"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

Then, you are clearly ignoring that education.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Life is very well defined. Saying a tree isn't alive according to your own obscure definition is not exactly productive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not so sure. In fact, coming from someone that says trees are not alive I consider that an insult.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this a religious statement ?

 

I am not religious. You are.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fine..

 

Enmos, look at the definition of alive.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alive

 

Yea, and ? Those apply to trees.

You can defend you position here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83551

 

Enmos, i copied my respon to the new thread. Copy uours there and then we will come back here and delete our posts. In essence we will moderate ourselves.

 

Enmos,
notice that my example was not hypothetical. There are gradations within the dead universe paradigm. Now you have encoutered someone who sees less life out there than you. I doubt very much I will convince you that more things are alive than you currently see as alive. In fact I will not really try, though I will present my views in parallel. However John here presents you at the very least with a small piece of how frustrating it is to deal with someone who sees more things as not alive than you do.

Imagine what us pantheist/animists go through.

 

and it is a religious statement.

Many people think that if they believe something is not true it cannot be a religious statement. But saying something is dead should have as much onus of proof as saying something is alive. Actually I believe it should have more since I experience everything as alive. In fact you have to be trained to think things are dead.

 

Ah, now Enmos. A glaciar is a lot more complicated than that. It has structure and organization. It can grow. It has a metabolism. (and these are easy for us to track. I am not accepting your limited definition of life, merely pointing out a case that should be hard for you to make a call on. I could have said 'an ocean' also.)

Look what my example has produced. Compared to John you are a weird semi-pantheist. Welcome.

 

I see your point, however "life" has a definition.
Glaciers do not qualify as life, trees do.

 

No, you just have to follow the scientific definition.
I see no reason to call anything not existing of cells life.

 

How does is reproduce or respond to outside stimuli ?
Come on, you agree that glaciers do not qualify under the scientific definition, right ?

Huh ?

 

Reproduce, I have problems with. You should know of course that glaciers have a very, very complicated inter-causal relationship with what is around them. But working with the definition you gave earlier I wanted to point out that a glacier fit.

I think it is clear that I consider the scientific definition too limited. Or, another way to frame the issue - I consider current technology and focus incapable of testing properly.

 

Why would you assume anything without a cellular structure to be alive ?

 

John thinks trees are not alive. He is not alone in this. To some degree he sees you as you see me. For a long time scientists thought animals were machines that do not experience or have consciousness. The set of things that are considered alive has been expanding in science. The set of things that are considered conscious is expanding.

I am quite sure science (and perhaps even the monotheisms) will catch up on this issue. But I am not sitting around waiting and tapping my fingers.

 

Do you agree that you cannot scientifically call glaciers alive ?

By the way, I asked you and Tht1guy whether or not I could be considered a pantheist. The answer was no.

 

Why do you think things are dead? Are your senses dull?

You assume that the onus is on me to prove that things are alive.

You also assume that the charactoristics of what we call cells are not met in other ways.