Does animals have a soul

[Druid]

I saw I guy on the news preaching to lions.

[Ouroboros]

I saw I guy on the news preaching to lions.

YES! If animals have a soul, they have to be saved too!

 

They need to submit their will to Jebuz too, and commence to a sinless life.

No more eating each other and not sexual acts in public.

And of course, they have to stay with one mate for life.

[Hero of Hyrule]

I saw I guy on the news preaching to lions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He must have wanted revenge for what those Lions did to early church members

[Ouroboros]

He must have wanted revenge for what those Lions did to early church members

"

Repent You Evil Animals,

The Jews killed Jesus, but you killed St James!

"

 

(Sorry if there are any Jews here, I'm not being a racist or disrespectful here)

[Ophy]

As for self-awareness/ consciousness, most mammals defininely have some sense of it. Why would a dog bury a bone if he has no sense of the future? As for ego, they definitely have a large range of emotions (my sister has a dog who has mastered the art of giving a guilt trip).

 

What the hell? If souls exist, my rat terrier has a much better chance of getting into "heaven" than I do. After all, she never blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

[Ouroboros]

As for self-awareness/ consciousness, most mammals defininely have some sense of it.  Why would a dog bury a bone if he has no sense of the future?  As for ego, they definitely have a large range of emotions (my sister has a dog who has mastered the art of giving a guilt trip). 

 

What the hell?  If souls exist, my rat terrier has a much better chance of getting into "heaven" than I do.  After all, she never blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

 

Dogs don't believe in God, they believe in Dog.

 

And they sure speak in tongues, I have no clue what they're saying

[Luck Mermaid]

"(Sorry if there are any Jews here, I'm not being a racist or disrespectful here)"

 

RACIST! DISRESPECTFUL!

 

hehehe

[quicksand]

Arrow of Common Cause. Look it up. Soul w/in Material context, yes pain-like-human-sense is possible.

[Guest fit2btied]

no, I think not! character, yes

[Ouroboros]

Hi F2bt, welcome to the site!

[Ouroboros]

no, I think not! character, yes

But do you think they have some form of consciousness?

 

Considering there are apes trained to speak sign language, and they can express love, depression, happiness, despise, anger, all the emotions we have. And some experiments have shown that dolphin do have the ability to distinguish themself from others in the same group, like in a mirror for instance, they know the image is their own. I don't remember how they did that test though.

[Ouroboros]

I agree.

 

That's how I see it if God exists, compared to how we are to an ant.

 

We can't understand the ant, and we can't superimpose our structure or moral based on our culture unto a society of ants in an anthill. They have to have a different "moral" than us, and I wouldn't care to demand obedience or worship from an ant.

 

So if God exists, he wouldn't care if I believe in him or not.

If he exist, he made the world just because whatever reason, but not to make a slave race of robots singing his praise how wonderful and beatiful he is all day long.

 

Or my dogs, I only require certain things from them. Not pooping or peeing in the house, but I don't demand them to love me. Actually it works the other way, if I show them love and care for them, they automatically love me back.

 

So if God wants love, he has to show love and care everyday, in superior miracles every day, which are not happening.

 

Sorry, for going out of the thread. I blame Zoe for getting my mind wandering...

[Mythra]

YES! If animals have a soul, they have to be saved too!

 

They need to submit their will to Jebuz too, and commence to a sinless life.

No more eating each other and not sexual acts in public.

And of course, they have to stay with one mate for life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was at the Phoenix Zoo awhile back, and two baboons started copulating right in front of whole class of first graders. Shameful. Those apes definitely needed Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

I was at the Phoenix Zoo awhile back, and two baboons started copulating right in front of whole class of first graders.  Shameful.  Those apes definitely needed Jesus.

Maybe it was time for sex-ed illustrated.

[Mythra]

Oh, those little tykes got an education that day, all right.

 

Doggie style 101.

[Amethyst]

As for self-awareness/ consciousness, most mammals defininely have some sense of it

 

I would agree with this. I don't think there is any evidence for a soul, at least not as defined in the Bible. But if there is, it would have to be some form of energy, and energy doesn't care whether or not you believe in one particular religion over another. Only people do.

[Mythra]

How do you define "self awareness"?

 

I have two Jack Russel terriers, and they are smart little shits.

 

They get bored, frustrated, excited, selfish, angry, sad, and sometimes wonderfully happy. They like the excitement of new challenges. They take pride in making their owners laugh. But, if you laugh too much, they think you are mocking them and they get pissed.

 

They have every emotion you can think of.

 

However, they have no souls. Their personalities and their "essence" are contained within their brains. Just like human beings.

[Amethyst]

Self-awareness = being aware of oneself.

 

Most animals have this to a lesser extent, as they don't recognize themselves in mirrors like we do. That is normally what scientists use to determine self-awareness.

