Nanothoughts, nano thoughts, and random missives from various electric headz.
I think that Audhumla might be more than just a theory: Science vs. Norse Mythology
4/13/2005 04:43:00 PM
A while ago somebody asked me how I could call myself an atheist, since a rational person must admit that there's no way they can know if god exists or not.This article underscores my general response to such questions. Nobody ever says "Well, you can't really know if Zeus is real or not!" Nobody calls themselves Odin-agnostic.
I disagree, there are a fair number of agnostics who would probably use the argument that God or Gods are unknowable no matter if they are Judeo-Christian, Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Shinto or whatever.If you are an atheist, do you have "evidence" for this belief or do you accept that there is not a God/gods based on faith? (Then, the atheism becomes almost just another religion.)I myself am currently a Judeo-Christian deist, if that makes any sense.I posted this link because while I believe religion, spirituality and supreme beings are a good thing (and should be taught in the proper context in school), they do not belong in science class at all. And Intelligent Design doesn't belong in science class either.
I agree that the proposition that there are no "gods" is an unprovable one. Just as unprovable, in fact, as the assertion that there are no Leprechauns or Faeries.While an agnostic must admit on technical grounds the possibility of any theological system that doesn't conflict with observed realities, my point is that the systems that are currently popular are, from a rational perspective, no different than beliefs that most people would consider ridiculous.
I agree with what you're saying as one man's religion is another man's myth.
Post a Comment