Atheism and being Armenian

[yerazhishda]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Who/what/how was original matter created? The Big Bang must have had material/energy to start with, no? Until someone can find the answer, we are both working on faith regarding the metaphysical nature of the universe.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

I believe that at one time there was a religion that followed Zeus. I don't believe Zeus exists because there is not credible historical reference of him ever existing. I believe in the Christian God. Atheists and I might agree about Zeus and other gods but it is up to Atheism to provide proof for the next "No God" belief.

That's not how it works. So, you don't believe in Zeus, so you have to provide evidence that he doesn't exist? That's proving a negative. You don't seek evidence for every single thing you don't believe in. Have you "disproven" the existence of pink unicorns?

Let me explain how and why Atheism is a religion. For example Zen Buddhism is atheistic, meaning they don't believe in God, but categorically Zen Buddhism is a religion.

There's no set of beliefs among atheists and it doesn't seek to explain the Universe. Buddhism (original) has a set of principles,but doesn't seek to explain the world either. For that reason I've expressed doubt about whether it should be classified as such either.

Who/what/how was original matter created? The Big Bang must have had material/energy to start with, no? Until someone can find the answer, we are both working on faith regarding the metaphysical nature of the universe.

Euf... It just goes on and on... I point out this wasn't the topic of the thread, but we keep going nevertheless...

It makes ZERO sense to ask what came before the big bang. I don't think we know that any matter was "created" exactly. We know the universe expanded in explosion like fashion. We learn more and more all the time. Science seeks to discover the answers to these questions (ie truth) and it is self-correcting. As there's more observations, more data, more experimentation, etc we gain information and we revise theories.

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't seek to discover anything new. There's an explanation that hasn't changed since the texts were written (eh, before that even I guess). It's not meant to change. If we did find answers to these questions (if the past is any indication), it's doubtful still that it will change. There's no correction. Religion is not flexible and it does not seek new information.

The fact that we lack an answer to a particular question, just means we have more work to do. More to learn... It doesn't make sense to say if you can't offer an alternative explanation backed by evidence, then you must accept this other unsupported conclusion.

E.g. If you can't explain how this pencil appeared on my desk then we must accept the explanation offered by my coworker that it was constructed and carried there by a team of very tiny tree elves.
Damn, that reminded me of the Keebler elves...

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

That's not how it works. So, you don't believe in Zeus, so you have to provide evidence that he doesn't exist? That's proving a negative. You don't seek evidence for every single thing you don't believe in. Have you "disproven" the existence of pink unicorns?

So back to your hair that was on fire. Nobody will believe that your hair was on fire because it's your word against mine. I can prove that your hair was not on fire (there is no damage, it has healed). After a long period of time, the evidence is gone so you can't prove that is was on fire. I have more proof of a negative than you do of the truth. There were people that thought all swans were white until they saw black swans with their own eyes. Why does it have to be a pink unicorn? Do you believe in white unicorns?

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

You have no evidence it happened, not evidence it didn't happen. Your thought process is backwards. Lack of evidence for is not evidence for opposite.

[Yeznik]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

That's not how it works. So, you don't believe in Zeus, so you have to provide evidence that he doesn't exist? That's proving a negative. You don't seek evidence for every single thing you don't believe in. Have you "disproven" the existence of pink unicorns?

On the contrary that is exactly how it works. I would recommend reading the 4th century Armenian Church Father, Saint Yeznik of Kolb “The Refutation of the Sects”. The whole point of two sides discussing whether Zeus exists or doesn’t exist has brought us to a point that Zeus not only doesn’t exist but other mythological gods and creatures don’t exist. That is why I am extremely skeptical about Atheism, because Atheism is about not believing in God, but based on what? Again what is the proof for Atheism? If we assume Atheism is based on personal convictions or events, then it is no different than any other religion.

There's no set of beliefs among atheists and it doesn't seek to explain the Universe. Buddhism (original) has a set of principles, but doesn't seek to explain the world either. For that reason I've expressed doubt about whether it should be classified as such either.

