by some as an opportunity to prepare for death, and ulitmately, enlightenment.

Chakras aren't physical and are involved in astral projection, but I wouldn't connect them to what one might call a "soul." The energy (prana, chi...) is basically a subtle emanation which takes a lot of awareness and practice to connect with.

I think the idea of a soul was a feeble western attempt to explain consciousness and the human condition. All of these topics would really only serve to reinforce the experience of non-dual consciousness, and weaken human concepts founded by (the illusion of) inherent existence, which are more predominant in western politics, religion and education.

cygnus

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Near death experiences.
Astral Travel/OBEs.
Psi-abilities (i.e. telekinesis, telepathy etc.)
Is there an afterlife?
The seven chakras. An illusion and only a physical body phenomenom? Not a part of any "soul"?

cygnus makes some good points
i dont know if you wanted to hear from me. but i saw Near Death experiences and i never get tired of talking about those. i dont know everything about how the brain works. but NDEs have fascinated me since an early age.

Research into the NDE phenomena really started in the late 1970s. so research is still in somewhat early stages. there is a little problem in researching NDEs because of lack of funding. most funding goes into cancer and aids research. which is very understandable...

i think NDEs might have more meaning behind them than just hallucinations. there are many theories about what they are. probably the one most used is that they are hallucinations caused by lack of blood flow and oxygen to the brain at time of death. and may be connected to hallucinations produced by the right temporal lobe in the brain and there are many good skeptical arguments. However some Experiences seem to defy these explanations. the case of Pam Reynolds is considered the strongest evidence for the validity of NDEs and OBEs. and Other very interesting cases are of blind people seeing for the first time, cancer patients being healed and of scientific advancements being "brought back"

so at this point NDEs remain a very interesting mystery to most of the scientists who study them

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Do animals have souls?

I've been thinking about this question for some time and now I'd like to have it answered because I'm doing a project in school about spirituality vs science. So it would be nice if any of you could give me an explanation .

If animals have souls, do bacterias have souls too? Where is the line? Or do only human beings have souls?

Thanks
/ Bohman

Bohman,
I'm going back to your original post in this thread.........here's a new angle (one I personally like the feel of); Everything manifest - living and non-living alike - possesses some degree of consciousness. All consciousness survives physical destruction. What is the soul if not imperishable awareness? So yes, animals have souls.

Another way of looking at it; Our bodies, and those of animals, bacteria, etc., are the physical manifestations of essentially non-physical entities that are not ultimately reliant on earthly existence. You could say 'being alive is just a phase'.

These views can be found in some current metaphysical writings and should be included in any discussion of the soul.

Don't know if this helps but good luck with that paper.

Originally Posted by cygnus

Neruo, buddy... I agree with some things you say, but I think others are ignorant and judgemental. Don't take this personally, or any of the other things I've said to you, because I may disagree with you but I do not mean to insult you.
You seem to dismiss a lot of things at face value just because you see some sign of a "load of crap." Please, just ask yourself if what you say is based on experience or if it's founded by aversion to what seems unrealistic in YOUR mind.

No. Actually, I have given most paranormal/metaphysical claims quite some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that at the very least it is justified not to believe in their existence until proven to be true afterall.

Then, I decide to call people retards for believing them anyway. Just because I call people retards does not automatically imply I have not thought about the subject myself.

I do believe my ideas are based mostly on empirical facts (rather than experience, actually, scientific research shows 'experience' means little when looked at properly. You can induce the 'there-is-someone-where' feeling in a person's brain with a simple electronic device.).

*Opinion based on judgement?*

Opinion based on belief that a mindset of "science vs spirituality" is not a healthy, free-thinking and critical way of thinking.

If you think spiritual stuff is a load of crap then you're cheating yourself out of a lot. I can't help you with that.

Oh yeah, If I just believed a bunch of stuff without critically thinking about it, I could have the feeling of being 100% right, feeling god, feeling a connection to the immortal realm blabla. I know you can all feel what ever you want, as true as you want if you have the right, non-critical mindset. That doesn't make it true, and certainly does not justify thinking in such an un-free way.

"cheating yourself out of a lot." Great emotional argument, real relevant. Who cares about truth when you have sweet lies?

I completely agree with you, and this is what I've been trying to say in the above posts. A "soul" in this sense is a human delusion. It is a concept. And if, like me, you think that concepts are illusory, maybe you haven't looked into every shade of "spiritual stuff."

Maybe I haven't.

Maybe, there is no reason to call it spiritual stuff. I am pretty sure that there are some very down-to-earth no-nonsense scientists and philosophers and have the same ideas about the "soul" being a illusion made in a human brain. I see no reason to call it spiritual, and I certainly see not reason to mistake if for "spiritual" in the sense that goes along with 'believing you can make things fly with your mind' and 'immortal, metaphysical souls'.

Buddha was a normal human being, although he was wealthy during the first part of his life. He showed that you don't have to be any special being to be free of suffering. Now if you want to tell me about some nonsense that's nice to believe...why didn't any major historians in the region at the time say anything about this Jesus guy....but I don't want to make anybody angry

What are you saying here? Doesn't really matter. I dragged in the God/Allah/Buddha to show the idea of the metaphysical immortal soul is a bunch of crap, while at the same time being original by adding more than just the "god/allah".

Thank you. Exactly.
Funny thing is, this is essentially the same thing "spiritual loads of crap" explain.

If you don't believe in the immortal soul, like I do, I in no way see why you would call yourself spiritual. Since most of the time, 'spiritual' people, believe they can visit their dead pets on astral planes, think they will never die and think every human is connected thought their souls, or nonsense like that.

Maybe you take the step of seeing the creation of the subjective 'soul' that does not exist outside of the feeble brains of the beholder, as something that has absolute value that transcends the mere illusion that it is. That would be senseless.

