Quote:Suppose scientists discover a note somewhere in the universe, stating that God did make the universe and has all the attributes religious people claims he has. With the note, the scientists find a copy of God's licence of creation, so they can verify his handwriting, of course. This would be indisputable evidence that God does exist.Well I'd dispute even this part of the story. I don't think this would be "indisputable evidence" that God does exist. The note could have easily been a hoax, placed there by either someone on Earth or an alien observer.
I think the only thing we should say about the unknown is that it is that, unknown. If someone suddenly forces some attributes on the unknown, it makes sense to say we reject these attributes, because as previously stated, the unknown is just that, unknown.
Thus agnosticism and atheism are compatible and go very well together. Agnosticism in this sense might even lead to atheism, since any theistic claims about the unknown can automatically be rejected.
As for another name, I think we already have too many. I like atheism when it is defined properly as a disbelief, or even as a lack of belief as you put it. I don't think we need anything else, certainly not the "Brights" or any other attempt to make the name better. In all honesty, I think it would be easier to change the image surrounding the "atheist" label than to create another one that nobody knows about.
