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

[Enmos]

I cut that fucking human down! At the knees.

And water the tree.

My idea

lol

 

[Tht1Gy!]

My idea

lol

See we can agree. You just need to accept that you are your own personal saviour. And that sand has babies. Then You can go to heaven... no wait... i meant...

 

[Enmos]

I did not say 'this thing' or 'that thing' is evil. I said I don't believe in evil. What you can infer from what I have said is that the 'dead paradigm' enables malevolence.
But even that can be seen as an extreme. I don't consider all who buy into the 'dead paradigm' malevolent. Thoughtless maybe, Close minded, or ...

I didn't "buy into the 'dead-paradigm'" at all. I came up with it on my own, I suspect most did.

Folks who ravage the earth for resources do so largely because they see the planet as a chunk of rock spinning in space that as a whole is dead.

Compare with a shovel or a piece of string.
Both can be used to kill people but are not intended for it, and are actually very useful items.

Well, the earth is alive, it breathes, things grow, it has life.

I think you won't be surprised if I disagree there
Although I can see potential common ground.. can you elaborate ?

Let's try this analogy using 'As above, so below' to get us there: You and I are alive, (well I am, at least,lol) all of you is 'alive'. You wouldn't say I'm alive but my cells are not. Well go down further your chromosomes and DNA do the whole reproduction thing ok they are alive. All of you is alive. Still with me? Well the molecules and atoms that make up that which is called Enmos are also ALIVE.

Cells are alive, not sure about bare DNA..
Molecules and atoms are definitely not alive.

If they weren't how could you be.

Because thy are organized in such a way that a cell can reproduce, has metabolism, grows.. etc
That is what we call life.

You build a car out Lego, with specific characteristics.
It has wheels so it can ride the floor.
It color pattern is for instance blue/white.
Etc, etc.
Can every individual Lego piece be said to have all the characteristics of the car ?

Is a grain of sand 'alive'? That depends on your point of view. It's not going to go out and party, get drunk and get another grain of sand pregnant or anything.
But it is imbued with the same 'energy contained' that makes up all of matter. And that energy is "Life"

I disagree again, this energy does not exhibit all the properties that define live. See Lego car example.

As far as Satan is concerned: As you know I believe in the existence of the soul. I also believe that the soul can/does transcend death. I further believe that if enough souls/people believe in or put energy into a concept, like Satan, that it is entirely possible for a malevolent soul to say "Hey that sounds like fun. I'll go do that" Which is to say If there is a being called Satan, he's of the christians doing. They conjured him. And by direct implication, they and the jews conjured Jehovah. Of course Jehovah maybe a soul conjured by Abraham or Moses, and they were unable to contain or control him.

Do you also believe a rock has a soul ? Because if you do we have a problem on our hands

I do not think Jehovah is the creator.

I have a song that starts:
Satan and God were buddies back before time began,
when Satan walked up to God and said "Jehovah I have a plan.
I can prove my powers of persuasion, I'm just as good as you.
So let's roll the dice and play the game, the loser buys the brew."

If I were to believe that I would definitely be anti-Satan and anti-God

 

[Enmos]

See we can agree. You just need to accept that you are your own personal saviour. And that sand has babies. Then You can go to heaven... no wait... i meant...

Huh ? lol

 

[Tht1Gy!]

I didn't "buy into the 'dead-paradigm'" at all. I came up with it on my own, I suspect most did.

Bullshit! That's like saying if I never heard of Newton, I came up with gravity.

Compare with a shovel or a piece of string.
Both can be used to kill people but are not intended for it, and are actually very useful items.

I fail to see the usefulness of the dead paradigm

I think you won't be surprised if I disagree there
Although I can see potential common ground.. can you elaborate ?

Have you seen An Inconveinent Truth"? Gore talks about the 02 and C02 cycle and how it resembles breathing

Cells are alive, not sure about bare DNA..
Molecules and atoms are definitely not alive.

Maybe I'm wrong; doesn't/don't DNA reproduce?

Because thy are organized in such a way that a cell can reproduce, has metabolism, grows.. etc
That is what we call life.
You build a car out Lego, with specific characteristics.
It has wheels so it can ride the floor.
It color pattern is for instance blue/white.
Etc, etc.
Can every individual Lego piece be said to have all the characteristics of the car ?

Too much typing for me right now. My previous post took an hour and a half.

I disagree again, this energy does not exhibit all the properties that define live. See Lego car example.

Maybe here's the problem; Energy doesn't have life, it is life.

Do you also believe a rock has a soul ? Because if you do we have a problem on our hands

Let me respond (not answer)with something a zen guy said to me regarding this very issue: Until you understand rock-ness you will not understand why there are rocks.
I realize this doesn't answer your question, but well it's Zen.
Think.

