Do animals have souls?

I think a good way to aproach this question is by examining a little repetative human behaviour. Humans in general have a characteristic need to feel superior to things. We tend to place ourselves at the center and assume all else revolves around us. Time and again this view has proven false. Still we persist.
If we remove this silly self centered bias it makes good sense that all living things have a sense of "being"
Of course as I see it one does not have a soul. One is the soul which resides within the husk.

In "being", do you mean self conscience? If so, that has been disproven. (If you need evidence just say so) What do you mean by "one"? (and dont say that "one" is the soul because that is curcular reasoning
{soul = one--->soul}

Really? I meant exactly what I said.
Who are "you"?

Yes, not all living things have a sence of self conscience. first of all, you didnt write "you" you wrote "one".
second, when you ask "who..." you are looking for identification, not definition. I think you mean "what are 'you'" - that makes the question easy:
1. I'm a man (male).
2. I'm a human.
3. I'm a collective of nuerons (causing conscience).
exc.
I have no indication of anything that is reffered to as "soul".

No person on earth has any idea of what conciousness is. Your definition of it is meaningless and quite limited being based only from the human perspective. You are a litoralist then. One who sees no meaning, Only rules.
You will walk through life and forever miss the point.Black people were niggers until people with this type of ignorance opened thier eyes. An intellectual indifference that has no spiritual ballance. A lot of that foolishness resides on here. The long "logical" webs people will weave to justify this basic point of view on things never ceases to amaze me. lol

actualy I said: {bold mine}MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Do you know of other perspectives - that are not human? You mean that a critical investigation of the world around me that resides only on evidence will cause me to 'miss the point'? That's interesting. The word 'meanind' implies intent, an inteligence - therefore there doesnt have to be a meaning to anything if there is no perpose or inteligence.Meaning Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster really, because I've heard that the justifications were quite different ('black people are inferior' and all that nonsense) and were deeply rooted in religion. 'spiritual ballance'? care to elaborate on that? what do you mean 'on here'? can you give an example?

How long did the sun revolve around the earth?
We are undoubtedly not the center of everything.Your example in the link is one human view of a percieved way to test self awareness. It is simplistic at best and requires non humans to jump through human hoops. That entire approach is flawed. We still have only a rudimentary understanding of the true interactions other living things have with one another and what they mean to them.
Just because and animal is a "dork" and does not recognise itself in a mirror hardly means it is not self aware. Only a fool would come to such a conclusion from such a narrow perspective. Your view of the world around you reflects what is within. Is this what is within you? Religions have nothing to do with prejudice. That is an aspect of our human character. One that is repeated in many circles and stems from the same core motivations. As I asked....How long did the sun revolve around the earth? Animals only act on insticnt right? lol Surely.
A scientific/factual view of the world is no different than a litoral view of a religious text. The facts are meaningless. The percieved intent is all that matters. It is a reflection of what is in you. Perspectives shape things and the one you are representing is quite empty. You are one

I asked you for a perspective that is not human and you say that we are not the center of everything? that doesnt say anything except that you cant answer the question.
I didnt say that we are the center of everything - we are just the only ones with an inteligent perspective. Thats not what the article says - maybe you should finish reading it. Obviously my perspective of the world reflects my perseption , but what does that have to do with what I said - and can you be a little less vague ('what is within'). Religions are based on faith - 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
therefore as long as our perseption of the world continues to change, religion must lead to prejudice. Religion or prejudice? You have to stop being vague - if you say 'core motivations' - you have to specify what thay are. What? (scraches his head in curiosity) Except that it provides evidence. (Its a small difference - I know) Obviously thay are to you. Whos intent? More vague remarks? Amazing! - this is even more vague then the last sentence. I am one of these - ????????

