Do you believe in God?

[phoenix_fire]

"Do you believe in God, Andrei?"

"No."

"Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know."

"What do you mean?"

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own."

From "We The Living" Part One Chapter 9

I just want to discuss why people that believe in a paradise-type afterlife, God, etc. places him out of reach and that we can never achieve the highest possible.

From my perspective, the question is inherently flawed. It presupposes that God is just an invention of the human mind and His attributes can be messed around with as much as any individual wants. I believe in a God WHO IS what HE IS, who is eternal and unchanging. Not a God of my own imagination. I'm going to take this opportunity to make a few observations.

1. To a lot of people, God is just a bigger version of themselves, or the product of their idealism, or an amalgam of different things brought in so they can feel better about universalism and stuff. I find this to be an incorrect belief: a kind of idolatry. But I suppose I can see how secularists would try to generally attribute this to all believers, since some do it. I maintain, however, that God IS WHO HE IS, regardless of who we want Him to be. In other words, He is a real and actual entity.

2. Interestingly, the question in the quote is more upside down than the writer knew. Christians are supposed to have a huge interest in this world: in living each day fully according to God's will and working hard for Him until it's time to go home. A lot of people think they can just get baptized and then continue along doing whatever they used to do and wait for death. That was never really the plan. But since some do it, I can see how secularists would generalize it.

3. Thinking little of oneself is generally a good attribute. With that preoccupation out of the way, it gives them time to think of others. "A life spent to the fullest" should not be confused with a life spent in hedonism. And I don't necessarily mean wild debauchery when I say "hedonism". I simply mean the single-minded servitude of self, whatever that looks like for the individual. But why should one not do that if one will entirely cease to exist in a few decades or less? Or perhaps you will cite acts of service or opportunities of self-deprivation like dieting and exercise as a counterpoint. But why do people do these things? In a secular view, are not acts of service done to make others think more highly of you, to feel better about oneself, and/or to receive some kind of compensation in the form of a tax break, favorable PR, etc.? Do not diet and exercise have the aim of making oneself more attractive, thus gaining a higher degree of adoration (theoretically) from others?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

From my perspective, the question is inherently flawed. It presupposes that God is just an invention of the human mind and His attributes can be messed around with as much as any individual wants. I believe in a God WHO IS what HE IS, who is eternal and unchanging. Not a God of my own imagination. I'm going to take this opportunity to make a few observations.

1. To a lot of people, God is just a bigger version of themselves, or the product of their idealism, or an amalgam of different things brought in so they can feel better about universalism and stuff. I find this to be an incorrect belief: a kind of idolatry. But I suppose I can see how secularists would try to generally attribute this to all believers, since some do it. I maintain, however, that God IS WHO HE IS, regardless of who we want Him to be. In other words, He is a real and actual entity.

2. Interestingly, the question in the quote is more upside down than the writer knew. Christians are supposed to have a huge interest in this world: in living each day fully according to God's will and working hard for Him until it's time to go home. A lot of people think they can just get baptized and then continue along doing whatever they used to do and wait for death. That was never really the plan. But since some do it, I can see how secularists would generalize it.

3. Thinking little of oneself is generally a good attribute. With that preoccupation out of the way, it gives them time to think of others. "A life spent to the fullest" should not be confused with a life spent in hedonism. And I don't necessarily mean wild debauchery when I say "hedonism". I simply mean the single-minded servitude of self, whatever that looks like for the individual. But why should one not do that if one will entirely cease to exist in a few decades or less? Or perhaps you will cite acts of service or opportunities of self-deprivation like dieting and exercise as a counterpoint. But why do people do these things? In a secular view, are not acts of service done to make others think more highly of you, to feel better about oneself, and/or to receive some kind of compensation in the form of a tax break, favorable PR, etc.? Do not diet and exercise have the aim of making oneself more attractive, thus gaining a higher degree of adoration (theoretically) from others?

That's a really poorly put argument..."he is who he is." Who is he exactly? Everything you think he is, he is to you, not anybody else. That inconsistency rules out your claim that your first type of theist holds an "incorrect belief."

Actually, I really think most theists get baptized, do the normal Christmas/Thanksgiving routine and barely attend church. And heaven still opens its doors as long as you pray and forgive your sins before you die. So why care any more than that? Surely your God thought about that one...

[phoenix_fire]

That's a really poorly put argument..."he is who he is." Who is he exactly? Everything you think he is, he is to you, not anybody else. That inconsistency rules out your claim that your first type of theist holds an "incorrect belief."