Both Atheists and Theists seek to explain the Universe regardless of having a common set of beliefs. I have listened/read arguments and discussions by Stephan Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer (he is an agnostic) and Christopher Hitchens from the Atheistic side just to name a few. And I have also listened /read arguments and discussions by C.S. Lewis, John Lennox, Stephan Meyer and Dnesh D’Souza (sorry about the spelling mistakes), from the Theistic side.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

You have no evidence it happened, not evidence it didn't happen. Your thought process is backwards. Lack of evidence for is not evidence for opposite.

Lack of evidence is all that is needed to prove something didn't happen, that is precisely the point. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Siggie]

Lack of evidence is all that is needed to prove something didn't happen, that is precisely the point. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Who's proving what didn't happen? What wouldn't mean what didn't happen? Your wording couldn't be more confusing. Try again?

On the contrary that is exactly how it works. I would recommend reading the 4th century Armenian Church Father, Saint Yeznik of Kolb �The Refutation of the Sects�. The whole point of two sides discussing whether Zeus exists or doesn�t exist has brought us to a point that Zeus not only doesn�t exist but other mythological gods and creatures don�t exist. That is why I am extremely skeptical about Atheism, because Atheism is about not believing in God, but based on what? Again what is the proof for Atheism? If we assume Atheism is based on personal convictions or events, then it is no different than any other religion.

So your reason for not believing in Zeus is that clergymen said he doesn't?

You don't need proof for not believing in something! Accept the null by default, reject if sufficient evidence to do so.
It is assuming the null. Nothing exists without something persuasive enough to suggest it does. You can't even conceive of enough things not to believe in precisely because you don't believe in things there hasn't been evidence of.

Both Atheists and Theists seek to explain the Universe regardless of having a common set of beliefs. I have listened/read arguments and discussions by Stephan Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer (he is an agnostic) and Christopher Hitchens from the Atheistic side just to name a few. And I have also listened /read arguments and discussions by C.S. Lewis, John Lennox, Stephan Meyer and Dnesh D�Souza (sorry about the spelling mistakes), from the Theistic side.

Exactly, everyone wants to (think they) understand the world. But the atheism doesn't speak to their understanding of the world. However religion does tell you what you should believe about the world, the origin of things, etc.
I'm familiar with those folks; what's your point in bringing them up though?

[Yedtarts]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Stuart Chase

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible

Irish Saying

I believe in the sun when it's not shining, I believe in love even when I feel it not, I believe in God even when he is silent.

Meister Eckhart

God is at home; it is we who have gone for a walk.

Sigmund Freud

Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief

Albert Camus

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

So back to the original question....

I suddenly had the urge to come back after a long, long, LONG time. I hope this will be interesting.

I recently gave a presentation on 'Faith and Reason' at a philosophy conference, and afterward I was asked by someone if it is particularly hard for me to be an atheist as an Armenian. It wasn't a question I had thought about much before, as I tend to consider culture and religion two separate categories (though there absolutely can be overlap between the two). Certainly someone can be an Armenian who is also an atheist, such as myself, but my question to you all is if you believe religiosity is something necessary (or at least extremely important) to the Armenian experience? Why or why not?

Reason without faith is just as bad as faith without reason.

You're Armenian by birth, you had no choice in the matter. It was decided for you. Your only choice is how to live your life and whether or not you leave an Armenian legacy behind. Also, I don't think anyone can be 100% atheist if they've had previous exposure to religion. If your childhood surrounding was theist, you already absorbed some traits attributed to a theist upbringing. Unless, of course, you were raised in isolation. So the Armenian experience is what you make of it as an adult.

[Jinx]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Reason without faith is just as bad as faith without reason.

Actually I really appreciate that first line, because that was basically what my talk is about. I'm actually not really all that anti-faith. I think we all take things on faith, in sort of the pragmatist kind of way. We don't have any guarantees or absolutes about how the world works, but we have the best ideas (and most useful idea) based on good reasons to have them. Faith is necessary, Reasons are good, Faith without reason is bad.