Animals don't have souls!

I am glad to have the oppurtunity to debate with you as well. Now I will ,hopefully, refute your arguments. (1)If they had souls there would be no difference between them and us. Are you to say that because humans allegedly have souls, there is absolutely no difference between us humans? Your conclusion is fallacious. (2)If they had souls they would have consciousness about what love is. Research shows that some animals are capable of a very simple and non-complicated form of affection that we would call love. Are you to say that two animals who mate for life have completely neutral feelings for each other? Are you saying that the idea of a bond between a human and his/her dog is a joke? You have not defined love so actually your argument is not valid regardless of my refutations. (3)Love is something we use when referring to other people. This definition of love says otherwise. Love: affectionate concern for the well-being of others. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)Because of love you feel an intimate connection between you and others. Because of love you marry people, which you don't do with animals. First, not all marriages are due to love unfortunately. Second, if someone does not marry does that mean that he is incapable of love. Is he some sort of sociopath then? One does not need to marry to show love. And some animals mate for life, could this be considered a primitive animal form of marriage? Obviosly a dog does not have the cognitive ability to comprehend the elaborate rituals involved in human marriage. We came up with the ritual, not dogs. You mistake cognitive inferiority for a lack of a soul. (5)If animals had souls they would speak. There is no evidence that our souls are what makes us speak. This is evident when we see that people who have terrible industries of the spinal cord or brain lose the ability to speak. This also applies to other senses such as smell or sight. Also, you forget that many species of animals have their own version of communication. If a dog can verbally communicate an idea to another dog such as "This is my territory!" then what is the difference between that and human language? If you look at it in simple terms it's basically just a different language. (6)If they had souls they would use their strength(ex. lions, gorillas, leopards and other strong offensive, hunter species)to defeat us in need of space, food, weapons other things necessary to be a dominant species. In other words, we wouldn't be able to keep them in cages and have them under control which we can at the moment whenever we want. Again, you mistake cognitive inferiority for a lack of a soul. Having a soul, in the definition I provided: Soul- the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body. Nothing in this definition says anything about us using our souls to exert dominion over animals. That is rightly attributed to hubris and a larger cognitive ability on the part of humans. And to think that weapons are needed to be dominant is to go into an equation in an already hostile frame of mind. But that is off the point. (7)If you look at the Bible(advised for everyone not just for religious ones)you will find that God said during Genesis that people should rule over animals and every created life form on Earth that is not human Again, this says nothing of whether or not they have souls. Also, in order to use supposed divine revelation as evidence you not only have to prove god's existence but you must also prove that the Christian god exists. Neither of these are easy tasks and even if you were to prove the abramic god's existence, just because god told us to rule over animals says nothing. God in your citation has not even mentioned the soul, let alone existence of a soul in animals. I enjoyed this debate very much and I again thank you for the opportunity. To voters, pro's resolution stated that he would prove that animals do not have souls. Although I proved in the first round that this was impossible because the soul, if it exists, is undetectable by scientific instruments. However I still heard his arguments and refuted each and every one of them. I did not state that I would prove that animals do or don't have souls. I honestly do not care one way or the other. I set out to prove that it was impossible to prove such a resolution and refute every argument that pro offered. I believe that I have done this so VOTE CON!!!