Do animals have souls?

Post Reply New Topic

you have preordained the hierarchy of what lives you think are important in descending order, and therefore you have assumed the authority of god in doing so.


He is drawing a relationship between all of these creatures. He did not specifically point towards the importance of these creatures. What he did do is show in descending order the level of sophistication and organization (I may also say evolution) of all these creatures.

Does it take the authority of god to draw the relationship between living creatures?

I do not believe any scientist assumes the authority of god when he determines the difference between angiosperms and gymnosperms.

I believe it is wrong to claim that this man would assume the authority of god. I believe it is a form of personal attack and is untrue unless he says so himself.

No, I've played upon the fact that most people assume that bacteria aren't conscious, and that people are, to intuitively show that there is likely a spectrum of intermediates.



See, my argument worked .



I take exactly the same attitude. I do think that it's an aesthetic issue, rather an moral one.



You couldn't "be" an E. Coli, because there is no self to be. They have no brains.
I like E. Coli, it's one of my favourite organisms.



Of course. It's like you spoke my mind I justify my meat eating on the basis of the fact that it is likely that the animals I eat are almost non-sentient.

well there you go huh? i got that pearl of wisdom of yours free of charge.
all forms of life are equal in their deservedness to live and if you say otherwise then you are wrong.

try to cloak him in a bullet proof vest of your own design by all means. but my bullets cut through garbage bins with ease.

reserve your altruistic protection of who you consider unable to argue, lest you embarrass the person that i am arguing with huh? it is not your argument, and you are not stolid enough to have an argument with me on your own. so you must jump on the back of arguments that you see in progress and try to strangle the proponent of the assertions of which you have not sufficient imagination to reject with any authority of wit.

god what i have said is evil and you made me say it.
just don't bother talking to me and i promise i will say nothing else.


ODD will preempt me from here i fear.

no no no.they are alive just like you. but their dead flesh on the shelves of opportunity is too much to ignore.


would you individually choose a cow that you petted and say " slice it up into steaks for me thanks?"
i would not. but since steaks have already been sliced up and are in the window, i may as well not let them go to waste.

i would never ask that a cow be killed for the satiation my appetite.
but the availability of steaks that i never asked for pulls money from my pocket and saliva from my mouth.

yummmmm!! ! but also ' errrrrrr"

what can i do?

No, he was right, writing a series of animals doesn't imply I'm a Deity



Yes. I like cows, but they are dumb to the degree they probably aren't sentient. I'd feel awful for the waste of killing such a nice animal, but I'd have no moral qualms. I'd never eat a chimp, or even contemplate it, they probably are quite conscious.



You're driving the demand by buying the steaks.



Look, I think you missed my argument. Whether something is "alive" or not is an awful criterion for whether it is immoral or not to kill it. Trees are alive, because they are biological systems too. If you ever study biology, you'll realise that there is nothing inherently special about "life" itself; it's just a special type of chemical reaction. Consciousness, however, imparts the ability to feel pain, so if we are to talk of it being "immoral" to kill a living thing, we must talk in terms of consciousness.

well there you go huh? i got that pearl of wisdom of yours free of charge.
all forms of life are equal in their deservedness to live and if you say otherwise then you are wrong.
Yes, in their "deservedness" to live every creature is equal.


try to cloak him in a bullet proof vest of your own design by all means. but my bullets cut through garbage bins with ease.
I do not know what you are trying to say here. I can guess but it is too easily open to misinterpretation and would be a useless argument.


reserve your altruistic protection of who you consider unable to argue, lest you embarrass the person that i am arguing with huh? it is not your argument,
If I were the person you were arguing with I would be insulted by you saying I would be embarrassed. That is complete opinion on your part. I can choose to make this my argument if I wish, instead of accepting my words you argue against me.

and you are not stolid enough to have an argument with me on your own.
See this whole comment please.

so you must jump on the back of arguments that you see in progress and try to strangle the proponent of the assertions of which you have not sufficient imagination to reject with any authority of wit.
This is a personal attack. Quite blatant as well. I would suggest not insulting the intelligence of your opponent and put your time towards proving their argument wrong. Saying that I am unable to challenge you does not mean that I truly am unable to challenge you.


god what i have said is evil and you made me say it.

I do not believe what you said was evil. I did not make you say it as well. It was your choice to say these things. You may have strong feelings on the subject, and you may believe you have to defend your ideas but it is not my fault that your said these things.

just don't bother talking to me and i promise i will say nothing else
No. I want you to continue talking.


ODD will preempt me from here i fear
Not sure what you mean.



I believe I have a right to freedom of free speech. I do in my own country and I believe that this is true on the online forum. If this is not true then my post will have to be deleted. Otherwise you do not have the legal right to oust me from this argument.
The reason that I voiced my opinion is that I wished to voice my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the man can defend himself.

Big words.

I don't believe in souls. Some animals with more developed cerebrums seem to have the capacity for thought and some reasoning. Higher primates and dolphins, in addition to some cephalopods, for example are noted as tool users and also have complex social structures. This requires some sort of theory of mind as well as self-awareness. In any case we all share common features such as nervous systems. Nervous systems interpret pain to warn the brain of an organism that an action is not healthy or dangerous. Animals feel pain and thus I inherently am not interested in causing them pain, whether they are close to sapience like some primates or simply existing in a state of instinct. I still eat meat because it is natural but I am against unnecessary suffering in any organism

Not worrying about souls at this point because whether we figure on souls or not we have no basis for anything but freewheeling speculation as to any but our own species and even there there are huge gaps, may I say,

Do not forget birds. Doing some looking this summer into available indications on nonhuman intelligence, I discovered that although bird brains are organized very differently from mammalian - old style Mac and PC only more so - the "birdbrain" packs a lot of power in a small box and is not negligible. Some of them are arguably tool users and cranes, for example, seem to be somewhere between dog and primate.

That's true, I regret forgetting about birds. I read about a few such as 'Alex' the Gray Parrot that was speculated to have been able to articulate his emotions

If by "soul" you mean a conscious "sense of self" then clearly I believe some of the more complex vertabrate animals do and maybe even a few cephalopods thrown in as well.

I am wondering if octopus would also be included in the "self conscious" category. I understand they are capable of learning.

octopii are very intelligent for something with suction cups. one was observed to quickly master opening screw-top-lid jars, to get at the food contained within. it learned how to do this by itself, without being taught.

Yes. They are legally protected as animals which cannot be experimented on without anesthesia, as they are assumed to be somewhat conscious.

IMO they will take over the world once we are gone.

They'll adapt to atmosphere and swing from the trees

just imagine it- furry octopii swinging from tree to tree. i wonder what vocalizations they would develop, and if they would eat bananas.