Do Animals Have Souls???

failures art
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:57 am
Forgive me for entering late into this discussion. I'd read where the discussion has been thus far, but I can't be bothered. Razz

I do not believe in the concept of a soul in any animal including the human animal. I do however believe James Brown had one, and it was super bad.

I believe the qualities we associate with having a soul are simply human qualities. They don't actually represent anything real be it material or immaterial. I suppose that animals might additionally recognize patterns amongst their species, and perhaps from the cat's vantage point, they're not sure if we have souls.

0 Replies
Jackofalltrades phil
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 11:03 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

IF saints have souls
then some humans have souls. (allmost all saints are humans)

If some humans have souls,
then all humans have souls.

If all humans have souls,
then all animals have souls.

If all animals have souls,
then all life-forms have souls.

If all life-forms have souls,
therefore, then, all forms have souls.

Hi Jack,
I like it, well done!
Thank you, and have a magnificent day.

Hi Mark
Do you mean a soul full day?...... ha ha
I am soulless.
failures art
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 11:07 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
These seem like big "if"s to me.
Jackofalltrades phil
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 04:52 am
@failures art,
ha ha ha
0 Replies
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 06:32 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

William wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi William,
Why are you present at the end of all my latest posts? Is your point of view more significant than mine, or has Kennethamy posessed you?
Have a great day William.

Hello Mark. Please correct me if I am wrong but you asked for opinions, right?

I agreed with Jeb about the instinctive part. Do you feel threatened? When you speak of "soul" and that animal you are referring to as it relates to us as what a soul is you seem to put a misplaced regard. It's a qusetion only the animal can answer. So why ask the question of us?

I will say if they do have souls comparable to us, then why are they there? Who place that soul in such a mute creature? Perhaps they were human once and now they in a position of atonement? They don't say much we can understand do they and the ones that are tame truly don't like to be eaten. Perhaps that is because they devoured other souls like a master does to a slave once, and are now in the position of that beast of burden like so many humans are; only much more so?

As far as your your name calling, do you know what petulance means; or for that matter hubris? Tsk, tsk my friend. If you don't want opinions from some please be more specific as to just who you are addressing as to just who you want answers from. Since you are in heaven it seems you would know better, huh! For that matter why ask any questions if that is indeed where you are. You would surely know or is it you are just playing games? Now THAT is what Ken does.


Hi again William,
You said " See if you can hear what they say. You know go to that source."

mark noble wrote:
What source? You are implying that I have a non-human perspective I tend to frequent, are you not? If I read this wrongly, please correct me.

Gladly. You asked a question about the souls of animals, right? How can any human answer such a question unless the were that animal? The source created that animal and I was only suggesting you go to that source.

mark noble wrote:
I do not feel threatened (don't think I can feel threatened), because NO subject is taboo IMO, and the "soul" is not relevant to my belief status,

Sure you were or you would not have called me a hypocrite. You went to another thread and took a statement I made out of context and brought it here to defend yourself. That is a consequence of feeling threatened to justify a position that simply doesn’t make sense about any humans knowledge about knowing anything concerning the soul of an animal unless they were, per chance, one and that could be the case. No one knows where that soul goes and it just could be that animal and why I said to to that animal. That would the the hell of it all wouldn’t it. To be an animal when asked a question and all one can say is Moo, bah, or oink, ha!

If the soul is not relevant to your belief system then why ask the question you did? That is playing games my friend and why I said that.

mark noble wrote:
How do you know an animal doesn't want to be eaten, when you are not one?

Now, please forgive me, you are being absurd. To answer your question take a bite out of one and observe what happens.

mark noble wrote:
You are dismissing my ability to percieve animal traits and instituting your own.

Sure I am; I am playing your game. To perceive animal trait is one thing, to know an animals soul is quite another unless you were than animal and I simply know or better believe I was not that animal and did institute my beliefs from that perspective. Sorry if I offended you

mark noble wrote:
This, again is a hypocritical proposition.

No it’s not unless you think I am you. I can assure you I am not you and you take offense to anyone that does not think like you. I don’t play mind games my friend. In this case I am just playing along with yours in hopes that you will come to understand one day life is not a game where there are ‘winners and losers’. Games of that nature require guile, strategy, deception of one man against another and that Mark is the problem with games as such. One day you will understand that hopefully sooner than later.

mark noble wrote:
Anyway - I don't care -

Now that’s you talking; you see, I do care and playing games demands you beat your opponent or you lose and why I don’t play games.

mark noble wrote:
Let's get back to the point...

I’d rather not but what the hell, this game is almost over as far as I am concerned..................

mark noble wrote:
Do I take it that when you say things like "mute animals" You are proposing that human beings are seperate from them on matters of soul/spirit/essence?