Basically, what I am saying really isn't like the "spiritual load of crap" about immortal souls, instead of the non-real metaphor the soul really is.

-

Do you believe in an immortal soul, then, C?

Sorry for the double post, but it really are 2 completely separate posts, and this seems less confusing.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Thanks, that was some good insight for my project.
And yes I do believe in evolution and I find this soul-thing quite mysterious.

You're welcome. However, Why is it mysterious? Why would there 'have' to be a soul? With mysterious, don't you just mean 'unlikely' (to exist)? :0

cygnus, I'm not quite sure where you stand in your beliefs. I may be asking for too much now, but could you please explain to me shortly what you think is the true nature of the following. It would probably help me alot in my project if you just wrote a little about these things. One line on each subject and I'd be more than greatful . And I have read your "Has spirituality become disconnected from religion" topic like ten times so I'm clear on what you think about that.

Near death experiences.
Astral Travel/OBEs.
Psi-abilities (i.e. telekinesis, telepathy etc.)
Is there an afterlife?
The seven chakras. An illusion and only a physical body phenomenom? Not a part of any "soul"?

I'm not expecting an answer on all these immense topics, but it sure is worth a try

And by the way, I just ordered "The universe in one atom". Hopefully it will answer some of my questions.

I will give my theories on the things you listed

Near Death Experiences:
A reaction the human brain often seem to shows in many people, when the brain is dying. Probably some shit happens in certain areas of the brain, making you see weird shit, not much unlike dreams probably.
Thus: Completely an illusion of the Brain. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. It's all too vague to actually mean something.

Astral Travel/OBE:
Something people 'do' in their head. Something that so I heard it "totally real". Yeah, sure it feels totally real. Dreaming does too sometimes. I see no reason why both shouldn't be completely in your head. Probably people that AT/OBE use their brain in a way, that is very uncommon for the brain to normally do, hence why it doesn't just happen. Still, seeing what the human brain can do, I see no reason why it would be real in any form expect for inside the brain itself.

Psi-abilities:
If you really can levitate things, or can see trough walls, or can read minds, you can get a 1-million dollar prize from some scientists before you can say "poop". Strangely, no-one has collected the prize yet. Maybe psi-abilities don't work in laboratories? Weird... Also, even the most popular psi-ability, remote viewing, never got beyond "people being really good in guessing in a way they have a good chance of somewhat being right".

After-life would mean immortal soul. Unlikely. Also, no proper proof of a connection has been seen, nor with ghosts nor with people giving special information (a lot of murdered people would love for their relatives to find their body) like through dreams and such. Why would there even BE an afterlife? Also, what would be left FOR the afterlife? If you get shot in the face, but survive, and some of your brain is missing, you can radically change personality. What is still left in the non-physical soul then? There is nothing about our conciousness that ISN'T in the physical brain, as far as we know.

Charkras/Chi:
Hmmm, I see no reason why they would exist like that. Maybe they are a good metaphor for how our mind works. Like with CHI. The 'teachings of Chi', really do make you kick-ass in martial arts. Does that mean there is some magical, pixy-dust like, super-power Chi-stuff? No. Does it mean it is a good way to 'control' your mind? I believe so. It seems that thinking there is an energy within you, makes you function better when kicking through bricks and such. I think that is a purely neurological/psychological thing, Nothing supernatural/metaphysical.

peace out

cygnus, thanks!

Now I understand what you believe. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that apart from having a physical body, there's also an energy body consisting of chi energy. That makes alot of sense. I have practiced some with telekinesis and trying to feel chi in my body and in my chakras, and I've had success.

Do you think this energy body = one's consciousness?
I find it likely to be equal to consciousness because when you're astral travelling you ARE conscious although you are separate from your body.

Everything manifest - living and non-living alike - possesses some degree of consciousness. All consciousness survives physical destruction. What is the soul if not imperishable awareness? So yes, animals have souls.

That makes alot of sense thanks

*Excuse the double post, but I need to reply to Neuro's reply which was written while I wrote my first reply :S !*

Psi-abilities:
If you really can levitate things, or can see trough walls, or can read minds, you can get a 1-million dollar prize from some scientists before you can say "poop". Strangely, no-one has collected the prize yet. Maybe psi-abilities don't work in laboratories? Weird... Also, even the most popular psi-ability, remote viewing, never got beyond "people being really good in guessing in a way they have a good chance of somewhat being right".

I find it strange too why nobody has claimed the prize money. Being a convinced, successful telekinesis practitioner myself, I must conclude that either:

1. The challenge is a hoax. Read about it here: http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html
2. It's impossible to measure telekinesis and other psi-abilities because we live in a subjective world (parallell quantum physics... hmm the act of measuring makes things act differently... Dunno, just a thought).
3. It's so damn hard to apply to the challenge. Now you need to be accepted by a professor AND have had a public appearence to be able to apply at all. Then you need to penetrate the ever so skeptical James Randi who certainly will be controlling the demonstration and make it to his advantage. Also looking at the article, it does seem like there's something strange going on. Maybe the money is paid in bonds...

In other words, it's impossible to win.

Charkras/Chi:
Hmmm, I see no reason why they would exist like that. Maybe they are a good metaphor for how our mind works. Like with CHI. The 'teachings of Chi', really do make you kick-ass in martial arts. Does that mean there is some magical, pixy-dust like, super-power Chi-stuff? No. Does it mean it is a good way to 'control' your mind? I believe so. It seems that thinking there is an energy within you, makes you function better when kicking through bricks and such. I think that is a purely neurological/psychological thing, Nothing supernatural/metaphysical.

Practice a few weeks on making a chi-ball and come back and tell me if your experience was genuine or just inside your head.