Reasons for Belief

[geckopelli]

Since there's a "reasons for non-belief" thread (which seems kind of strange?),
I thought it would be only fair to give voice to "reasons for belief".

I don't have any.

Anyone else?

[BlackGuardXIII]

a kinda afterlife insurance policy just in case?

[geckopelli]

Many an atheist has converted on his death bed for that very reason.

Reminds me of that scene in the mummy where the guy prays to every god he knows about until he finds the one in charge at the moment; a very practical individual!

[Peace Attack]

Because non existance is too scary for some folks.

[BlackGuardXIII]

cowardly hippocrites


I have actually heard the just in case, or nothing to lose reason from people in different words.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Because non existance is too scary for some folks.
Existence is whats scary. non existence sounds pretty peaceful.

[geckopelli]

Are we then reduced to labeling believers as wretchs so fearful of the future that they have developed elobarte fantasies built upon a fragile, indefensible psychosis to protect themselves from the notion of THE END?

Is religion the ultimate hole in which to poke one's head and hide from the future?

[thumontico]

Yes geckopelli. One would not see it that way, however, religion is the buffer between the need for rationality and irrationality. Often proposed: there are just thing humans cannot understand. Why? Because what is actually in front of them leaves them forlornly.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Are we then reduced to labeling believers as wretchs so fearful of the future that they have developed elobarte fantasies built upon a fragile, indefensible psychosis to protect themselves from the notion of THE END?

Is religion the ultimate hole in which to poke one's head and hide from the future?
You label as you wish. I support believers and accept their faith as being just as true and valid as yours or mine. I have seen these elaborate fantasies myself in dreams, and then later in the daytime, in perfectly accurate and identical form. It is neat how the psychosis is able to exactly and to minute detail, show events weeks, months, and even years in advance. I kind of see that as the opposite of hiding from the future.

[geckopelli]

Don't get me wrong- I'm just hoping to lure someone into elaborating on the basis for belief in a supernatrul super entity.

but I've been trying for a long time; all fundamentalist and creationist do is attack science without ryhme nor reason.

If they have a case for thier beliefs, they won't present it. "It's in the bible (or whatever)" doesn't cut it.

I'll have everyone know I first came to this forum to refute a particular atheist who did not quite grasp the extant of the repercussions of the knowledge he posses. Science does NOT preclude the existence of a possible god. But it doesn't indicate one, eithier.

[Sera Michele]

Many an atheist has converted on his death bed for that very reason.

Reminds me of that scene in the mummy where the guy prays to every god he knows about until he finds the one in charge at the moment; a very practical individual!Well I wouldn't know what to convert to myself...I guess I'll just hope for reincarnation :p

[POPthree13]

Reasons for beleif... I am not sure what I beleive, but it is based on:


Not being able to find the physical holder for my consciousness.
Not understanding why prime directives of life would invent themselves (and hold true to every life form on earth without exception).
Not understanding why life seems to consciously strive for complexity and order.
Experiencing 'non-physical' connection to people in other times/places.
Experiencing synchronicity/intuition which I let lead my life.
Studying life systems which carry out complex, multi-generational data exchanges without a real brain or even physical contact.
Studying novelty... just where do new ideas come from. Psychology would tell you there is no such thing as a new idea. Yet we keep coming up with them.

Those are my reasons for claiming to be a theist agnostic.

[thumontico]

What does it mean 'physical holder'? If you are refering to an absense of explaination of consciousness, you are misinformed. Consciousness is accounted for psychologically and physiologically through certain parts of the brain. I didn't pay attention in my psych class so I couldn't tell you what they are.

What prime directives are you refering to? I would not say anything applies necessarily to every life form on earth. On what level of terminology are you referencing 'prime directive'? Please elaborate on this.

As I am sure I have misinterpretted your meaning please elaborate on the need for life to strive for complexity and order. However, it is the nature of the nervous systems of all conscious beings to organize outside stimuli as the process of transduction occurs on the neural level. As for the question why this occurs could be answered by a neurologist or a more motivated layman. Also what do you mean strive for complexity. I would say that only humans strive for complexity, insofar as creating art and technologies, as we are the only beings we are aware of capable of such abstract and spacial processessing.

As I question first the validity of these accounts of non local connections, I do not deny the possibility. However, I deny such an occurence to be beyond the conception and underlying ability of comprehension of humans, ultimately. Therefore, my main problem here is the assumption (in my assumption) that you believe a God would be essential for such a phenomena.

Synchronous occurance cannot exist by means of some greater direction with the acceptance of free will. Intuition shows, at its essence, no reliance upon a God.

Complex, multi-generational data exchanges without a real brain or even physical contact = INSTINCT.

I don't know what you are talking about on the last one.

[geckopelli]

Off the cuff, I'd say that survival and procreation are prime directives of life.

The Universe itself strives for complexity, and so does life. Not on individual terms, but on evolutionary terms.

A"theist agnostic" suspects the existence of god (or such), but does not claim to know the nature of such.

Or am I wrong, popthree13?

[BlackGuardXIII]

geckopelliOff the cuff, I'd say that survival and procreation are prime directives of life.

The Universe itself strives for complexity, and so does life. Not on individual terms, but on evolutionary terms.





I believe, and also sincerely hope, that there is more to it than just sex and aggression. This is what Freud felt were the only motives for all our actions.

I do not disagree with the 2nd line, but would like to know what you mean by 'strives'. The universe would then be sentient, yes?