Actually, I really think most theists get baptized, do the normal Christmas/Thanksgiving routine and barely attend church. And heaven still opens its doors as long as you pray and forgive your sins before you die. So why care any more than that? Surely your God thought about that one...

Not really.

The "I AM who I AM" part came from the Bible when Moses asked God in the burning bush how he would explain all this to the Jews. It was intentional. It means that He has a unique identity. As I said before, it basically means He's real. He is His own consciousness and He may do things you don't like or can't understand. Therefore, He cannot be the figment of someone's imagination. You may think things about me that may be correct or incorrect, but I am who I am. You may think I have brown eyes, you may want me to have brown eyes, someone may have told you that I have brown eyes, you may think I absolutely should have brown eyes, but the inescapable fact is that when you meet me, my eyes will be blue because I am a real person and my eyes are the color that they are.

As to the other, I'm sure they do and I'm sure that a lot of people believe that. And I'm not the one who has the office of judging that. But the Bible says "faith without works is dead". Indeed, most people seem to confuse "faith" with "belief". But there's a world of difference between believing that this man is my husband and being faithful to him. I can believe that he is my husband the entire time that I am in bed with someone else.

[HelioPrime]

I just want to discuss why people that believe in a paradise-type afterlife, God, etc. places him out of reach and that we can never achieve the highest possible.

You can't assume just because someone believes in an idea of a creater that were limiting our own aspirations. Does only an athiest truely aspire to be a great human being?

To answer the question yes I believe in a creater, but acknowledge that none can know its true form, and that all religions are just forms of worship developed to suit whatever culture they developed from.

The only rules I believe to be true would be to treat others as you would want (golden rule) and be true to yourself (become what you want, not what will make you worthwhile in the eyes of others)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Not really.

The "I AM who I AM" part came from the Bible when Moses asked God in the burning bush how he would explain all this to the Jews. It was intentional. It means that He has a unique identity. As I said before, it basically means He's real. He is His own consciousness and He may do things you don't like or can't understand. Therefore, He cannot be the figment of someone's imagination. You may think things about me that may be correct or incorrect, but I am who I am. You may think I have brown eyes, you may want me to have brown eyes, someone may have told you that I have brown eyes, you may think I absolutely should have brown eyes, but the inescapable fact is that when you meet me, my eyes will be blue because I am a real person and my eyes are the color that they are.

As to the other, I'm sure they do and I'm sure that a lot of people believe that. And I'm not the one who has the office of judging that. But the Bible says "faith without works is dead". Indeed, most people seem to confuse "faith" with "belief". But there's a world of difference between believing that this man is my husband and being faithful to him. I can believe that he is my husband the entire time that I am in bed with someone else.

You gave that quote an intellectual basis for our discussion. However you then tell me that it is supposed to mean "he" is real, that he said it, but some other guys wrote it down a long time ago, and now that is supposed to hold the same intellectual basis?

If it was intentional, why does he SAY he is real? But not show us he is real? Plus, do you even have biblical support for your analysis of this quote? Or is all of this from your own mind?

And please, please don't use "therefore" unless your actually making a logical argument. Some fictional stories, like Star Wars for instance, use Godly powers to demonstrate parts of the story. Of course, all of the characters think these powers are real, whether they are real characters or nonfictional ones. Just because a book that PEOPLE wrote tells us something, there is no "therefore," no logical transition at all, that would make us believe the words on a document are telling the truth. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, all I have to do is look at your eyes, because you exist, and I can see them with my own eyes, not just my imagination of what your eyes might look like.

"Faith" has many definitions, such as believing even the slightest bit that something will happen, or an entire devotion to a belief. It's however you choose to use it. So really, even those Christians that barely go to church and pray and whatnot...they're still full of faith. If they want, of course.

The Bible also explains that at any time you can be forgiven by God for what you have or haven't done on Earth. So skipping the metaphor of "faith without works is dead," the bottom line stands that your God doesn't give two craps as long as you believe in him at the end and pray for forgiveness. Some easy prerequisites right there if you ask me.

[Architect]

If God "Is who he is" and is undefined by imagination, how do we know that he is who he is, let alone even is. If God is beyond our universe and our understanding, how is it that we are even able to comprehend the concept of God?

