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

Michael Lorrey (
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:56:16 -0400

T0Morrow wrote:

> <> writes:
> > 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....
> Structuring your worldview solely to satisfy your ideology strikes me as a
> dangerous project. Gods may or may not exist at present. Most understandings
> of theology make the question utterly unresolvable in a theoretic sense (thus
> encouraging principled agnostism). Practically speaking, of course, sensible
> people find it useful to assume that gods do *not* exist, and to act like
> atheists in a day-to-day sense. But none of that justifies embracing
> *theoretical* atheism from fear of the anomie that could follow facing
> possible truths. Better, I think, to cut the bluff and learn to live with
> limited facts.

However using Occams razor, if no other alien races in the universe have acheived
godhood status through a singularity cultural evolution already, then it is also
highly unlikey that we could acheive such status. if it hasn't been done already
by some other race, its not likely we will be able to do it in the future....

> > 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.
> I take it that an atheist in fact asserts that gods do not and cannot exist--a
> claim that cries out for positive proof. But, again, most understandings of
> theology deny that scientific methods will suffice to resolve the question of
> god's existence. Scientists typically agree that they have little to add to
> theological disputes. Defending atheism thus take more than mere rejection of
> theism; it calls for the sort of proof that, ex hypothesis, cannot obtain.
> I used to think myself an atheist--until I decided that even denying the
> existence of gods gives too much credit to theology. I now cheerfully admit
> ignorance about whether gods exist . . . though that does not prevent me from
> theorizing about what I might make possible.

I won't claim that they cannot exist, but I find it highly unlikely that if
becoming godlike is a possibility in this universe that the universe is not
teeming with such beings evolved from other alien species. That we are not being
harassed and dominated by at least one of these beings right now indicates to me
that either a) they actually cooperate (another highly unlikely possibility) and
have embargoed our planet, or b) they do not exist in this universe. If becoming a
god requires one to go to another universe, then of course, it is as good as not
being one at all, as far as we are concerned...

Mike Lorry
(while some may celebrate my recent absence from the list, due to a major system
crash...I will be back in full force shortly...)