Poll: Does a Planet have a Soul?

[BANME111111]

Yes?

I am an atheist but this is a complicated subject...
First thing you have to think about is: "what is a soul?"
If your dog died and you cloned an exact copy of it, is it the same dog? It sounds, acts and looks just like your dog, but its not the same. It does the exact same tricks your old dog did, even the cute waggle of his tail when you come home from work, Everything is the same down to the very last molecule.

But its not the same.

Its sort of the feeling I had at the end of "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" when the earth was being rebuilt. Its the same, but not the same.

Something you can't see, hear, feel, or smell. but you know its different.

 

[FrndlyMisanthrpe]

Nothing has a soul. Some things have brains and can think, the planet does not.

so following what you said if Nothing has a soul, we are surrounded by souls?

Har har, I see what you did thar... Incidentally, what tells you that what we're surrounded with is nothing? If it can be identified like that, then does it not become a thing?

Technically, we'd only be surrounded by nothing if we were in a vacuum.

 

[lasherman]

Well, technically, a planet isn't alive, so I doubt it. It's covered in crawling, growing, walking living things, but so is my bathtub and IT doesn't have a soul.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW CAN YOU REALLY KNOW?

Well, if my bathtub has a soul, then my shoes probably do too, along with my underwear, and if they do then I'm probably going to Hell for what I put them through!

 

[i2esol]

To believe the planet has a soul would require one to actually believe in a soul or a secondary existence within oneself. If you believe in people and organisms having souls then you believe that a planet does not because it is not an organism. Now if you believed it had a soul in the traditional sense of the Japanese kami then you believe that each smaller organism has a soul or spirit and that they make up the whole spirit of the world.

 

[PhiMed]

You shouldn't be on the internet, then. If you have the resources to connect to the internet and spend time talking about how meaningless modern life is, you probably have the resources to move to a dirt poor "spiritualistic" society. You'd probably die of a treatable illness rather quickly, but still... At least you'd be surrounded by superstitious people when you pass.

OK, quick question. What the hell is your problem? why are my beliefs so offencive to you?

If you can live paycheck to paycheck and still find meaning, then I envy you. Just remember your lines "I am happy" and "I am free"

I wasn't aware that you had given any sort of outline of your beliefs. All you did was decry scientific progress, and say spiritualism (whatever that means) trumps technology.

As someone who works to advance medical knowledge, your belief that technological progress is a bad thing stands in direct opposition to my life's work. I've worked with numerous doctors who've spent significant amounts of time in the third world, and they would LOVE to be burdened with our meaningless advancements. I imagine that many of their patients would agree, considering it would have helped them continue to be, you know, alive.

I'm sorry you're unable to find meaning amongst such abundance, but don't project your futility on me. I don't live paycheck to paycheck, but even if I did, I have other measures of meaning than the number of dollars in my bank account.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

As I understand it, should souls exist, something would have to be alive to have one? So the real question is 'Are planets alive?'. Physics/biology would suggest no, assuming a definition of 'life' that is similar to the standard seen in plants and animals everywhere.

 

[Typhusoid]

No. Indeed, nothing has a soul. Sorry if I'm bursting anyone's bubble here.

 

[dagens24]

It looks like a simple question, but if you ask someone about this he/she would look at you either as a madman/woman or think it's stupid, but then thinking only that the center of a planet is made of Nikel and Iron (mainly) is rather coldly logical and lacks this unexplainable thingy no?

imho: i won't answer neither yes or no.

A soul in a supernatural metaphysical sense doesn't exit, so no.

 

[manaman]

The Old Testament of the bible never really had a specific word for soul as we now describe it, and in several spots in the Genesis story the word that has been translated as both spirit and soul is used to describe the world and everything in it. As in the world has its own spirit, all the animals, only when it was used to describe people was the word translated as soul.

The immortal soul as it is understood by most is actually a Greek invention and came along long after the first books of the bible where laid down.

While many Christians believe in the concept of an immortal soul its not really part of the accepted dogma. Except for Catholics, there are extra books in the catholic bible that set a precedent for many of the differing practices of that faith.

What as I getting at? Well, should you be a Christian you should belive the planet has the spirit in it much like in an animus faith. But that the concept of immortal soul as it is understood today should be considered false.

Provided of course you adhered to your faith.

Then again there are different Christian religions for a reason, what I offered up is more of a fundamentalist view talking more a literal look at the original language of the bible. There is likely an entire oral history and cultural context that went along with what was written in down as the bible that may change the meaning by quite a bit.

Me? I think it fairly unlikely that anything in the bible is true, I would say that I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe in the concept of the soul. Therefor I don't believe that the world could have one.

 

[Abedeus]

Yes?

I am an atheist but this is a complicated subject...
First thing you have to think about is: "what is a soul?"
If your dog died and you cloned an exact copy of it, is it the same dog? It sounds, acts and looks just like your dog, but its not the same. It does the exact same tricks your old dog did, even the cute waggle of his tail when you come home from work, Everything is the same down to the very last molecule.

But its not the same.

Its sort of the feeling I had at the end of "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" when the earth was being rebuilt. Its the same, but not the same.

Something you can't see, hear, feel, or smell. but you know its different.

Clones are not exact. Exact DNA doesn't mean exact same memories, same look, same health or life. For instance, twins. Even the Dolly sheep isn't the same as her mother. DNA is just a recipe for a specific creature. But just because you have a recipe and make 10 cakes, they won't be the same. Some might not even "survive" at all - they get burned or become flat after baking. Even those that survive won't be of the same size, they won't taste exactly the same, they aren't as sweet as the original cake.

So, yeah. I'm thanking "The Science of Discworld I" for this explanation.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

OK let me simplify what I meant. My beliefs: Spiritualism > materealism. Got it now?

I dont think that technology and progress are bad. I think that they shouldn't influence our beliefs or be the most important things in the world. Why do you have to take everything so literally?

Why should they not influence our beliefs and why should they not be the most important things in the world? As of now, progress and technology have increased the life span of humans by several decades and as technology advances we might increase our life span even more and eventually reach a point where we can explore the vastness of the Universe.

At the moment, technology and progress are THE most important things in the world and they will remain that way due to the fact that they benefit our lives way more than spirituality and personal beliefs ever will.

 

[CK76]

No, "souls" are a construct of the human mind.

 

[Cherry Cola]

While I do not in any way believe in the concept of a soul, I would like to remind people that the phrase Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence apply here very strongly.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

I don't see why not. I don't think anyone has proved otherwise.

 

[Legendsmith]

Me? I think it fairly unlikely that anything in the bible is true

Before you say something like that or come to that conclusion, take a look at the evidence. (Most) historians agree that the Bible is a historical text. That is, it records actual events. There is plenty of evidence for the bible being accurate. (Whether or not miracles were actually performed is another matter, but a Hebrew historian living at the time of Jesus recorded that Jesus did many amazing and baffling things).

 

[ljd184]

removed since it could not be understood

 

[MurderousToaster]

I wouldn't believe so. It's hard to put space in the context of souls or whatnot, for the simple reason that it's not technically alive. But, then again, who knows.

 

[manaman]

Me? I think it fairly unlikely that anything in the bible is true

Before you say something like that or come to that conclusion, take a look at the evidence. (Most) historians agree that the Bible is a historical text. That is, it records actual events. There is plenty of evidence for the bible being accurate. (Whether or not miracles were actually performed is another matter, but a Hebrew historian living at the time of Jesus recorded that Jesus did many amazing and baffling things).

You got me there. I was talking religious wise. It came out wrong.