Re[2]: virus: Need description for Yahoo
Sun, 16 Jul 95 00:59:24 BST

Surely the descriptor "atheistic" is NOT rational, the atheistic
stance only being rational if the non existence of a "god" were to be
"proved". Would not the present rational approach be not to take a
stance either way?

My view on reading the text for the first time the other day (just
having joined the newsgroup) was that a) it was interesting and b) it
was (to me) slightly inconsistent.



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: virus: Need description for Yahoo
Author: Duane Daniel Hewitt <> at SMTPLink
Date: 18/07/95 17:14

On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, David McFadzean wrote:

> Great, though I would like to include the descriptors "atheistic" and
> "rational" if possible.

Yes, I missed those.

> Also, "mutagenic" may lose some people. I think
> I know what it means from the context, but perhaps simple "adaptive"
> would be better.

I was getting a bit carried away with throwing around jargon. ;-)

> Is the evolutionary paradigm really shattering the clockwork world? That
> is certainly dramatic (which has some appeal) but I view the paradigm
> shift as (not coincidentally) evolutionary.

I think there will be a discontinuity. Maybe I am a Singularity believer

BTW you were correct on Friday about my weakening stance on Rand.

> 2nd generation:
> Recent advances in knowledge have created an ecological niche in the
> idea-space of humanity for a rational, atheistic religion. Virus fills
> the void with an integrated conceptual framework that is self-consciously
> adaptive, engaging the invigoration of constant renewal through directed
> evolution of memes (ideas).