 

IIRC, there was a monkey of some sort who did recognize him/herself in a mirror once. It was in the news sometime within the past few years.

[Ouroboros]

Self-awareness = being aware of oneself.

 

Most animals have this to a lesser extent, as they don't recognize themselves in mirrors like we do.  That is normally what scientists use to determine self-awareness.

 

IIRC, there was a monkey of some sort who did recognize him/herself in a mirror once.  It was in the news sometime within the past few years.

Dolphins have shown signs of this, which is why they're considered to be the smartest animales next to humans.

[Guest Joseph]

(snip)

That's how I see it if God exists, compared to how we are to an ant.

 

We can't understand the ant, and we can't superimpose our structure or moral based on our culture unto a society of ants in an anthill. They have to have a different "moral" than us, and I wouldn't care to demand obedience or worship from an ant.

 

So if God exists, he wouldn't care if I believe in him or not.

If he exist, he made the world just because whatever reason, but not to make a slave race of robots singing his praise how wonderful and beatiful he is all day long.

 

Worship is for the worshiper and for the enculturation of those that follow such creeds.

 

Or my dogs, I only require certain things from them. Not pooping or peeing in the house, but I don't demand them to love me. Actually it works the other way, if I show them love and care for them, they automatically love me back.

 

I think that any dog would merely see you in their evolutionary pack mind and assign to you a level of "pack status." If you feed your dog and then go eat something, they see you are below them in the pack. If you eat and then feed your dog they will see you are above them in the pack. If you allow them to get on the couch and/or bed then they will see themselves as equal to you in the pack. I do not think a dog knows "love" in the human understanding of this word, but merely knows such things as "pack member" or "pack non-member" and some limited understanding of social rank.

 

So if God wants love, he has to show love and care everyday, in superior miracles every day, which are not happening.

 

That is the god you have invented in your mind. In all honesty any type of greater life form that exists would probably not involve itself in the day to day functionings of lesser lifeforms...and this includes not only any all powerful entity but also advanced species which might exist perhaps. The idea of a personal god may come from certain mental illnesses.

 

Now, advanced species and/or god might involve itself at paramount times so that a society will follow their idea of a greater-good, but that is an entirely different argument and would require the idea that they see humans as a low enough species to "play god" with (much as we do with rats, viri, bacteria).

 

Sorry, for going out of the thread. I blame Zoe for getting my mind wandering...

 

Conciousness is along a continuum. From the lowerest life forms that lack any form of thought and react based on chemical reactions alone to those that have instintual genetic memory to those like humans who have limited instinctual memory and have almost total taught knowledge. There may even be existence beyond that of humanity or something entirely different, such as a species that contains genetic memory and also has the capacity to learn as we do.

 

I have read about fish lacking the proper brain section required to sense pain. They "flee" from threats out of instinct rather than the knoweldge of "pain." But that may not take into account that a different portion of the fish's mind has not taken over the "job" of pain recognition.

 

Granted the reasoned view of this would be a statement that conciousness is along a continuum, from those of chemical reaction based, to those of genetic memory/instinct based, to those that learn, and beyond. Neither beginning with nor ending with mankind's particular species...anything claiming that conciousness begins and ends with man is purely egotistical and not based upon current science.

[Ouroboros]

I think that any dog would merely see you in their evolutionary pack mind and assign to you a level of "pack status."  If you feed your dog and then go eat something, they see you are below them in the pack.  If you eat and then feed your dog they will see you are above them in the pack.  If you allow them to get on the couch and/or bed then they will see themselves as equal to you in the pack.  I do not think a dog knows "love" in the human understanding of this word, but merely knows such things as "pack member" or "pack non-member" and some limited understanding of social rank.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you there. Dogs do have the pack thinking, that’s true, but dogs have emotions. I have no doubts about it.

 

The illustration of feeding the dog or having it on the bed, it mostly prominent with male dogs. Female dogs doesn't classify as much, and even if you have the dog on the bed, they still respect you. It's a matter of who take control.

 

Something I noticed the other day when I was in the pool. One of our dogs like to swim in the pool but she want to fetch a toy that we throw for her into the water. At a couple of instances, she couldn't find it, and I called her and pointed. And she looked the way I pointed instead of me and my pointing finger. Pretty clever dog.

[Guest Joseph]

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you there. Dogs do have the pack thinking, that’s true, but dogs have emotions. I have no doubts about it.

 

Anthropomorphization:

 

( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nthr-p-môrfz)

To ascribe human characteristics to.

To ascribe human characteristics to things not human.

 

The idea I was dealing with was "love." Affection on a human level.

