Is it true that Viruses are not truly living organisms?

Oddly enough, there's quite a debate in the scientific community about this. Personally, I'm in the "non-living" camp. Viruses can't replicate without a host. They can't respond reliably (or at all) to stimuli. These are only a couple of the conditions that are required for life, and viruses, as fascinating as they are, do not full them.

Is it true that Viruses are not truly living organisms?computer protection

I think therefore I am

Is it true that Viruses are not truly living organisms?free antivirus download

Depends on your definition of what is living and what isn't. Viruses have genetic material, can multiply and evolve, so I am inclined to consider them living.
yes.

virus not consider as a living organisms.

;)
probably living in the brain-word-conta dic tion
By the current scientific definition of "living" they are not.

There are a multiplicity of criteria which viri do not meet, including free multiplication.
well viruses comes under the twilight zone i.e. it possess some characterstics of living and some of non living but the most important things in viruses are that, the possess DNA so the major share of it being a living organinsm rest here.
There are 7 characteristics of life: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.