So agnostics aren’t rational?
Let me clarify just a bit. I am asking you to take this hypothetical as fact. The aliens would show us undeniable proof, whatever it is I won’t speculate, that we, indeed, were a result of alien spawn or whatever…gene splicing, etc.
IMHO, I think the theists would have the hardest time by far. Their whole construct of reality would be shattered.
I think the atheists would be the second most affected because their world view, in part, would be turned upside down. Their theory of random particles colliding and coalesing in to a ball of dirt and water and then one day a lightning bolt hits a puddle of primordial ooze and the Frankenstein theory is born: Eurka!!! It’s, alive, it’s alive!!
The agnostics would adapt the easiest would adapt the easiest because they would shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, now we know for sure. But, how did the aliens get here?
I don’t see why or how. Even if our existence was the result of genetic engineering, there’s still plenty of room the Big Bang and abiogenesis to create the aliens themselves. Or are we assuming an infinite regress where every species was created by another one?
Less rational, or just dishonest. Who’s “agnostic” about goblins ?
Hardly. Not only is that not a very good description of the origin of life, the origin of life has nothing to do with human evolution. We came along MUCH later. For that matter, even if aliens created Earth 10,000 years ago, complete with fake fossils, where did THEY come from ?
All of human knowledge also shows no evidence against gods, either. You say that the theists are the ones asserting that God exists, and therefore the burden of proof is on them, but they can point out that you’re asserting that God does not exist, and that therefore the burden of proof is on you. The only ones without a burden of proof are the agnostics, who make no assertion, or those working from faith, who make no claims of provability.
Partially, agreed. I’m a Bright, believing in NOTHING supernatural, a naturalistic view, so to speak. The Theists obviously would be the most affected, the most open to ridicule, now having to confront proof that no god created them. We would see more twisting and turning in their story, now saying things like, “I guess god created the aliens to create us, so we really DO have intelligent designers.” :rolleyes:
Agnostics, IMHO, are more likely to create a new, TRUE church praising our new alien designers. They can praise themselves by having the same evidence show them that the man-made religions WERE wrong. Most agnostics I’ve met believe in a type or possibility of a god, definitely not the Yaweh or Jehovah in the sky.
Atheists (Brights included) are more open to new theories, especially one with aliens showing us proof of our creation. I personally would be most interested in talking with these aliens. I might be eaten like in Twilight Zone or “V” because anything is possible, but my interest in learning the details of any newly discovered fact would overcome any fears.
I will also point out that I know very few atheists who believe in exo-biogenesis or a big bang theory. I don’t believe in either as a possibility of Human existence.
There could be goblin like critters on some alien world. That’s what agnosticism is. An acknowledgment of the unknown.
Yeah, that sounds like a decent hypothesis. I’m curious, though, what is a “Bright” and also how do most atheists view ‘creation’ as coming into being?
Of course there is; the abilities attributed to gods typically violate physical laws.
And they’d be wrong. Disbelief is the rational default position, for everything. Especially for claims that violate physical laws, and in general make no sense.
The people working from faith have a burden of proof; they simply refuse to live up to it.
Why should this be disturbing? In 50 years, 100 tops, we’ll be able to do it. It would be interesting. But, as already said, the aliens would have evolved.
I think neither atheists or agnostics would be the slightest bit disturbed from being atheist or agnostic.
You know you (and me up thread) are painting a lot of theists with a very broad brush. Not all of them practice religions from the Middle East.
Aliens aren’t gods. I think most agnostics would know the difference.
Creation or man? Two slightly different things, and displaced in time by about 14 billion years. Man evolved. The universe expanded thanks to the Big Bang, but why that happened we don’t know yet, since we don’t know the fundamental makeup or matter and energy yet.
There’s no guarantee that the observed laws of physics are universal.
Why is disbelief more rational then deciding the question has no available answer?
OK, then, fine, I disbelieve the proposition that God does not exist.
But they appear to be. And they certainly apply HERE, where those gods supposedly meddle.
Because the odds of any evidence free claim being true is near zero, because the number of logically possible entities is infinite, or might as well be.
If I claimed that I wasn’t born, but that random molecular motion cause me to condense out of random molecules would you be “agnostic” about that ? Probably not; but that’s more plausible than God.
Don’t wanna sound like a salesman, but here’s the definition from the website http://www.the-brights.net/
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
Check it out on the web if you’ve got time.
Even though there are some famous atheists (Geisert, Dawkins, Melnik, etc.) we don’t have to agree or follow their views or beliefs.
As far as most atheists views on creation as coming into being… hmmm, good question.
I think, much like how many individual views of what Jesus or god is like or how they feel is equivalent to how many creation theories atheists have. Abiogenesis, big bang, an asteroid clipping another planet, scooping up minerals and landing on earth… whew!
Personally, I’m evolutionary for the most part. There are so many unexplored and baffling territories on Earth-- Oceans, for example-- that answers might just be right in front of us, or underneath something we haven’t quite looked at right. Many times, I’m convinced that the creation of humans can’t be just one element, but a series of events, either simultaneous or painstakingly gradual.
Can’t prove this, of course, but studies documented like the History of the Human Hobbit on History channel, or 340 planets discovered in 10 years are more examples of-- wha? Discoveries like this make me feel like asking some very detailed questions to the hypothetical gene-splicing aliens you posed. (This might make a good sci-fi series, seriously!)
Shit, I’m sounding like kanicbird. 
(Just kidding, kanicbird!)
True, a broad brush. I was thinking more of the American christians (fundamentalists, catholics, baptists…) Heck, think what these aliens could do to the Westboro Baptist Church!
And, you’re right, aliens aren’t gods, but some agnostics have told me a higher intelligence that exists doesn’t mean they had anything to do with creating us.
Aliens fit a higher intelligence, at least THESE aliens since they could splice together us silly bipeds. (!)
Good point. I sort of agreed a few posts up. We very well could’ve evolved on our own after a big bang occurred. Thanks. 
Here according to our scientific tests, yes, but science isn’t absolute. It’s a system for testing best guesses, not for finding absolute truth.
Reality is vast. What we can see may not be all there is. Five hundred years ago Quantum Mechanics would have been obvious madness. Yet it’s real. Reality is layer upon layer which we interpreted by perception. How deep these layers go? What is real that we fail to perceive? Who knows?
Well you’d have a nonzero possibility of being right, but since you’re here, and meaningfully testable, and governed by conventionally understood science I’d like to see some compelling proof before I’d consider it.
Now consider what if you really were assembled from random Brownian motion? If Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true there could be universes where exactly that happened. Would my default belief or disbelief change it happening? Can truth exist beyond evidence?
That’s silly. I’m a higher intelligence to my cat, but it doesn’t make me divine. (Unless peeing on my backpack was meant as an offering)