Do animals have souls?

Evidence of (what) is the question.

[/qs]BTW: try not using the "thats your opinion" arguement in every post, instead try to give the logic behind whatever it is you believe.[/qs]I call em as I see em. You simply do not agree. It is not your belief. I understand that. You simply wish to deny it. That is your choice. It also does not mean that it does and certainly not excusively your view of a probable reality.
Gosh that sounds like an arguement for the existance of God.

I have maintainted this for some time now.
This thread is answered by belief only.
Relying on science to answer all questions is a belief that all things will be answered by science. It is dogma/faith in that all things are physical. There is no way around that. Many here continually wish to argue that a belief that all things are physical is not a belief. All scientific research is limited to all things physical. that is it's nature.
Science will not give me:a reason to live.
a reason to love
faith In people.
Hope of any kind.Science will not help me:
Love anything or anyone
Be a better person
Understand what it means to shareIn fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless. I understand this.In this thread it is no more authorative than any other belief.
Still people seem to cling to this belief.
When will they learn.

A reason to live and a goal have nothing in common to me. Says who? We function quite well biologically without it. We do not die. Says who? Again we function quite well biologically without them. Science does not give us an ability to imagine. We already have that.
That is how the idea of science emerged in the first place. Of course they would. What better money maker? Science does not help people. People help people. This is because you believe completely in science. It is where you have placed your faith. It is self evident. Science is your religion. It is for many. You simply choose to ignore the fact. Hell no! Thats not my job! It is for you to choose to see or not.

Really? One must want to achieve for reasons. Within a simple goal lies a host of motivations. Without these basic motives a goal is not even possible. The reasons to live derive from the core motivations. The core motivations are the reasons goals are made and therfore the reason or reasons to live. If a goal ceases to be fun, enjoyable or rewarding in any sense it ceases to be a reason. A goal is simply a vehicle to experience the true reasons to live. This is not true. "Mental health" is a very subjective idea. We would simply function under different circumstances. We are quite adaptable you know. The concept of Empathy is non essential to our existance. Hard to function? By who's definition? It is not needed behaviour. What is normal changes like the wind and is completely subjective.
As I said we are very adaptable. Exactly This assumes science has some ability to bring out the best. This is your opinion/belief. It is a false assumption. Science has no qualities. We are the possessor of qualities and we express them through tools. Far better to achieve it by will. So the tool gaurantees a better outcome? For a reasonable inteligent person you endow a tool with some interesting innate abilities. I never said science was useless. This is your knee-jerk reaction in defense of your belief The concept of science itself is not. The nature of your belief in it makes this so. You define your existance with it. Again you are giving qualities to a tool. Science has no purpose. We use it for a purpose. The value of that purpose is completely subjective.

The soul according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance ” spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) ” particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoulThe soul is an immortal and spiritual body of light, the essence of which is Satchidananda and Parasivam, eternal, uncreated and identical with God Siva. The soul animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with God Siva is realized. The soul is the atman of the Vedas.
Read & Learn The spiritual life force or essence, carrying an individual's personality and consciousness of all actions.
http://www.wrexhamparaskeptics.4t.com/definitions.htmThere are many sources of basically similar definitions through out the world.The definitions themselves describe something that has no measurable aspect. You cannot see a thought. The fact that we are, and are interacting at this very moment is self evident. How we mechanically achieve this is imaterial...(hehe) I said imaterial ;P. All science will ever achieve
is to give us a measurement of some aspect of change of momentum over time that the soul caused. Our tracks if you will. The soul is a basic definition that describes the cause of what science detects. We still have no idea what a force really is either. The change of momentum with respect to time is a measurable way of describing a phenomenon. It is very usefull for achieving things in a very limited fashion. Facts derived from this mode of thinking do not define the phenomenon and only a fool would follow such folly.They descibe it in one way. You can mechanicaly describe all that I am and all you will ever have is a mechanical description.
Something mechanical is not animate as we define ourselves. If you wish to define yourself soley by the narrow view that science offers that is your choice of belief. I love how people who think of science as more than the tool it is, attemt to push scientific dogma upon things where it does not apply and when faced with the fact that everything we do is based upon belief and point of view they get all riled up and claim foul. The very basis for this sight is a prime example. The basis of creationism is spiritual and creationism is only one small part of that picture.. The basis of evolution is not spitual. Two very different animals that have nothing in common. To look at something from only one direction will only give you one view.
The mechanics of this life can be useful but are just the vehicle.
Evidence provide thus far is not the problem. The question is evidence of what. Someone elses interpretation is not mine. Very subjective.
Again, this forum topic has been misplaced.

I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.I maintain that this question is misplaced. It is a philosophical question.

[qs]do you have any evidence of something that is outside science.Exactly what do you mean by outside? As I have stated why it is. Please explain the scientific nature of the question.

I am still amazed that this thread had been allowed to carry on.
As a scientific question this topic is a dead end since it is not a scientificly based question. Science is a useless tool for this job. If you insist on using science to determine an answer it is your religion. That is a no brainer.

If I may,
Logic has it's place. Logic applied where it has no meaning sucks the life out of that which brings joy.I do not:
listen to or create music using logic.
decide to put burgundy in my home made spagetti with logic.
watch the clouds roll by and imagine what they look like with logic.
Logic is for the practical.
Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy.
A life without logic is do-able
A life without joy is no life at all.

I find it quite interesting how often debates in this forum turn into a discussion on the validity of religion and or a belief in a higher power. It's like people are trying very hard to understand logically how faith works. Of course the how is not important. It is only the why that matters.

On the contrary. To you it is mainly the "how" of things that matter. To me and others like me it is only the "why" that really matters. Your view is very narrow and self limiting. You believe you are a happening that will pass. There is no why. This is not my view.