Times up, game over.

mark noble
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:20 am
Hi William,
What on earth are you talking about? What game? Why would I want to play a game with you when I am not even competitive. (I do like a round of golf though, but I'm happy to play alone). Anyone can strip a conversation apart piece by piece and stress it to their point of view. But why would they go to the time and effort to do so unless it were they that were threatened? I am no threat to you, and nor am I threatened - I have no great wisdom or academic achievement I feel the need to protect. This is a discussion forum, not the Nicaean council or the UN.
I only related hypocrisy to you because I feel you are attempting to dismiss my opinion with the very same material of that which you dismiss - You say "I can't know of a creature's intent, unless I am one" - Then add that "You know a creature doesn't want to be eaten" - And fail to comply with your own arguement that "You can't know of a creature's intent, unless you are one". Is this not a hypocritical proposition?
Exscuse me for noticing it and pointing it out, but it is there, nonetheless.
I call my best friends hypocrite, if and when, they make a statement or commit an action in said fashion - This doesn't mean I am threatened by their remark or action. It just means that they have commited said act.

I ask the thread question because I am interested in peoples views on this issue. Why else would I ask said question? I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster either, but I am interested in peoples experiences and opinions relating to.
I hope you don't mind me asking questions that clearly don't appeal to you, but even if you do, I don't think I should live in the shadow of your acceptance, do you?
And you haven't offended me. I value both your input and experienced opinion, I never intended to offend you either.
What are these games you keep referring to???
I Don't play games, I am not competitive.
You obviously are trying to teach me a lesson in understanding that I do not require. That is indeed arrogant, patronising, in the least...But, it doesn't offend me William, I have, beneath me, no pedestal from which to fall from, and cannot absorb condescending remarks because I neither look up to or down at people. All are equal to me William, not better, not worse (different though. as must be).

When I say "I don't care" I mean "I don't care" - "Can't be bothered", "couldn't give a damn", you get the gist. Why would you say that I do care, when I don't? What is important to you isn't duly important to me. You shouldn't try to typify the whole with your particular approach to psychoanalysis. 'Don't label "one" as such, unless you are "one"'. That's your philosophy isn't it?

As To your last remark, about the human soul/spirit/essence being seperate from animal souls -

You return "ABSOLUTELY!!!!" ------- Is that because humans are not animals William? I do believe you are wrong here, but don't care to stress it to the universe at hand. Why? Because I'm not You sir.

I hope you enjoyed your "Game", You must have been playing while I was at work, which isn't very sportsmanlike, is it?
Well Done, You win, You're the best. Whatever William...

Thank you William, and have a splendid day sir.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 09:33 am
Somehow my earlier post shriveled into meaninglessness, probably because it contained some nonstandard quotation marks. Here it is again, hopefully in readable form.

Thomas wrote:

mark noble wrote:
Do Animals have souls???

Why not? You're an animal and I'm an animal, and we both have souls, don't we?


I need to add some small print to my answer, however. The reason is that when you look up the word "soul" in a dictionary, it will give you many definitions, most of which are similar but slightly different from each other. That makes it easy for people to talk past one another: they all use the word "soul" , but have different entities in mind when they say the word. We need to make some effort to avoid that.

Webster Online, for example, features eight definitions for "soul". Let's go through the list.

Definition 1: "The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life" In my opinion, neither human nor non-human animals have souls in that sense. Whatever souls we have can be explained in terms of material and its interactions.

Definition 2:
"The spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe". I don't know what that means, so I'll refrain from reaching a conclusion here.

Definition 3: "A person's total self"I will assume that "person" means "possessing rationality and self-awareness", which it does for a long line of philosophers ranging from Kant to Peter Singer. On this understanding, my opinion is that different kinds of animals possess different degrees of both self-awareness and rationality, which suggests they also have different degrees of "personhood". Consequently, under this definition, whether animals have souls or not isn't a yes-or-no question; it's a matter of degree. Animals possess souls to different degrees. Humans possess them to the highest degree. Which other animals, if any, also possess one? That's mostly a matter of arbitrary line drawing.

The same is true under Definition 5: "a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings; b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment; c: spiritual or moral force."

Definitions 4 and 6-8 don't apply to your question.

Summing up, I think all animals, human and non-humans, have souls. But the souls are pronounced to different degrees in different animals.
mark noble
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:00 am
Hi Thomas,
It shriveled not, my friend. It is likely the most clear and informed post of the entire thread. You supplied to this thread what I failed to, in a well-consructed and precise manner, that I shall surely tend to when I am fortunate enough to encounter.
I hope that is YOUR face on your avatar, because I can relate to it without concern. I see a particularly decent fellow therein, and now I am going away to add you to my follow list, where I can get a hold of you and exploit your ability when I need you.
Thank you for dropping in Thomas, and have a great day sir.
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 11:30 am
@mark noble,
Thank you Mark --

It was the presentation that shrivelled, not the content. (See how the original looks now.)

No, my avatar is not my real face. It's Douglas Adams's.

A great day to you as well. Welcome to A2K! (A little late, I know.)
0 Replies

Related Topics

Odd Moments in the Animal Kingdom - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Beautiful Animals - Discussion by Roberta
"Name that Animal" picture game. - Discussion by rosborne979
Devious Squirrels - Discussion by sozobe
Can Animals Get Into Heaven? - Question by mark noble
Stop! Thief! - Question by Roberta
Goose Loves Man - Discussion by edgarblythe
Mystery footprint - Question by Builder
Images of Prehistoric Creatures - Discussion by rosborne979
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 08:04:28