If I were to believe that I would definitely be anti-Satan and anti-God

Not God, Jehovah. And I trust you've figured out my feelings on Jehovah.:bugeye:

 

[Enmos]

Bullshit! That's like saying if I never heard of Newton, I came up with gravity.

Huh ? No it isn't..
Of course I took all the information from science, but there are scientists that would completely disagree with me.

I fail to see the usefulness of the dead paradigm

The usefulness wasn't the point, it was just to illustrate that those objects are in themselves harmless.

Have you seen An Inconveinent Truth"? Gore talks about the 02 and C02 cycle and how it resembles breathing

I didn't see it. But there is a distinct difference. The Earth is a closed system, organisms are not.

Maybe I'm wrong; doesn't/don't DNA reproduce?

It doesn't grow.. like I said I'm not sure about DNA itself.

Too much typing for me right now. My previous post took an hour and a half.

Please get back to this later, this is quite an important point.

Maybe here's the problem; Energy doesn't have life, it is life.

Then what use has the word "life" ?

Let me respond (not answer)with something a zen guy said to me regarding this very issue: Until you understand rock-ness you will not understand why there are rocks.
I realize this doesn't answer your question, but well it's Zen.
Think.

Well no.. that doesn't answer anything
To be honest I don't know what to do with it either.
Could you define your concept of "soul" ?

Not God, Jehovah. And I trust you've figured out my feelings on Jehovah.

lol yep

 

[Simon Anders]

Compare with a shovel or a piece of string.
Both can be used to kill people but are not intended for it, and are actually very useful items.

Well, it was useful for a while for Hitler to use race based theories to work Germans into a fury at Jews and to do what he wanted with them. Some tools have a tendency to be bad. There is nothing we get out of assuming the earth in general is a non-living thing. You can have all the same geological theories and information without deciding either way

 

[Enmos]

Well, it was useful for a while for Hitler to use race based theories to work Germans into a fury at Jews and to do what he wanted with them. Some tools have a tendency to be bad. There is nothing we get out of assuming the earth in general is a non-living thing. You can have all the same geological theories and information without deciding either way

Primarily, I don't view anything to be non-living.
I just reserve life for organisms.
And that makes a lot sense to me.
We can argue all we want, but "life" is defined and the definition does not include non-organisms such as rocks.
You can call an apple an orange, but that doesn't change the fact that the two fruits are distinctly different.
In the end you guys are just inventing your own definition of live.

We should be able to describe what I call life without using the word "life".
So here it goes. Only if something has all of the following characteristics it is called life (I took these from Wiki by the way):

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.​

Do you agree that rocks do not meet these criteria ?
If you do, we agree that rocks are not alive.
If you don't, explain how rocks have all of these characteristics.

Sorry to be a bit blunt here.. but this is the definition. If something meets all the criteria we call it life.
In all fairness you should come up with another word for what you call life.
I hope this post doesn't anger you or anything, that isn't my intention, I just mean to be clear

 

[Simon Anders]

We can argue all we want, but "life" is defined and the definition does not include non-organisms such as rocks.

You do understand that certain people defined life a certain way and other people define it differently. Further that some people think that technology may not be able to register the life in certain things , yet.

Notice your grammar in the above sentence. 'Life is defined'. This is the passive form. In the passive form the subject, in this case the one who does the defining, is left out of the sentence. This implies that something 'simply is'.

Of course these definitions may be incorrect.

Sorry to be a bit blunt here.. but this is the definition. If something meets all the criteria we call it life.

Ah. 'We.'

In all fairness you should come up with another word for what you call life.

No. If you read When Elephants Weep, there is a kind of overview of how animals were referred to in scientific literature and how they were not allowed to be referred to. descriptions of animals or animal behaviro that could be critized as anthropomorphization could actually damage your career up into the 60s. Now it is OK to use words about emotions, intentions, consciousness, etc. in reference to animals that were not OK to use back then. The category of anthropomorphization in relation to animals has gotten smaller.

A layperson back then was not misusing 'anger' when they applied it to an animal, even though current scientific habit would have said it was anthropomorphizing the animal and 'we really don't know'.

There are people who feel the world is primarily a non-living or dead thing with a thin scum of life on it. They want to word things one way. There are others who see and experience life where this first group does not. The first group does not own the words.

We have a conflict of opinion.

But I notice you did not respond to the primary point I was making. There is no need for science to decide that it could recognize anything living and so if it cannot see it now the object in question is not alive. As I said, geologists do not need to decide. Their theories are just peachy without being either atheistic in relation to the planet being a living thing or theistic, to use these terms as metaphors. There is no need for this tool, as you referred to it. You can simply chart processes as they have, colllect information, and make predictions, etc. If one day this turns out, even for scientists, to be data about the body of a living thing, fine. If not, not. Even from a science perspective there is no need to use this dead world tool.