 

I have no doubt that an animal has a desire to be with another creature that provides it with shelter and/or food and who sees to its needs, what I am saying is that the level of comprehension is not that of humans, they lack the mental ability to come to such understandings. A very loose understanding of emotions may apply to some animals, but they are not at a human level. Dogs can be very human-like but we must be extremely careful to understand that they DO NOT THINK LIKE WE DO, at all.

 

Dogs are much more "pack minded." You think your dog sees you as an equal when they may see you as another member of the pack. How and when you dog eats and how they are positioned in the house and what they are allowed to do STRICTLY defines you in their life and in their mindset. If they eat when they want, eat before you eat, or are allowed in places normally reserved for humans alone (couch, chair, bed, ect) then they will not see you as their leader and it is much less likely you will ever train them to do anything, because you must first be head of the pack to enforce or create rules.

 

The illustration of feeding the dog or having it on the bed, it mostly prominent with male dogs.

 

I see very little difference in thought patterns between male and female dogs. There is always an Alpha-Male and an Alpha-Female within any given pack if the numbers support such roles. If not then there could be only an Alpha-male and/or Alpha-Female. What we as humans must strive to do is to maintain Alpha status with our canine pet or we will be the one on the leash and be the one being trained. Do you set the feeding time or does your pet? Do you set the time to go for a walk or does your pet? Do you get the chair of our choice or does your pet? Do you come to your pet or does it come to you? All of these "problems" are fixable IF and/or WHEN a person realizes that a dog is not a human and thinks pretty much entirely within a pack mind, respect/obediance is required ONLY of those above them in their given pack (not equals).

 

Female dogs doesn't classify as much, and even if you have the dog on the bed, they still respect you. It's a matter of who take control.

 

I am not saying you can't love your pet and even have them on the bed. I am saying that you should train the animal so it does not get on the bed without permission ("sometimes command") and/or you will be seen as an equal (and thus you will lose authority in the eyes of your pet).

 

Something I noticed the other day when I was in the pool. One of our dogs like to swim in the pool but she want to fetch a toy that we throw for her into the water. At a couple of instances, she couldn't find it, and I called her and pointed. And she looked the way I pointed instead of me and my pointing finger. Pretty clever dog.

 

When you pointed I am guessing that your arm motion was in the direction of the toy because very few dogs lack the ability to understand direction through pointing. I would say very few breeds indeed (some herder breeds might) but for the most part dogs track movement towards an item moreso than grasp "pointing in a direction."

 

One thing I found incredible is that there is now evidence that some breeds have "fast mapping" abilities. It was once believed that only higher primates could do such a thing, but a dog has done this repeatedly in controlled tests. The dog knew various toys, such as "car, ball, square, stick, ect." The dog then is sent to get the item "shirt." The dog goes into the room, sees the car, the ball, the square, the stick, ect...and knows all them are know to him as those names, not the "shirt," an item it sees but does not have a name for yet. Thus it understandings on some primitive level that "the odd-ball object that I don't know about must be the item my master is asking for." Granted it is probably a VERY low level thought pattern-recognition but it works for the dog.

 

So it picks up the only other thing that it doesn't know the name to and brings it (which is a process of extrapolating known from unknown and picking the unknown item as the "fast mapped" "shirt"). It was not believed that any breed of dog could do this...but surprise surprise. This was repeated several times with different items which would have to be "fast mapped" and the dog wasn't perfect but did exceptionally well. I believe the breed was border collie.

 

Anyways, I am not saying that dog's do not have "emotions" per se, I am saying that we as humans have to learn not to classify animals in context of human thought and to realize that they operate ENTIRELY differently from us and see the world (and relationships) entirely differently from us.

[Ouroboros]

Joseph, how do consider a situation where an animal could speak and use words as love and hate? Would you still disregard the feelings the animal would express?

 

Is it that we say animals have no feelings, just because they can't say the words? Or is it that we always have considered animals to be so much lover in brain functions, so we can't accept the notion that they would be able to, and then force us to have to take a moral standpoint when it comes to eating them?

 

Let's say my dogs can't love, at least I know they have strong likings to certain persons or to certain things. To me, love is very blurry word, that even in the human context, has been misused and misunderstood. If love would be defined as a very strong liking to something, then dogs can love something.

[Ouroboros]

This is some interesting reading about animal emotions:

 

http://www.earthfireinstitute.org/Articles...al_emotions.htm

[spamandham]

To me, love is very blurry word, that even in the human context, has been misused and misunderstood. If love would be defined as a very strong liking to something, then dogs can love something.

 

You are correct that it is a blurry word, and it has several meanings.

 

1. affection; dogs most definitly act like they have affection, so why should we pressume they don't?

 

2. sexual love; yah, dogs have sex

 

3. Love as a verb meaning service to others; yes, dogs will serve their masters, and generally seem to be happy to do so.

 

It's certainly true that dogs are not as smart as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't love or that they don't have qualia.