This sums up atheism rather well

[baystater]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed but remember this is a forum on religion and it is very clear what the theistic cohort, especially those attempting to declare the universe and/or planet are themselves alive, are implying with the use of "purpose". It is the realm of "intent" and "objective" and it is to this use of the word I speak. Especially in someone who appears to be contriving to keep his terms as vague and wishy washy as we observe above.

Gaianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaia philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The thread is basically off course from it original intent to sum up atheism and are now discussing something much different.

2. I would say Arach Angle has at least severly bent (if not broken) the TOS rules for this board by trying to proselytize Gaianism. Please folks (and moderators) look carefully at the supposed "debate" we are having and the information we are recieving.

Don't get me wrong. A discussion of Gaianism is find...but...not on this thread or on the athiest board. It is a subject more for the main board.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed but remember this is a forum on religion and it is very clear what the theistic cohort, especially those attempting to declare the universe and/or planet are themselves alive, are implying with the use of "purpose". It is the realm of "intent" and "objective" and it is to this use of the word I speak. Especially in someone who appears to be contriving to keep his terms as vague and wishy washy as we observe above.

Are you talking about me. The only way my take would seem contrived is if you are untrained. But if you were trained, you wouldnt say it is made up. so what should I think?

and all I said was for you to look up "life" in a textbook. to keep it simple. Then I ask you to look up "what is space". Then we could talk more. Really I had hope you were train in science. guess you have some end game I don't have.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

Having a function is not at all the same thing as having a purpose.

Does the function of all the sytems in you look like they have a purpose to you?

I used Gaia for the non science trained person so they can go look up the science and all it entails to make a claim. Gaia is a well known example and an easy one to learn. I thought it would be easier.

either way you want to word it. compare life systems to earth systems. See how close they are. I really don't care either way. Line up the things that make a cell "alive" and see how closely the earth matches them. Then compare the systems an organism uses and how/what they are doing to those systems the earth uses and see how closely they match.

that is all I am saying. I had no idea that these people would start using an anti-religious attitude to fight it. I was assuming we would just use high school/college level science. Nothing real special.
Well, I was wrong again. Never let facts get in the way of a person's religion's opinion. either theist's or atheist's.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Does the function of all the sytems in you look like they have a purpose to you?

I used Gaia for the non science trained person so they can go look up the science and all it entails to make a claim. Gaia is a well known example and an easy one to learn. I thought it would be easier.

either way you want to word it. compare life systems to earth systems. See how close they are. I really don't care either way. Line up the things that make a cell "alive" and see how closely the earth matches them. Then compare the systems an organism uses and how/what they are doing to those systems the earth uses and see how closely they match.

that is all I am saying. I had no idea that these people would start using an anti-religious attitude to fight it. I was assuming we would just use high school/college level science. Nothing real special.
Well, I was wrong again. Never let facts get in the way of a person's religion's opinion. either theist's or atheist's.

You have it backwards. Biological life matches earth's chemistry, for the simple reason that life arose from earth's chemistry. What other configurations and processes would be likely?

I haven't been in high school for a very long time, but I deeply hope that you are not a representative example of what is being learned these days in high school science classes.

I am a huge admirer of James Lovelock, he is a very fine and careful thinker. He has said that he regrets creating the Gaia metaphor, because people such as yourself have read into it things that Lovelock never meant. The Gaia metaphor was meant to capture the idea that all the living and non-living processes on earth maintain a dynamic, shifting balance, just as individual living things do. He repudiates the idea that Gaia is a living organism, and he would never make the fundamental error of thinking that function implies purpose.

And, BTW, I *am* a science-trained person. Somehow, I doubt you are. I would certainly have never given you a passing grade in the basic college biology courses that I helped teach, if you had tried to use the ideas you have been espousing here.

[Arach Angle]

same can be said for the first life on this planet. Until the feedbacks started. I would say that the ear]ths bioshpere matched earth's chemistry too. Remember it was way smaller back then.

Moderator cut: eleted

And let me be clear what I am claiming. I claim it is more reasonable to treat earth like a life form than it is to treat it as non-life. That is it. nothing more special than that. No grand purpose, no grand reason yet. Just that is may be alive. and one single word "virus". You guys might have some hidden agenda that I dont have.

Now, just using simple definitions of life. Either a college textbook or the more general that we would see more energy in than out. if you are a science trained person you know life is very hard to define and what I said is true.. But I will discuss any definition you want. But most people in the know understand the confusions.

Now Picture earth from above and watch it. Describe what you see? Then look at a cell. Compare the proteins in a cell doing their jobs. Individually they look like they are functions. But when you look at the vast number of the functions what do they look like they are doing? They look like they are trying to keep the cell alive.

Now let's explore if it can be said for the earth? what system(s) isin place,that individually look like functions, but as a hole they seem to keep the earth living. Or habitable for the proteins to function?

Let start easy. Plate tectonics. What functions(s) does it do, that on its own is meaningless, but taken as a hole helps the earth look alive.

Keep in mind, that we could compare me to a cell and say that I am not alive based on cell life. But we know the reason for that kind of claim. What is similar in a cell.

[baystater]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Moderator cut: orphaneed

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Moderator cut: orphaned

From what I plainly see....bull is the denial. We can all see the posts you have made. Your "alive universe" and your explanations/examples/descriptions of it, is perfectly in line with gaianism. Hence why I put the links in. All posters/moderators here can compare what you have stated in your posts with the link I have provided. I believe it is pretty obvious Gaianism is the name of the game here. And there is no proselytizing on the atheist board....even if the philosophy/new age religion presented has a shred of scientific merit.


Moderators please check my work and you guys can decide who's right.

P.S. Arach Angle this thread is about summing up Atheism not about one's view of the earth or the universe. Basically you and the others are going off topic. Please instead start your own thread about your "living universe." Mystic PhD at least had the courtesy of doing that with the participants here.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Are you talking about me.

Did I mention you in that post? No. I did not. So move on.

The rest of your post is, as usual, an ad hominem commentary on what you imagine my biases and agenda to be.