|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 12, 2004 19:08:19 GMT -5
Well, do animals have souls?
I say they do, for a few simple reasons:
1. Where in the Bible does it say they don't? Sure, there are the things about how God cares so much about the sparrows, and therefore how much do you think He cares about you? ones, but then again, does that say their can't be animals and heaven and we are above them that much? No. And WHY can't the be in heaven?
2. Animals have feelings, as far as I'm concerned. And I say they're sentient beings.
3. Like the verse says, God cares about the sparrows. And since said sparrows are very much alive, and obviously can't sin, why SHOULDN'T they have souls?
Your call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2004 19:18:29 GMT -5
Animals have souls. Humans, technically, are extremly smart animals, and we have souls. SO other animals have souls.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 12, 2004 23:25:42 GMT -5
2. Animals have feelings, as far as I'm concerned. And I say they're sentient beings. I agree, and this reminds me of something that a very smart and cool guy (2 the ranting Gryphon) said... I'm going to paraphrase this here. He was saying that studies have shown when people are asked where 'they' are in their bodies, IE; their conciousness, they will either point to their heart or their head. Well, he has this huge, enormous dog. It loves to be with him, but it is just to big to get up on the couch with him. So it will place it's head on or next to him on the couch. It could just as easily have put up a paw or some other part of it's body, but it choose it's head. He theorizes that the dog put it's head on him because it also considers 'itself' to be in it's head like many humans do. Sorry if I sort of butchered the story. I'm telling it from memory. I could link to the story (It's an MP3) but 2 uses some... colourful language, and I don't want to offend anyone. So yeah, I do think that animals are sentient/self aware/etc, and I don't think they should be considered to not have souls. We can't even 'prove' that we have a soul, it's a matter of faith. If we can't prove or disprove that we have one, how can we say with such certainty that something else doesn't? |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 12, 2004 23:34:21 GMT -5
I agree, and this reminds me of something that a very smart and cool guy (2 the ranting Gryphon) said... I'm going to paraphrase this here. He was saying that studies have shown when people are asked where 'they' are in their bodies, IE; their conciousness, they will either point to their heart or their head. Well, he has this huge, enormous dog. It loves to be with him, but it is just to big to get up on the couch with him. So it will place it's head on or next to him on the couch. It could just as easily have put up a paw or some other part of it's body, but it choose it's head. He theorizes that the dog put it's head on him because it also considers 'itself' to be in it's head like many humans do. Sorry if I sort of butchered the story. I'm telling it from memory. I could link to the story (It's an MP3) but 2 uses some... colourful language, and I don't want to offend anyone. So yeah, I do think that animals are sentient/self aware/etc, and I don't think they should be considered to not have souls. We can't even 'prove' that we have a soul, it's a matter of faith. If we can't prove or disprove that we have one, how can we say with such certainty that something else doesn't? God, I can't believe you're a 2 fan, TEOW! (Been a *huge* fan for years. I write into his show all the time.). And I read the same exact journal entry (It's not an MP3, at least I don't think it is,, he wrote it on his liveJournal) and even commented on it because it drew my attention. I think I'll go C&P my answer. "Or it could be that most creatures' senses revolve around their head. By putting his head where you're patting, he can get the best inference possible. It wouldn't make much sense for him to put any other part of his body near you. I'm not trying to be a scoundrel or anything. It just sounded like you're looking for a challenge. " I do agree somewhat of the souls deal. I'm not sure if I believe in a soul at all, but whatever we have that gives us our 'essence' I believe animals have it too. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 12, 2004 23:50:42 GMT -5
Oooh, it was a post! Silly me. I was looking through the journal for it and when I didn't see it I figured it was an MP3. Plus I could just visualize him saying that whole 'nuts the size of kiwis' thing.  Your answer does make a lot of sense though. Of course that's logically the same reason humans identify that part of the body with a soul or conciousness too. |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 13, 2004 13:17:15 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Animals are smarter than we think they are. For exapmle, M the Morgan knows when I'm having a bad day. Gotta love the horse.  ;D Seriously, I think animals have something. They have personalities, all different, not just a bunch of machines the way some people say they are, put on Earth only to serve Man and his purposes. God loves them just as much as he loves us, and all of Earth's blessings are for us and for them. I also believe all animals go to heaven. Like IDL said, they have no knowledge of good and evil, and can't understand if what they're doing is wrong. M knows when I'm having a rough day, but he cant think, "Well if I do this, maybe she'll do this." He can just be as patient with me as possible. makes sense, right? If not, all you have to do is meet a certain tempermental Morgan.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Oct 13, 2004 19:45:06 GMT -5
I believe... that every living thing has a soul. I say this not because someone else told me to believe it. I say it because I feel that this is the truth, even if I know I will never be one-hundred percent sure that any living thing does have a soul, or if there is a place we all go to when we die.