I read the article. It is utter nonsense. The "results" are completely open to interpretation and indicate nothing except what one might read into them. There is no definitive test for self awareness nor is there a clear cut scientific definition of what it is. For someone to sight this as evidence of a clear lack of self awareness is very unscientific and absurd. When you come down to a definitive answer for what you are you will scientifically have to answer that you do not know. It will be no less vague Living life is based on faith. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Since there is no definitive scientific proof of what we are you must have faith in the existance of the undefinable to have this conversation. It is that simple. lol. The mechanics of the world are meaningless. All scientific evidence lies in the mechanics. All things meaningful come from beyond what science can touch. It is the wrong tool for the job.Now back to the animal thingy. It is simple. It comes down to what you believe as to whether animals have souls or not. I see nothing compelling from your posts so far to sway my view. We simply disagree on this philosophical point.

Mirror test - Wikipedia Assertions. That is despite the fact that it cant be any more vague.
(1) Science does not 'come to a difinitive answer'; everything in science is tentative - from the very nature of our perspective being limited (physicaly).
(2) You have to show why you think this is true - that is what scientists do - in order to have a logical conection between the hypothetical situation you proposed and your conclusion of what will have to happen. You dont have to beleive in life in order to live it - therefore it requires nighther knowledge nor faith. Religion is based on faith by definition : Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (1) Science does not 'come to a difinitive answer'; everything in science is tentative - from the very nature of our perspective being limited (physicaly).
(2)I dont have to have faith, only tentative knowledge of things I can define - and the perpose of a conversation is not to rehearse "difinitive truthes" (not that they exist) - that would be pointless - its purpose is to explore the things we dont know about. You mean simplistic. Assertions - please explaine the sentences and the logic behind them. Maybe the fact that you cant test or falsify the existance of a soul is enough to persuade you (seeing as how the soul is 'out of the realm of science') - or maybe you can try to prove it to me.
If you cant prove it or falsify it - the soul is not a default hypotheisis (it could be elves running your body) - then you must abandon the hypotheisis. That has nothing to do with it. Occham's razor takes care of the soul hypotheisis, thats about it. I dont have to bring opposing evidence because nothing has been proven to the contrary.

This link is full of nothing but a point of view that I do not share. Why of course. I am asserting my opinion as you are.
You simply do not share mine. It is you you has limited yor perspective to a belief in a doctrine that is tentative at best. That is your choice. Concerning the nature of what we are discussing science has no answers. Anything you have thus cited as evidence is based soley upon opinion. Firstly this completely depends upon your definition of living. Mechanically or spiritualy
Secondly we hear people from time to time state that life is just not worth living based upon a spiritual or completely non scientific point of view. This will often lead one to leave life prematurely by choice. This is not entirely true. Many of the basic principals of religions are based upon good logical sense. Example: Do unto others....
You at this time are placing your faith in a doctrine which is tentative at best. I place mine in something beyond. It is simply a personal choice. But you do have faith. You are citing definitions faithfully. You are placing your belief in them or you would not choose to cite them. The "purpose" of a conversation is not limited to your point of view. It means exactly what I said. Science is tentative how. We ask the ultimate why. Science gives no answers as to why and by it's nature never will. Tell me scientifically the reason or reasons why life for you is worth living. Show me the meaning of your life. Reason it out. As I have stated several times this is simply a philosophical difference of opinion. The term soul describes that which science cannot define. Scientifically you must deny your existance. I not only accept my existance but embrace it with meaning. Your perspective does not allow for meaning. In my perspective it is good reason to assume I am not unique. It is that simple. Ocham's rasor is a philosophical piont of view. I do not need to rely upon citing other peoples thinking to argue my philosophical point of view and the original question is philosophical by nature. Science has nothing to add.

