Thanks mangeorge! I don’t disagree with your current description of “need”. It’s just that too often in my life I’ve heard the smug religious peron huff “At least I have morals because I believe, whereas those Godless atheists don’t have any morals.” Annoying. Condescending. And then there are the smug atheists who huff “At least I am not so weak as to need a religion to help me be moral.” Both annoying, condescending, and both incorrect (for the most part) in my mind.
Rousseau:
The copyright date is 1998. It’s available from Amazon. That’s where I got it.
Oh, and by the way, you can go straight to the chapter titled, “God and the Limbic System.” He does deal some in the book with phantom limbs and other things.
Well, while we’re recommending books, allow me to second David B’s mention of Michael Shermer’s How We Believe.
The pattern-seeking, story-telling, myth-making explanation seems logical to me. But it would, to a heathen. 
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
The argument that only God could create the human mind is can be proven wrong if medical science discovers the mechanism of thought and consciousness. If said understanding could be duplicated by artificial means then the theists arguments would collapse. Interesting, when Pope JP2 issued his statement on evolution he made a comment that should have made the front pages of every newspaper in the world, that the body may have evolved but the human mind comes from God and attempts to explain it through natural means is against human dignity! The Pope just dismissed the entire field of cognitive neuroscience!! When science does finally understand the brain the Pope will be proven wrong and since Catholic doctrine states this is impossible I wonder what the Catholic theists say then.
Rousseau: “Name for me one animal that creates art”
How about bower birds?
An unfortunate, if mundane, fallacy.
It could as easily be argued that our ability to figure it all out and replicate it is evidence that it was intelligently designed.
Has anyone ever, in the midst of a philosophical debate, said “You know, you’re right”, and adopted the beliefs of the other person? 
Peace,
mangeorge
You know, mangeorge is right. 
To believe in something means to not fully know the facts of the matter. I, to this day, have not figured out what will happen to me after I die. Accordingly, I have many beliefs of what will happen. I used to believe in heaven, but I’ve always been uneasy with the idea because of inconsistencies, so I let it go. I’ve many times speculated that absolutely nothing will happen after I die, but part of me just refuses to believe this (the human brain is hardwired for survival, thus to die, to truly die, is completely unnacceptible. But who knows, as I get older, perhaps my views of death will change. I can kinda sorta feel it even now, but I digress.) I pick up odd beliefs from time to time (I’m a computer program created by my REAL self, my REALLY masochistic self). It’s my beliefs that keep me going.
There’s always another beer.
If God does exist, will God need/wants praises, devotion and acknowledgement? I think we’re pushing human’s characteristics and thoughts into God’s personality while I guess we will never know how God is really like.
Phil did after quite a bit of discussion.
The bowers of the bowerbirds have a purpose that preceeds personal expression. Name for me one animal that creates things solely for the purpose of expressing beliefs or emotions.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
I think believing in god is simply an intelligent strategy. Simply by the argument of “better safe than sorry”
4 scenarios:
a) if there is a god
1. you believe, that’s good
2. you don’t believe, I hear his wrath is vicious
b) if there is no god
3. you believe, ah well, no harm no foul
4. you don’t believe, ah well, you got lucky
How can one think that one loses nothing after a lifetime of believing God and discovering that there’s no such being? What about disillusion and losing faith and living a lie for so long?
Back to what I was asking, how do we know that God is wrathful?
Sorry Rousseau, but your’re not getting away that easy. Again I ask, how does your argument prove the existance of YOUR god? Will the answer be:
- It does because (fill in the blank with a logical and passionate explanation)
- I don’t have an answer so I’ll take the cheap “out” and insult slythe again.
- It doesn’t.
Care for a Lifeline?
What?!?
I thought Rousseau gave several reasons for her personal belief. (At least I think there were reasons in her rather lengthy post! ;)) That’s what the OP requested, right?
I hope this isn’t going to mutate between some debate about “Why are you so stupid as to believe/not believe” between your and Rousseau. (And if I recall, you were the one to first challenge her post in a somewhat condescending manner. Not that there weren’t possilby a few strains of condescension in her posts…oh hell…just start another thread if you’re going to duke it out!)
To the OP:
I think the primary reason people convert is D. Experience. I came to God at the age of 8 primarily because of the love of my parents and their consistent lifestyle. Could I have articulated that? No, of course not. Did that end my quest? Again, no. I had to work out issues. I had to grow and understand. But at no point did I come a contradiction of who my parents were and who I wanted to become. In time, my personal experience of getting to know God better was all the evidence I needed.
Subsequent to developing a relationship with God, I have come to see (A) Design, Nature, etc. as evidence for God (I didn’t say proof.) I see **(B) scripture ** as corroborating evidence. I have come to respect © Authority is as much as it doesn’t contradict who I know God to be. (Augustine and I would disagree over some things.)
This is what I hope for my children. Two of the three have come to God (the third is only 9 months.) We have anecdotal evidence that they have come to God for the same reasons my spouse and I came to God many years ago. They see loving parents who attribute their ability to love to a relationship to God. Can they articulate this, yet? No. Will they have struggles? You bet. Will they retain their faith? We have every reason to believe that they will as we have. Could we be wrong? Yes, but not likely.
Successful conversions rarely come from fear or pure reason. By successful, I mean those who ultimately develop a sincere desire to be Christ-like (in a Christian context, anyway.) They come from relationships with people of faith who demonstate true love.
I dare say that if any atheists or agnostics converted, it wouldn’t be due to the arguments in these threads. It might be because, for example, Poly & Lib, et al, demonstrated caring, and empathy towards Glitch in the Could you believe thread. They also demonstrated what I call righteous anger toward the professing christians who did Glitch much harm.
If Glitch ever changes his mind, I would guess that (D) Experience with God through true christians will be the key catalyst.
I don’t mean to speak for Glitch. The Could you believe thread is just a convenient example.
Tinker
So, Tinker, if we atheists demonstrate caring and empathy and a consistent lifestyle, will you convert to atheism?
Yosemitebabe, Rousseau tried to use faulty logical reasoning to justify belief in her particular god. I pointed out the fault in her logic, NOT her emotional reasons for believing. For this, from the miss, I got dissed and dismissed.
Sorry, dude; Roussey’s not a chick. Try this:
“for that, from the cat, I got a fiat and we went to the mat.”
[It’s the Atheist Rap!]