Virus: Living or non living?

In microbiology, we don't refer to a virus as living, but essentially as a replicating compound this is why antibiotics (anti-life) aren't used to treat viruses, unless the antibiotics in question also possess some degree of antiviral activity (and some do.)

Now, I don't completely agree with this, but in terms of science, viruses are compounds, not organisms.

"Living" is an arbitrary term invented by humans to separate things we consider 'life' from what is 'non-life'. When ever you try to impose an arbitrary definition on a system you are bound to come up with some blurred areas. A virus is capapble of reproducing itself (part of the definition of life). Cells are more complex in structure. So is a virus alive or not? It certainly doesn't seem to fit into the same category as a rock or a gas - these cannot reproduce themselves.

It is true that there are noted exceptions to cell theory. Viruses are not cells. Also, the first cell didn't come from another cell (cell theory states all cells come form other cells).

Technically viruses are non-living or just on the cusp of life.

Unlike single celled organisms, viruses seem to be completely passive until they encounter a host cell where they immediately infect it, take it over and make it produce other viruses.

It's still debatable. Maybe the virus is the precursor to the single-celled organism.....

non-living, it needs a host cell to function. thats why anti-biotics do not work on it the stop the ability for an organism to do functions needed to maintain life.

if it doesn't have a cell to infect it just lies dormant.

It actually ambiguous in the scientific community whether a virus should be considered living or non-living. My vote is for "living-ish".

Viruses are one of those "iffy" things that are right at the threshold of what constitutes life.

Non-living, IMO.

Yes, according to that strict definition of "life" viruses are not life.