You really think we would recognize all the life forms out there. I truly doubt it. Hell, we are still struggling to accept the fact that women and 'colored' people are just as human as white men.

There is a tremendous tendency to think only that which looks the same as me has life and consciousness. It seems like white people have had the hardest time with this one, especially the men.

 

[Enmos]

You do understand that certain people defined life a certain way and other people define it differently. Further that some people think that technology may not be able to register the life in certain things , yet.

Notice you grammar in the above sentence. 'Life is defined'. This is the passive form. In the passive form the subject, in this case the one who does the defining, is left out of the sentence. This implies that something 'simply is'.

Of course these definitions may be incorrect.


Ah. 'We.'
No. If you read When Elephants Weep, there is a kind of overview of how animals were referred to in scientific literature and how they were not allowed to be referred to. descriptions of animals or animal behaviro that could be accused of anthropomorphization could actually damage your career up into the 60s. Now it is OK to use words about emotions, intentions, consciousness, etc. in reference to animals that were not OK to use back then.

A layperson back then was not misusing 'anger' when they applied it to an animal, even though current scientific habit would have said it was anthropomorphizing the animal and 'we really don't know'.

There are people who feel the world is primarily a non-living or dead thing with a thin scum of life on it. They want to word things one way. There are other s who see and experience life where this first group does not. The first group does not own the words.

We have a conflict of opinion.

Yes, I don't think we are going to agree.
I would like you to respond to the apples and oranges argument though if you don't mind

But I notice you did not respond to the primary point I was making. There is no need for science to decide that it could recognize anything living and so if it cannot see it now the object in question is not alive. As I said, geologists do not need to decide. Their theories are just peachy without being either atheistic in relation to the planet being a living thing or theistic, to use these terms as metaphors. There is no need for this tool, as you referred to it. You can simply chart processes as they have, colllect information, and make predictions, etc. If one day this turns out, even for scientists, to be data about the body of a living thing, fine. If not, not. Even from a science perspective there is no need to use this dead world tool.

What about Biology ?

You really think we would recognize all the life forms out there. I truly doubt it. Hell, we are still struggling to accept the fact that women and 'colored' people are just as human as white men.

I realize the may be lifeforms out there that we have not discovered yet, but to science (biology) rocks certainly are not alive.
Perhaps the definition will be adjusted in time as we uncover more and wonderful lifeforms, but I'm certain that rocks will not be among them.

And about women and black people.. wtf ?
It's not at all like that where I live, at least not in my circles. Sure there are some imbeciles, but they are found everywhere and they can be imbeciles about just about anything.

There is a tremendous tendency to think only that which looks the same as me as life and consciousness.

I know, and it's disturbing.
I realize though that you mean something else

It seems like white people have had the hardest time with this one, especially the men.

You aren't a racist now, are you ? Come on..


You didn't answer my question though. Do rocks meet the criteria ?

 

[Simon Anders]

I would like you to respond to the apples and oranges argument though if you don't mind

I did. You are part of the group that considers it best to assume that everything is an apple unless proven otherwise. Oh, we have proven that bacteria are not apples. They are life. I experience a different world where more things are alive and intelligent. And for all you know science may one day back me up. Right now I see no reason to assume the world is a dead thing with a scum of life on it. And this does not fit my experience.

What about Biology ?

The same goes for Biology. It does not need to start with the assumption that life is rare and most things are dead. It loses nothing being agnostic on the subject. Right now we know these things are alive. Other life forms may be discovered and other things we cannot by our current methods detect or prove are living may turn out to be living.
That seems rational to me. It fits with history, as the category has increased membership. And it loses nothing. An issue you again have not addressed.

I realize the may be lifeforms out there that we have not discovered yet, but to science (biology) rocks certainly are not alive.
Perhaps the definition will be adjusted in time as we uncover more and wonderful lifeforms, but I'm certain that rocks will not be among them.

Are you sure they are not part of the living body of the earth?

And about women and black people.. wtf ?
It's not at all like that where I live, at least not in my circles. Sure there are some imbeciles, but they are found everywhere and they can be imbeciles about just about anything.

Most people on the earth were imbeciles until very recently in human history, scientists included who also backed up racial prejudices with 'theories'. My point is that what is declared a part of a certain set shifts over time, including in science.

Your assumption is that current scientific knowledge and technology is final. It is not. You are also assuming that the best way at all truths is via science. I disagree.

We are not going to agree on this one. It seems to me what you keep trying to get me to do is somehow admit you are right. As if I 'must' for some reason. I have pointed out reasons for people to be humble in relation to final proclamations - which are hardly scientific anyway.

