Farz karo, Khuda hai.

Suppose one day somebody proves that God exists. There is something or somebody which is running the world and to whom we can pray and who/which can listen. Would that prove that you (you= theists) were correct in the first place? Would it be right for you to say ' i told you so' ? No it won't be!

What I am saying now is that since we have not proved that existence of God, so I won't believe in it. What you (theists) say is that God exists. You argue, you lose the argument (or start bringing up absurd arguments) but don't stop believing, which you should. Beliefs are always based on logic. We can't believe what we 'want' to believe. (Unless you are disinterested in truth).

But if tomorrow we found out that God exists, and then you start to think that you were so right and I was wrong, I would still call you a moron (harsh word, replace with a softer one. I have a bad vocab).

Suppose, once there were two sets of people. One who believed that earth is round, the other who believed that earth is flat. Just like that, No reasons. Both sets are idiots. But when some guy travels across the ocean, he comes to know that earth is round. Does that mean the first set of people was right?

I am saying all this because I have heard people telling me, that one day you will realize that God exists, and then you will regret saying all this. I am just clarifying beforehand.

Why Reason (sounds strange :P)

(If you don't get why the title should sound strange.. that is because I am going to give reasons for why we should value reason!)
----x-------------------x----------------------x--------------------
The first thing I would like to clarify would be why is 'why' not meaningless, why is reason not baseless.
(That is because I really have seen somebody saying this!!)
If anybody considers reason as baseless, this would mean that according to him arguments and discussions can't really exist, because we can end all discussions by saying that 'reason itself is baseless so why to discuss'. Discussion implies that we are going to use reason.
One more,
When I use this sentence (reason=baseless), this means that I am actually giving a 'reason'! A reason to prove my point, that since reason is baseless, I win and we have to stop talking about it.
So, if reason is baseless, then we all should just shut up and sit at our homes, not talk.
But you didn't do that, right? You just said that 'reason is baseless'! Contradiction.
But since I have used reason to prove that you are actually making a contradiction, according to you all this would be baseless. You win.
----x-------------------x----------------------x--------------------

Now what is reason. I would say, that it is a statement, which is when dug up even deeper, we lead to a premise. And a premise is something which is true. (or rather assumed to be true.. which might make reason baseless..).

Now, the only premise that exists according to me is  "I want ____". Fill anything in that blank. Every reason that I give leads to this.
I believe this because I have found reasons for everything I believe, but not for this particular sentence which I am calling as a premise.... All the arguments that I make, sab khod khaad ke yaheen pahunchta hai.
I also think (but I don't believe it as of now) that a reason for this sentence does not, and cannot exist. That this is the thing for which we are living, that we want to do the things that we want to do. May it be being a rapist or may it be being a soldier.

----x------Some more explanation, if required----x-----
When I say I want something and want to dig out reasons for that, all I get are some other I want's. And then some more I want's again. Recursion you see. But it always ends on one I want something. Last wale I want ka reason kabhi nahi mila mujhe. Sochke lagta hai ki milega bhi kaise. Tumko mile to batana.
----x------Some more explanation, if required----x-----

One more thing. Say a discussion is going on. What I believe is that more than on person can't be correct. An ideal discussion will lead to a unanimous conclusion. Why?
Firstly, I think discussion can't take place if everybody doesn't follow the same set of premises. Because then there won't be any point of discussing stuff. If we are arguing whether drinking is right or wrong, all of the participants have to have belief in some particular, and common set of premises. For example, if all of us believe that 'harming somebody else's life is not a good thing' then, and ONLY then, we can make the argument 'Drinking is bad because after drinking you might fight and kill somebody'. or else this can't be said. And if this argument is valid, and there is somebody who doesn't agree to 'drinking is bad' , then that somebody is actually making a contradiction. because he is violating a premise.
If some people believe in that premise and some people don't, then the argument will be accepted by some people only. Then it would be a deadlock I suppose. No points to make after that. Discussion ends.
(It all actually works according to the books!)
(But disagreement might occur where GD is about predicting something.. like violence vs non-violence to reach freedom, or should we take up this project or that project for the success of a company. all this is hypothetical.)

What my problem is?
Whenever we say something for which we can't find an argument, we say that 'reasons do not exist for some things'.(when I say 'we', it doesn't include me)  Why is that? If you can't find a reason, don't believe it.. until you find one! Realize that you use reasons in every discussion you do. When you discuss something with somebody, you want to win by reason, you want to prove yourself right by using some set of premises. Why not discuss someday with yourself? Why to let somebody's imagination become your belief?