Animal souls.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _Quasimodo »

MCB wrote:My own personal belief is that all animals have souls. However, the souls differ in nature just as much as the species.

I may be biased, but I think that the souls of dogs are superior in nature to the souls of cats.


LOL! You may not be endearing yourself to the cat lovers out there, MCB.

The souls of dogs and cats might be superior in nature the souls of humans. Certainly less guileful.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Turkey
_Emeritus
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:06 am

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _Turkey »

beefcalf wrote:
Where is the line?


consciousness
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _MCB »

Quasimodo wrote:
LOL! You may not be endearing yourself to the cat lovers out there, MCB.

The souls of dogs and cats might be superior in nature the souls of humans. Certainly less guileful.


Well, that is why I put it in small print. LOL. There are times I love dogs more than I love humans, that is for sure.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _beefcalf »

Turkey wrote:
beefcalf wrote:
Where is the line?


consciousness


Hmm... yes, I hadn't thought of that.

Consciousness is such an obvious and clear-cut dividing line.

I need to read more and blab my mouth a bit less.
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _Quasimodo »

beefcalf wrote:Hmm... yes, I hadn't thought of that.

Consciousness is such an obvious and clear-cut dividing line.

I need to read more and blab my mouth a bit less.


You still have a problem. You have to define consciousness and provide a method of determining that.

How does one determine the level of consciousness in my dead rat friend? What degree of conciseness constitutes a soul?

I've seen couple of anon cephalic miscarriages (essentially born without brains). These babies only lived for a few minutes after birth. I'm pretty sure that they never achieved any sort of consciousness. Did they have a soul?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _Quasimodo »

MCB wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:
LOL! You may not be endearing yourself to the cat lovers out there, MCB.

The souls of dogs and cats might be superior in nature the souls of humans. Certainly less guileful.


Well, that is why I put it in small print. LOL. There are times I love dogs more than I love humans, that is for sure.


I've loved all my dogs more than some people I have known.

"We give dogs time we can spare, space we can spare and love we can spare. In return, dogs give us their all. It's the best deal man has ever made."
— Margery Facklam
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _MCB »

You ugly old man!!! Too bad you are married.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _Quasimodo »

MCB wrote:You ugly old man!!! Too bad you are married.


Blush! The ugly old man part is definitely true.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_GR33N
_Emeritus
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _GR33N »

Turkey wrote:
beefcalf wrote:
Where is the line?


consciousness


conscience
Then saith He to Thomas... be not faithless, but believing. - John 20:27
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: Animal souls.

Post by _beefcalf »

Quasimodo wrote:
beefcalf wrote:Hmm... yes, I hadn't thought of that.

Consciousness is such an obvious and clear-cut dividing line.

I need to read more and blab my mouth a bit less.


You still have a problem. You have to define consciousness and provide a method of determining that.

How does one determine the level of consciousness in my dead rat friend? What degree of conciseness constitutes a soul?

I've seen couple of anon cephalic miscarriages (essentially born without brains). These babies only lived for a few minutes after birth. I'm pretty sure that they never achieved any sort of consciousness. Did they have a soul?


I was being facetious in my response to Turkey... though it is now clear it wasn't obvious enough! :-\

In any case, consciousness and conscience are also so nebulous that neither be used as the dividing line.

Great apes clearly have both, as do dogs. Where is the line between consciousness and non-consciousness? Between conscience and its absence?

I defy anyone to draw that line and defend it with rational argumentation and/or scientific, non-anecdotal evidence.
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
Post Reply