virus: Logic and Purpose

Reed Konsler (
Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:15:41 +0100

>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:08:33 -0500
>From: Sodom <>

>I was putting
>forward, that either way, to statement that we have "thrived" is a
>misconception in all ways except reproduction.

I agree completely, as I said later in the post you were replying to:
"I agree that "thrive" and "progress" are relative terms."

>> But I could say "Gender differences and discrimination cause a lot
>> of strife and wasted resources, if we didn't have sexes and genders
>> we might already be moving between the stars." or

>Gender differences are driven everywhere by religion.

If I reversed that assertion:

Religions are driven everywhere by gender differences.

Does it make any less sense?

>language does cause confusion, but most would argue that the benefits of
>language far outweigh it's problems.

Sure, I certianly agree. Some people would make exactly the same
argument about religion. That was my point.

>I would argue that it is everything you have stated, plus religion. The
>discoveries of Israel and India are both pretty small and based upon the
>previous development of others. Now there is enough mathematical and
>technical know how in the world, that any country with the resources,
>could become a powerful scientific country. I am not ascribing science
>to the lack of religion in the state, but to the lack of fanaticism by a
>state's religious masses. As for the old Soviet Union, they were
>repressive and their technology suffered for it, but remember, they
>still have a space station, were the first into space, and have one of
>the strongest science bases on the planet. The United States and Japan
>were the only countries that could claim technical superiority over the
>USSR 10 years ago. Admittedly the gap was and is growing, and this is
>mostly likely due to the other forces you mentioned.

I'm not arguing with your impressions of history or politics. It
isn't a question of what you "would argue" but what you can
DEMONSTRATE. Otherwise, the paragraph above is so much
hot air. What I'm asking you is how you will prove that religion
causes all the problems you assert it does given that THERE IS
NO CONTROL GROUP. Religion is universal to
might as well argue that civilization would get along better if the
atmosphere wasn't full of all that carbon dioxide.

>An assumption is not faith at all, an assumption is flexible and not
>held to correctness other than to test something. An assumption can be
>easily dropped.

I disagree. :-)


Reed Konsler