what kind of answer is that? so just because you disagree with it you have the right to handwave it? how disingenious of you. you said theres no way of testing self-awareness and he showed you a test! this is a science forum where you at least make the effort of backing up what you say, so what do you have to back up what you say? umm all science is tentative, the science behind the very comeputer you are using is tentative, how is being not 100% relevent when its right 99% of the time? i guess walking across that bridge would be impossible since you might have that 1% that the bridge fails on you? no we are having a debate where we try to show evidence for our argument for why our stance is logical and factual.
the thing is thier is no evidence so far of anything pertaining to the soul as part of life ok you have no idea what you are talking about as far as depression, since we can pinpoint where depression begins and what causes it,whether full on abuse mental disorder or chemical imbalance in the brain - all of them are testible or at least treatible with some scientific-based drug or therepy.
it has nothing to do with the spiritual - i thought we left that idea back in the dark ages with crops and sheep being cursed by witchs and demons causing the black plague
name a person who has with evidence killed themselves over a spirtual problem that didn't have some sort of mental disorder ok now you are just spliting hairs, you can't have faith in words, i'm sorry is this suposed to be some sort of argument? this to me looks like you are grasping at straws and its hardly convincing then why are you posting to a bloody debate site! for gods sake man read what you are posting! you are making no sense at all! if you don't want people to argue with you over things like this go start a bloody blog or go outside and find another hobby why would he have to deny his own existance? you havn't really come up with a good argument why a person who doesn't believe in a soul can't believe they exist
no meaning is what you give your life, you are equating two things a meaning and a meaning outside of the self by an external supernaturual being. they are two entirely different things, one we can at least find evidence for (personal meaning) the other (sexpected supernatural meaning) we can not no you are making it simplistic, and limiting it to one option when there are millions more science can answer, since it is also a philosophy, hell all science is philosophy
but anyway, the problem i see is i have yet to see what is defined as a soul, much less how you know its there!, can you answer me that? how do you know if something has a soul if you can't observe it?
science answers that by saying something that can't be observed somehow most likely isn't there

Good lord, sometimes I wonder if I am the only sane person on this planet! You are saying that human beings, who are uniquely endowed with consciousness, are exactly the people who "limit" and make it "meaningless". Do you genuinely believe that your own consciousness is meaningless and limited? Seriously? For God's sake go and see a psychiatrist or something.Then we get your ill-educated and tiresome follow-up: So first you say that nobody can define consciousness and that previous definitions of it are "meaningless", then you go on to criticise your oponent as "one who sees no meaning". Am I falling into a parallel universe here, or is your argument self-contradictory nonsense? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?MickEdited by mick, : Grammatical error

No, I dont share your opinion - I just happen to have evidence for mine - unlike yourself. Are you saying that your belief is 100% true - if so then you, logicaly, must be wrong. I'll explain - lets say you had all the evidence in the world pointing towards your opinion. Because:
(1) In order to 100% prove your point you would have to falsify all other possible scenarios.
(2) There are an infinite number of scenarios then the chances of you proving you opinion become the limit of 1 over x when x goes to infinity, and that equals zero.
Now lets say you had no evidence (how familiar) - then then the probability density function of proving your opinion 100% is a continuous one, and so P(X=whatever your opinion is)=0%.
In short, if you have no evidence and want to prove something or if you want to prove something to 100% - you will have to wait a long time indeed. Do you consider the results of an experiment an opinion.(of course the interpitation of those results is an opinion - but they have to corrilate with the results over and over again (like the song...) Huh? are you just typing random words? Of course not - there is evidence, althogh the interpitation of this is an opinion, it still limits the conversation.
Unless you have something other than opinion in a conversation? (I want an answer to this one). which is...? 'why' and 'reason' imply intent - the only intent here is mine and so life is worth living for whatever reasons I decide. same as before only that 'meaning' impies intent. and yet you somehow can?!?!? no, scientifically I must deny the soul. pointless - no basis.

What he showed me was someones idea of what a test for self-awareness is. Yes I have waved it. To assume this is definitive is silly. His effort to back himself up was to give me someone elses opinion.
There is no hard data to back a question of this nature up. It is all opinion. You are a rather passionate individual. I cannot observe your mind.
You said it...I didn't. We cannot observe anything abstract for that matter. Yet all that we do comes from a place or thing we cannot observe. Funny to me how many readily accept a definition such as force is and reject the same basic concept when observing a very similar though more complicated phenomenon.