Re: Why atheism beats agnosticism (Was: Re: Contacting God)

ChuckKuecker (
Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:02:35 -0500 (CDT)

At 01:02 4/23/98 +0200, you wrote:
>> From some public statements made by atheists around here, I would be >
tempted to define atheism as a fervent belief in the NON existence of > a
supreme being...
>Indeed, atheism is (often) more than just saying "it's extremely
>unlikely that god exists", but also "it is not _desirable_ that god
>exists". It's about understanding that, certainly for a transhumanist,
>the existence of god is _not_ "neutral", but very, VERY bad. All our
>efforts would be futile. After all, don't we want to become gods
>ourselves? No such luck if the job has already been taken...(remember:
>if god existed he would _not_ be "nice", just look at this deathist
>planet and universe. Being omnipotent = being responsible for all that

That is one of the views I have held for quite a long time. The Christian
Old Testament god is a particularly nasty critter..if this is the way things
actually run, I will be quite happy to take my rightful place in Hell.

However, I don't think the universe is 'deathist'. Life is just localized
reversal of entropy. As such, it appears the universe is out to get
us...Actually, for the universe to be 'deathist' would presuppose some sort
of controlling organization that cared one way or the other, would it not?

>> I shall continue as a quite vocal agnostic until I find sufficient >
evidence to change..
>And I shall continue as a quite vocal atheist until someone can present
>sufficient evidence of god's existence and/or that this would not be a
>disaster for humanity and transhumanists in particular.

If there are gods or a God, I have a hard time seeing any reason why this
being would have any particular interest in the goings-on of Terrans or any
other lifeform, except as far as these beings could evolve to a level
capable of providing stimulating conversation or competition...

Chuck Kuecker