Nevertheless, I feel that animals are no different from humans. We breathe the same air, drink the same water, more or less eat the same food. We all require the same exact things to survive. And that is about as good as it gets in terms of evidence. Any further evidence, and the finder of such evidence may already know too much, or not enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Oct 15, 2004 10:44:57 GMT -5
I agree, and this reminds me of something that a very smart and cool guy (2 the ranting Gryphon) said... I'm going to paraphrase this here. He was saying that studies have shown when people are asked where 'they' are in their bodies, IE; their conciousness, they will either point to their heart or their head. Well, he has this huge, enormous dog. It loves to be with him, but it is just to big to get up on the couch with him. So it will place it's head on or next to him on the couch. It could just as easily have put up a paw or some other part of it's body, but it choose it's head. He theorizes that the dog put it's head on him because it also considers 'itself' to be in it's head like many humans do. Sorry if I sort of butchered the story. I'm telling it from memory. I could link to the story (It's an MP3) but 2 uses some... colourful language, and I don't want to offend anyone. So yeah, I do think that animals are sentient/self aware/etc, and I don't think they should be considered to not have souls. We can't even 'prove' that we have a soul, it's a matter of faith. If we can't prove or disprove that we have one, how can we say with such certainty that something else doesn't? Very cute. It reminds me of an experience I've had with my guinea pigs. Now, I lurve guinea pigs to death, but in my experience they aren't always the cleverest creature in the world. For example, they don't seem to learn by negative reinforcement - no matter how many times I scold them for going too close to the wires or chase them away from something they're eating that they shouldn't be, they never seem to make the connection to what it is that I don't want them doing. Still, there are somethings they seem to know intuitively that I find rather amazing. For example, given the choice, they would rather sit close to my face than against my arm or on my chest. So, if I may be given a little room to theorize, not only do they acknowledge a certain something located in their own heads, whether that be a soul or simply the seat of the senses, but they've figured out enough about human anatomy to know where my head is, and believe that I have that something there too. I think that's pretty spiffy, don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Lilly ~ Queen of the Grarrls on Oct 25, 2004 20:21:26 GMT -5
Biblically, God is the creator of everything. He watches over everything and takes care of everything. God chose only people to have souls. The debate between those of the faith is whether or not animals will go to heaven. To my knowledge, the majory believe that animals will basically die and that's it.
As for me, it's a real struggle with my faith because I know what is the general belief. But I just can't agree with it because if I had to believe my pets just die, I think it would kill me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Oct 27, 2004 1:05:11 GMT -5
I don't know. I think humans end after death; I don't think any conscious part of us exists afterwards, partially because we're so tied in to our bodies. (Nasty mood swings? That's your body--hormone imbalances. Violent behavior? Might be a lack of cobalt...and so on.) So, I certainly don't think any conscious part of an animal exists after its death. But if there is something of the sort, I certainly don't think it's exclusive to humans, and it may well be not exclusive to animals--maybe sponges don't have it, but trees or Venus fly traps do, or maybe amoebas have it along with us mighty humans.
On the other hand, I do think a number of different kinds of animals have a mind. If this is what you mean by a soul, yes, I do--although I don't think a sponge, which is an animal, has this, and I'm not sure where the line is (maybe about at arthropods?).
For those of you who believe that animals have a mind, or a soul, or what-have-you, how do you go from "animals have souls just like humans" to "killing animals (particularly for food) is OK"? Is there a criterion other than "possesses consciousness/mind/soul" that you use to determine whether or not killing a creature is okay?
(If anyone thinks this is too OT for this board, I'll move it--just mention it! I'm not sure.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Oct 27, 2004 1:38:38 GMT -5
IDL's post is argued in a wrong manner, first of all. His first point even is a fallacy. "Where in the Bible does it say they don't?" you ask, IDL, but I shall tell all how this is an Argument From Ignorance -- not that I wish to imply you yourself may be ignorant. For the simple reason that the Bible does not say they don't have souls, they have souls? Your argument is an Argument From Ignorance in its purest form: According to such a fallacy, lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. And the next segment of Point 1 is a fallacy -- False Cause. You imply that He cares about us because we have souls and so do the sparrows. But perhaps God cares for the sparrows because they are living creatures that He created? And you conclude Point 1 with, "And WHY can't they be in heaven?" Again, an Argument From Ignorance.
There seems to be a discussion of sorts over whether or not animals are self-aware in Point 2, IDL. Animals have feelings you say? Some very much so. But all of them? Take for example the emu, a large, flightless bird whose eyes are larger than its brain. At one point in my life I took a visit to a bird show at, I believe, the Wild Animal Park in San Diego. And so the trainers brought out an emu. After 20 years, they said, of performing the same show everyday that emu could still not find the stage exit, which had never been moved. Do you honestly believe that an animal whose brain is too mentally dumb to even possess a long-term memory can realize it exists -- a mental task that would require a life's worth of memory?
Point 3 is another Argument From Ignorance.