I understand your position very well. It seems like you think I should yield authority. No. You are not the authority nor are the people you assume should be the authority on everything necessarily right. I would also guess from your posts that you have studied biology at University less than I have, an irony that is getting irritating.

I see little difference arguing with you on this issue from arguing with a Catholic about the Pope.

So let's drop it.

I am, in any case.

 

[Enmos]

I did. You are part of the group that considers it best to assume that everything is an apple unless proven otherwise. Oh, we have proven that bacteria are not apples. They are life. I experience a different world where more things are alive and intelligent. And for all you know science may one day back me up. Right now I see no reason to assume the world is a dead thing with a scum of life on it. And this does not fit my experience.
The same goes for Biology. It does not need to start with the assumption that life is rare and most things are dead. It loses nothing being agnostic on the subject. Right now we know these things are alive. Other life forms may be discovered and other things we cannot by our current methods detect or prove are living may turn out to be living.
That seems rational to me. It fits with history, as the category has increased membership. And it loses nothing. An issue you again have not addressed.

Are you sure they are not part of the living body of the earth?

Most people on the earth were imbeciles until very recently in human history, scientists included who also backed up racial prejudices with 'theories'. My point is that what is declared a part of a certain set shifts over time, including in science.

Your assumption is that current scientific knowledge and technology is final. It is not. You are also assuming that the best way at all truths is via science. I disagree.

We are not going to agree on this one. It seems to me what you keep trying to do is somehow admit you are right. As if I 'must' for some reason. I have pointed out reasons for people to be humble in relation to final proclamations - which are hardly scientific anyway.

I understand your position very well. It seems like you think I should yield authority. No. You are not the authority nor are the people you assume should be the authority on everything necessarily right.

I see little difference arguing with you on this issue from arguing with a Catholic about the Pope.

So let's drop it.

I am, in any case.

Ok.. I just want to say that you didn't get my points.
You're on the wrong track about me as well.
But never mind, you probably think the same about me.
Thanks for having this discussion so far with me though

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Enmos, I'm not sure what you are having problems with in regards to what Simon is saying. For the most I doubt I could say it better. (I know I'd resist all the typing)

Here's a thought experiment: Just for a minute, no, for a day, think "All things extant are alive, on some level. We just haven't found/discovered how to detect, or measure it yet." And see how the universe looks or changes. And then the next day feel free to return to your previously scheduled paradigm.


I mean, atoms have only recently been detected yet they existed. In other words, atoms did not come into existence only at the moment of detection.

About the Lego thing: See here's where theism, pan-theism, gets involved; I see 'life' as 'spirit' kinda like the trinity in Catholicism: Mind/Spirit/Matter, There is 'information' or a 'pattern' around which 'energy' or 'spirit' condenses and becomes or is 'matter'. And as everything is part of the macrocosmic Whole or oneness, it cannot be separated, all are (is?) imbued with spirit.

http://www.motionmountain.net/ It talks about how nature is one and there can be no separateness... pg 1374



A flippant way to think of this; We're just figments of god's imagination.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos, I'm not sure what you are having problems with in regards to what Simon is saying. For the most I doubt I could say it better. (I know I'd resist all the typing)

Here's a thought experiment: Just for a minute, no,for a day, think "All things extant are alive, on some level. We just haven't found/discovered how to detect, or measure it yet." And see how the universe looks or changes. And then the next day feel free to return to your previously scheduled paradigm.


I mean, atoms have only recently been detected yet they existed. In other words, atoms did not come into existence only at the moment of detection.

Well, I'm not sure what your and his problem is with what I am saying.
I act pretty much in accordance with what you two are saying (perhaps even more than you guys do yourself), only I don't believe stones are alive.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

I act pretty much in accordance with what you two are saying (perhaps even more than you guys do yourself)...

Well, I'd have to grant that point, mostly.

(... perhaps even more than you guys do yourself):bugeye:

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Maybe a jaunt to your local coffee house or pub might help.:m::shrug:

Amsterdam, Lucky Bastard!

 

[Enmos]

Well, I'd have to grant that point, mostly.

(... perhaps even more than you guys do yourself):bugeye:

Key is "perhaps".. look at the shit I get from some people here. It's the same in real life.
It's almost like "You WALK AROUND a snail, instead of crushing it like the dumb animal it is ? Hahahhaha ! LOSER !"

 

[Enmos]

Maybe a jaunt to your local coffee house or pub might help.:m:

Amsterdam, Lucky Bastard!

No thanks

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Key is "perhaps".. look at the shit I get from some people here. It's the same in real life.
It's almost like "You WALK AROUND a snail, instead of crushing it like the dumb animal it is ? Hahahhaha ! LOSER !"

Admit it, You're a closet Jain, aren't you?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

No thanks

Am I at least right as to where you live? I thought I read that in your posts somewhere.