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

Simon Anders said:
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.
Click to expand...
I assume nothing, inanimate is the standard.
 
Enmos said:
Well.. if you are going to pick and choose what to belief of science.. :rolleyes:
It is quite clear that life is defined by it's cellular structure.
Click to expand...
It is clear to you. Obviously I am critical of scientific definitions. You could at least admit the possibility that scientific knowledge might be limited in this area. Nothing provisional about your sense of truth, I guess.
 
Simon Anders said:
It is clear to you. Obviously I am critical of scientific definitions. You could at least admit the possibility that scientific knowledge might be limited in this area. Nothing provisional about your sense of truth, I guess.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of life ?
 
Enmos said:
They fit the definition always.
Click to expand...
They were not considered life - in the first case - or conscious subjects - in the second case. In fact with the latter case your career could be in jeopardy for saying that animals had emotions and intentions.
 
Simon Anders said:
They were not considered life - in the first case - or conscious subjects - in the second case. In fact with the latter case your career could be in jeopardy for saying that animals had emotions and intentions.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that ?
 
Enmos said:
Do you have a link to that ?
Click to expand...
Actually When Elephants Weep gives a wonderful overview of this issue. You and I may disagree about what is and what is not alive, but I get the sense we both share a sense of wonder and interest in animals. I think you would love this book. The long introduction goes into great detail, with footnotes, etc. about the changes in the ways scientists have viewed animals. The rest of the book is anectdotal about animals.
 
Simon Anders said:
Actually When Elephants Weep gives a wonderful overview of this issue. You and I may disagree about what is and what is not alive, but I get the sense we both share a sense of wonder and interest in animals. I think you would love this book. The long introduction goes into great detail, with footnotes, etc. about the changes in the ways scientists have viewed animals. The rest of the book is anectdotal about animals.
Click to expand...

I will look it up sometime, thanks for the tip :)
 
John99 said:
You live in a house which for years (20) you have been using the front door only. One day you NEED to use the side door. When you got to open the door it hits a large tree.

What do you do?

You live in a house which for years (20) you have been using the front door only. One day you NEED to use the side door. When you got to open the door it hits a human standing there.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

:wtf:
 
Enmos said:
But one could say I'm almost a promoter of the "dead paradigm", which you say is "evil" and disrespects life and destroys nature.

I'm finding it difficult to come up with a good analogy.
So I'm just going to explain.. people that do harm to nature are not doing so because they believe in the "dead paradigm", but because they are stumbling morons in the first place that just happen to believe in the "dead paradigm" as well.
So it might be the tool of destruction but not the cause.
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.
There.. an analogy at last lol
Click to expand...

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 ...
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.
Well, the earth is alive, it breathes, things grow, it has life.
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. If they weren't how could you be.

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"

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.

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top