virus: A tip of the hat.

Nathaniel Hall (
Thu, 09 Oct 1997 21:12:34 -0600

Sodom wrote:

> Marie, I can't agree about religion, though I admire the attempt to
> qualify religion as an attempt to explain the existence of the energy we
> seem to agree exists. I see no reason, either currently or historically
> to believe that religion is interested in explaining what is happening
> in the universe around us. It is more interested in molding our thoughts
> to what they would like reality to be. In my opinion this is done in an
> attempt to dominate and control others. Religion is about power over the
> ignorant. When religion was the dominating philosophical force on the
> planet , advancement for the people on all fronts (violence, equality,
> life span etc...) was at a near standstill. In the short time that
> science has been gaining ground (the last 400 years say) We have become
> quite advanced. No one in this forum would even be able to communicate
> without the advancements in science we have made in just the last couple
> of decades. People use the atomic bomb as an example of the evils of
> science - well, what is evil about the bomb? there have only been two
> used, and a small number of deaths associated with them (Auto accidents
> in the US outstrip the bomb in only four or five years when it comes to
> fatalities) Though the potential of the bomb is serious, the
> advancements gleaned from this knowledge have led to a huge improvements
> in the way we live, and have insured security for our country and many
> others that could not be achieved otherwise. I am a pacifist and despise
> weapons of mass destruction, but understand that my like or dislike is
> irrelevant - does anyone really believe the US has to be concerned about
> an invasion? Of course not, no nuclear power worries about invasion.
> (except perhaps Israel which is a religious state surrounded by
> religious states)
> I don't see that religion offers ANY insights not obtainable through
> common sense alone. I was raised an Atheist from the start and in
> general find myself of stronger moral character than most religious
> people I know. I cannot kill, because death is final and complete, there
> is no "heaven" to send people to. I cannot harm another without a
> logical reason such as self continuation or defense of anther's
> continuation. I started studying religion in my early teens, and to this
> day am sickened by all religions I have discovered. This is due to one
> thread of thought in religion, and that is "divinely inspired infallible
> truth" positioned by all major religions and many minor religions.
> Science, on the other hand, is nothing like religion. Science has a
> single purpose - learn what is learn able. My opinions change every time
> a better scientific theory comes about. I cannot afford to let my
> personal tastes dominate over logic, though they try mightily. Before I
> discovered the Church of Virus, I had already determined that the three
> major necessities were Life, Love and Logic - not too dissimilar from
> Reason - Empathy and Vision.
> Life: This is so valuable because unlike most other things, we each only
> get one, and it is finite. Logically, because of it's scarcity, it is
> extremely valuable.
> Love: I consider this to be "Empathy" in the Virian Virtues.
> Logic: So far the best tool we have to guarantee growth and
> understanding.
> Now that I know the Virian Virtues, I must admit that I like "Vision"
> quite a bit too, but that seems to me to be the natural condition of a
> healthy mind.
> Answer to your question: Universe is NOT infinite, it is a closed
> system that so far obeys the laws of physics as we understand them. As
> this understanding grows every day, our Universe becomes a little
> smaller and our physics becomes a little more accurate.
> I must agree with some things you say though, I love poetry, literature,
> art and the like. I am a musician and am very pleased with the
> electro-chemical reactions that happen in my brain when I am releasing
> "creative energy". But nothing about these tastes argue against science,
> I will agree that science however has yet to explain precisely the
> nature of creativity. In fact, as you say, there are still mysteries -
> more mysteries than answers. I think that without these mysteries to
> pursue, existence for me would be without "value".
> I would like to see a "Religious insight" that depends upon religion for
> it's conception. Can someone demonstrate this?

Wow! I like your writing!
The Nateman