it isn't a stupid concept, and even if it was, by your closemindedness you wouldn't have even thought of it if it was inexistent.Rickyvantof said:
Poll: Does a Planet have a Soul?
- Thread starter Orcus The Ultimate
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, interesting question.Orcus_35 said:
Honestly, I like to think so. Being in a finite number, and being so large and potentially prosperous and life bearing, I do like to think they have souls. They almost seem sacred.
I appear to be slowly becoming more shamanistic...
This came after watching Avatar, didn't it?
Anyway, I said no because I'm an atheist and don't believe in souls to begin with.
Anyway, I said no because I'm an atheist and don't believe in souls to begin with.
Not to be a dick, but do people? If so, prove it.
If we can't even work out whether we have souls, how shall we decide about planets?
If we can't even work out whether we have souls, how shall we decide about planets?
A planet with a soul you say? Now before anyone can even attempt to answer that question, we first need to know; what is a soul?
Do you know? If not, how can you even ask this question? How can you ask any of us to answer this question if we don't even know the meaning of the question itself?
It's not possible, the question as you're asking it is not properly answerable. It lacks coherent meaning.
And while it is obvious that certain big companies have rather dehumanising business practices, that isn't the problem of technology. What really is the problem, is that we're simply with so many individuals that most of us don't recognise the vast majority of other humans as actual fellow human beings. Cracked.com did, for once, a pretty interesting and well-thought out article about this monkeysphere [http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html] of ours. It provides an interesting perspective on why so many shitty things happen with humankind. And that's not the fault of technological advancement, or at least not the direct fault. All that did was enable us to breed so effectively that we're now living in such large groups that we can't deal with them anymore.
And thus, we have advanced to a certain point that we need a new kind of advancement, a greater and far more important kind of advancement, but advancement nonetheless. We as a species need to learn on how to deal with a population of this size. That's no-one's fault, it's the basic instinct for a living being to try to thrive. We happen to be very good at thriving, so good that we're now starting to choke ourselves with ourselves. To truly advance as a species, we need to learn on how to deal with ourselves, how to deal with a population so large that it goes beyond our biological limitations.
The technological advancement you apparently blame for today's rotten society were mere tools with which we could thrive better and better, and you can never blame a tool for what someone did with it. It's simply the size of our species that's to blame, and in term, no-one is to blame, it's just a natural occurrence we have to deal with. It's humanity's largest hurdle to date, because if we fail, we'll destroy ourselves.
And sadly, the way you are offering is not the way. We're simply with too many people for that, all 6 billion of us can't all just grow our own foods, we can't all go out and hunt. What you want is sadly impossible, so we'll have to find another way. We cannot drop our technological advancement, we need them to sustain the majority of our population, and even now we as a species are straining as several billion of us still live in deplorable conditions. If anything, we need more technological advancement, better agricultural technologies so that those poor people can also live good lives.
Do you know? If not, how can you even ask this question? How can you ask any of us to answer this question if we don't even know the meaning of the question itself?
It's not possible, the question as you're asking it is not properly answerable. It lacks coherent meaning.
Just stepping in here: those 'soulless corporations' as you call them are still just groups of people. A corporation is not a separate entity, it's just a bunch of people working together for a common goal. They're as much human as the one's 'they' believe they can control. And I doubt that 'they' actually think that. Go ask one of those CEO's, or managers, or anyone working for them.Angryman101 said:
And while it is obvious that certain big companies have rather dehumanising business practices, that isn't the problem of technology. What really is the problem, is that we're simply with so many individuals that most of us don't recognise the vast majority of other humans as actual fellow human beings. Cracked.com did, for once, a pretty interesting and well-thought out article about this monkeysphere [http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html] of ours. It provides an interesting perspective on why so many shitty things happen with humankind. And that's not the fault of technological advancement, or at least not the direct fault. All that did was enable us to breed so effectively that we're now living in such large groups that we can't deal with them anymore.
And thus, we have advanced to a certain point that we need a new kind of advancement, a greater and far more important kind of advancement, but advancement nonetheless. We as a species need to learn on how to deal with a population of this size. That's no-one's fault, it's the basic instinct for a living being to try to thrive. We happen to be very good at thriving, so good that we're now starting to choke ourselves with ourselves. To truly advance as a species, we need to learn on how to deal with ourselves, how to deal with a population so large that it goes beyond our biological limitations.
The technological advancement you apparently blame for today's rotten society were mere tools with which we could thrive better and better, and you can never blame a tool for what someone did with it. It's simply the size of our species that's to blame, and in term, no-one is to blame, it's just a natural occurrence we have to deal with. It's humanity's largest hurdle to date, because if we fail, we'll destroy ourselves.
And sadly, the way you are offering is not the way. We're simply with too many people for that, all 6 billion of us can't all just grow our own foods, we can't all go out and hunt. What you want is sadly impossible, so we'll have to find another way. We cannot drop our technological advancement, we need them to sustain the majority of our population, and even now we as a species are straining as several billion of us still live in deplorable conditions. If anything, we need more technological advancement, better agricultural technologies so that those poor people can also live good lives.
Just call it as it is, no need for mystical talk about 'energies', they're molecules and atoms. But I won't say 'just' molecules and atoms, because I still find that a wonderful idea. The fact that we indeed are technically made out of stardust; all the atoms inside our bodies indeed come from stars. That's amazing isn't it? And all without mystical and metaphysical nonsense.
Those two statements contradict each other. Also, who does know better? You?Angryman101 said:
Citation needed.
Umm.. Sorry you're so unhappy, and that you feel the need to project your unhappiness onto all of society. Perhaps you could find a hobby or cause to give your life meaning?
As for the assertion that agriculture was the worst thing ever, you're certainly welcome to hold that belief, but I'm going to back away now (slowly). I'm going to go sit with my wife, who has used soap today. I'm then going to go to sleep tonight, in a bed under a roof. While sleeping without fear of nocturnal predators, knowing I'll be able to find a meal tomorrow, I'll take comfort in the fact that she is relatively unlikely to die during childbirth in two months, and that we have a reasonable expectation that our son will live to adulthood.
Doesn't matter where you got it from. Thing is, if the question doesn't have any coherent meaning, it's not answerable. If you don't know what a soul is, no-one can tell you if a planet contains such a thing. So what is this 'soul' thing you're talking about?Orcus_35 said:
Really? Does this planet live? What's living then? When is something alive and when is something not alive? Where's the boundary?The Disk Thrower said:
Does it really breathe? According to Wikipedia, breathing means this:
Is our planet doing that?
And what do you mean that living things generally have a 'soul'? Where can I find that thing, and what is it exactly? You're making vague statements about these matters.
So may be. But I'm referring to the movie where there's some shit i don't really remember how it was, BUT it has something to do whit aliens that are pissed off since their world is dead(?).Orcus_35 said:
It was a while ago i saw this movie as you surely understand.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173840/
Nothing has a soul, but even if I believed in that kind of crap I'm pretty sure a large ball of rock and sediment wouldn't have one.
Close-mindedness isn't not believing in the metaphysical, if you'll excuse the double negative.Orcus_35 said:
Close-mindedness is holding on to bullshit beliefs despite total lack of evidence to support it, or even in spite of evidence.
It's not close-minded to say, for example, that pixies or unicorns doesn't exist.
Why is saying that a soul doesn't exist close-minded then?
If I am to believe a living creature has a soul, upon closer examination of what being a soul entails, I might as well go ahead and believe a planet does as well.