As for the OP, someone said that there are a thousand reasons for people believing in god(s), but I contend that the main ones are Location and upbringing. Most are following the gods of the local culture and/or the gods of their parents. This is (IMHO) an irrational reason to believe in any gods without some empirical evidence. Some people will feel comfort in talking to an invisable friend just like a child gets comfort in talking to their invisable friend, but most children eventually grow out of their invisable friend and turn it in for a new invisable friend that their parents like to talk too.

I agree that the main reasons people initially believe in something spiritual are location and upbringing. I only meant that there could be thousands of reasons for people to continue to believe in God and the afterlife after they've begun to believe in God.

[Jack]

Do you believe in God?

No.

[GSM:Xtreme]

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing.

I don't think I understand. When talking about life, what are you referring to? Their physical existence, their spiritual existence, the soul--also "quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body", or something else? I'm sure once I understand that thinking, I may understand the rest of the logic.

[christibe]

That's a really poorly put argument..."he is who he is." Who is he exactly? Everything you think he is, he is to you, not anybody else. That inconsistency rules out your claim that your first type of theist holds an "incorrect belief."

Actually, I really think most theists get baptized, do the normal Christmas/Thanksgiving routine and barely attend church. And heaven still opens its doors as long as you pray and forgive your sins before you die. So why care any more than that? Surely your God thought about that one...

Maybe it has to be a poorly formed argument because it is not a natural occurrence which can be debated? If God exists, God just is, no matter what you say or think. God would by existing create its own definition of itself, one it may or may not choose to make you privy.

Not 'most theists'- most Christians. Don't lump all theists in with Christians. Christians are a small bit of the theist pool.

oh right, i do not 'believe in' god, so to speak, that is, it doesn't matter to me anymore- to the op.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Maybe it has to be a poorly formed argument because it is not a natural occurrence which can be debated? If God exists, God just is, no matter what you say or think. God would by existing create its own definition of itself, one it may or may not choose to make you privy.

Not 'most theists'- most Christians. Don't lump all theists in with Christians. Christians are a small bit of the theist pool.

oh right, i do not 'believe in' god, so to speak, that is, it doesn't matter to me anymore- to the op.

Your initial argument is equivalent to the 3rd grade "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it." Why? Because you are stating you are right for nothing more than a simple stated fact, let alone your complete rejection of any natural or logical deduction for that fact to actually stand. I could say the same in that he is just a figment of man's imagination, and you would have no argument. Instead you would ask the questions man has been unable to answer since his existence, pointing to the obvious reason for why man believes in God(s) to begin with---his lack of knowledge.

Actually Christians number over 1.2 billion, nearly 1/5 of the world population. Hardly a "small bit" of the theist pool. Also, 90% of the theists here are Christian. ALSO, it saves me a crap load of time to address all theists at once, because then the wise guys add their own particular religious differences in the mix, no matter how irrelevant or miniscule they may be.

[christibe]

Your initial argument is equivalent to the 3rd grade "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it." Why? Because you are stating you are right for nothing more than a simple stated fact, let alone your complete rejection of any natural or logical deduction for that fact to actually stand. I could say the same in that he is just a figment of man's imagination, and you would have no argument. Instead you would ask the questions man has been unable to answer since his existence, pointing to the obvious reason for why man believes in God(s) to begin with---his lack of knowledge.

Actually Christians number over 1.2 billion, nearly 1/5 of the world population. Hardly a "small bit" of the theist pool. Also, 90% of the theists here are Christian. ALSO, it saves me a crap load of time to address all theists at once, because then the wise guys add their own particular religious differences in the mix, no matter how irrelevant or miniscule they may be.

Sure, but I don't think god exists, I just have compassion for the faith that others have.

According to Hinduism by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Worldwide there are 946,387,375 people of Hindu Faith.

That's not a small bit either.

What's with your attack? Faith doesn't stand up to debate because it is ultimately an unshakable belief. Isn't it?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Sure, but I don't think god exists, I just have compassion for the faith that others have.

According to Hinduism by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Worldwide there are 946,387,375 people of Hindu Faith.

That's not a small bit either.

What's with your attack? Faith doesn't stand up to debate because it is ultimately an unshakable belief. Isn't it?

why do you have compassion for the faith of others? That doesn't make sense to me...

My point was I address more people easily when I reference Christians. Otherwise when I reference "theists" I am claimed to group them all together. Can't have it both ways,

Obviously faith cannot at all be a valid part of a debate. Faith is the simple fact of believing in something, while to others it means a little more. No where in there is there a why, who, what, or how that would interest any particular debate.