On a similar note, I would like to address Erika's argument. Erika, your one-sentence argument is the fallacy of Division. Humans are smart animals, but are all animals as smart as humans?
I'd very much like -- if someone could do this -- to have presented before me a more convincing, fallacy-free argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 27, 2004 1:49:33 GMT -5
What is a soul?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 27, 2004 3:44:30 GMT -5
IDL's post is argued in a wrong manner, first of all. His first point even is a fallacy. "Where in the Bible does it say they don't?" you ask, IDL, but I shall tell all how this is an Argument From Ignorance -- not that I wish to imply you yourself may be ignorant. For the simple reason that the Bible does not say they don't have souls, they have souls? Your argument is an Argument From Ignorance in its purest form: According to such a fallacy, lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. And the next segment of Point 1 is a fallacy -- False Cause. You imply that He cares about us because we have souls and so do the sparrows. But perhaps God cares for the sparrows because they are living creatures that He created? And you conclude Point 1 with, "And WHY can't they be in heaven?" Again, an Argument From Ignorance. There seems to be a discussion of sorts over whether or not animals are self-aware in Point 2, IDL. Animals have feelings you say? Some very much so. But all of them? Take for example the emu, a large, flightless bird whose eyes are larger than its brain. At one point in my life I took a visit to a bird show at, I believe, the Wild Animal Park in San Diego. And so the trainers brought out an emu. After 20 years, they said, of performing the same show everyday that emu could still not find the stage exit, which had never been moved. Do you honestly believe that an animal whose brain is too mentally dumb to even possess a long-term memory can realize it exists -- a mental task that would require a life's worth of memory? Point 3 is another Argument From Ignorance. On a similar note, I would like to address Erika's argument. Erika, your one-sentence argument is the fallacy of Division. Humans are smart animals, but are all animals as smart as humans? I'd very much like -- if someone could do this -- to have presented before me a more convincing, fallacy-free argument. So... erm... what IS your opinion? You seem to have simply taken other people's posts and validized/unvalidized them. Instead of someone else presenting a convincing, fallacy-free argument to you, what is your own argument on the matter? Now, I can't do those fancy, capitalized-letter things, and I have no actual idea WHAT a fallacy is, but it's my personal opinion that no actual theory is really fallacy-free. Just my two cents, because I was just curious (please don't think I'm attacking you in any way) and didn't understand your post too well.  And on a side note, I've known some mentally dumb people who have HORRIBLE memory. I'm sure they know they exist. (Nasty mood swings? That's your body--hormone imbalances. Violent behavior? Might be a lack of cobalt...and so on.) What about conscience? My opinion: I don't actually have one on the matter. If I'm going to see my dog in heaven someday, I'm happy to! And if I'm not... well, that's God's call, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Oct 27, 2004 8:49:03 GMT -5
So... erm... what IS your opinion? You seem to have simply taken other people's posts and validized/unvalidized them. Instead of someone else presenting a convincing, fallacy-free argument to you, what is your own argument on the matter? Now, I can't do those fancy, capitalized-letter things, and I have no actual idea WHAT a fallacy is, but it's my personal opinion that no actual theory is really fallacy-free. Just my two cents, because I was just curious (please don't think I'm attacking you in any way) and didn't understand your post too well. And on a side note, I've known some mentally dumb people who have HORRIBLE memory. I'm sure they know they exist. What about conscience? My opinion: I don't actually have one on the matter. If I'm going to see my dog in heaven someday, I'm happy to! And if I'm not... well, that's God's call, isn't it? You misunderstand my meaning. Perhaps I should have just called them plain stupid instead of putting it delicately? I think only people have souls. But I can't prove it (as I'm not knowledgeable on the subject), so I'm looking for a good argument that I can believe or a good argument that proves the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 27, 2004 8:57:32 GMT -5
You misunderstand my meaning. Perhaps I should have just called them plain stupid instead of putting it delicately? I think only people have souls. But I can't prove it (as I'm not knowledgeable on the subject), so I'm looking for a good argument that I can believe. Perhaps you should argue with some tact, Zeno of Elea. Alright, if we're gonna argue this, why are we doing so without defining our terms first? Just what is a soul? How can we argue how possesses one of it we don't know what a soul is? I've always taken soul to be a sort of conciousness, the thing that defines us apart from a desk or a chair. Anything that we define as alive possesses a soul, even that emu example. After all, no matter how low in intelligence, animals possess some sort of sentience. It is what sets them apart from say, a robot. A robot can move and can have instinct (programed code) but a robot is completely different from the most rudimentary of animals. It can only do what others tells it to, it cannot think on its own, it cannot remember, experience, or even be self-aware. It has no capacity because we lack the ability to program in a soul. Since humans are unable to replicate even primitave animals it stands to reason that there is something missing that we cannot duplicate. In my opinion, this something is the soul. Exactly how they work is completely unkown, but since animals do have the ability to be self-aware and experience life, they are different from robots and have a soul. |
|
;D
