Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[Silver]

And I am speaking from what I believe to be the truth. I believe you have deluded yourself. The experiences you have had were NOT of God, but were, instead, a type of brain fart. After that, you get confirmation bias.

BUMP for statement of brilliance.

[KevinM1]

Who's pretending he doesn't exist?

I honestly, truthfully, don't believe in your god.  Indeed, I think he's fiction.  My question had to do with the Christian mentality of willful surrender, and how it's viewed as an admirable trait/state of being.  I doubt I'll ever truly understand it, but I'm willing to try.  Not because I want to believe (again, I'm utterly convinced your god isn't real), but because I'm trying to better understand the people who do.

Finally, I've always been incredibly honest about my lack of belief and my motivations for being here.  It's not my problem that you're somehow incapable of believing me.  Maybe you should take a page out of my book and actually attempt to at least somewhat understand the people you're talking to?  Or are you too prideful to man up yourself?

 I have accepted Christ and know He is real and no one could ever convince me other wise, I've experienced Him on a level that is undeniable. I have come to better understand atheist, that's why I have stayed so long. You may truly believe that God isn't real, but that doesn't mean He isn't. My experiences are personal but within those experiences God has proved to me that He is who He says He is leaving me nothing to do but accept His existence. I've yet to see any atheist bring forth any information to show God doesn't exist, I've seen multitudes of excuses and because of that I said that atheist pretend He doesn't exist. I can't pretend and wouldn't because I would be denying truth and that is an unacceptable thing to do, truth is a precious thing, this God has taught me in a awesome way.

GC

You realize that my atheism has nothing to do with whether or not you have the right to believe in a god, right? I honestly do not care if you believe or not, and I'm not attempting to deconvert you. I understand that theists are deeply concerned with increasing their flock, but not everything happens through the filter of proselytization.

Regarding information about showing how god doesn't exist, how would one go about doing that when god is unfalsifiable?

---

One of the (many) things I don't understand about Christianity is the notion of wanting Jesus to be your lord.  To want to genuflect before him and be ruled over by him.  As an American, the idea of a central, non-democratically elected leader is completely anathema to my beliefs, and it confuses me that so many self-proclaimed patriots here seem so willing to be lorded over in a divine sense.  IMO, a beneficial dictator is still a dictator.

So, Christians of AF, why do you want to be lorded over by Jesus?  Why is this something you desire?

But what if that non democratically elected leader was your personal Father.... Could you still not see any benefit that may befall you and your brothers and sisters personally? So what if he is brutally hard on those who hate you and your siblings, so what if he is known as a tryant for those who rebell and rebuke His authority..

Now before you go off and defend your little life.. know my answer does not judge you specifically but answers your question. Why would you want a non duely elected "lord" over you. Again it is because we are 'kin' to that lord and see the benefits from coming from Him. And it does not matter what other people see. we know they see what they want to see because they are not included in their current state therefore can and will say/do anythig to make God the evil one for not being all inclusive.

My actual father was a child molester who spent ~15 years in prison. He's currently suffering from skin cancer that has eaten away parts of his face and skull, and I cannot wait until he's dead. I will find his grave and piss on it.

Kin isn't always a beneficial arrangement, and I've yet to see anything but unevidenced promises regarding your god.

[SteveII]

 I have accepted Christ and know He is real and no one could ever convince me other wise, I've experienced Him on a level that is undeniable. I have come to better understand atheist, that's why I have stayed so long. You may truly believe that God isn't real, but that doesn't mean He isn't. My experiences are personal but within those experiences God has proved to me that He is who He says He is leaving me nothing to do but accept His existence. I've yet to see any atheist bring forth any information to show God doesn't exist, I've seen multitudes of excuses and because of that I said that atheist pretend He doesn't exist. I can't pretend and wouldn't because I would be denying truth and that is an unacceptable thing to do, truth is a precious thing, this God has taught me in a awesome way.

GC

And I am speaking from what I believe to be the truth. I believe you have deluded yourself. The experiences you have had were NOT of God, but were, instead, a type of brain fart. After that, you get confirmation bias. [1]

I also will not deny the truth: that there is no evidence for a God. [2] That, to me, is quite sufficient reason to not believe in a God. To deny that is perverse, in my view.

As for Jesus being your Lord: you are, in essence, deciding to be a child. You pawn your moral decisions off on another being. But even if that being is beneficent, your refusal of moral responsibility is not. The adoption of a Lord is, in and of itself, an immoral act. Yes, even if that creature is your creator. [3]

Think about it the other way around. Suppose humans manage to create artificial intelligences with their own 'free will'. Would you want these intelligences to *worship* us? I certainly HOPE not. To even *ask* for worship makes one unworthy of it. And to worship makes the worshiper unworthy of respect. It is *inherently* degrading to adopt a dictator, even if that dictator is your creator. [4]

1. That is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no God. Your conclusion is not based on any  evidence related to GC's (or any other Christians's) experience. Can human experiences be relied on for truth? If you say yes, then your conclusion is just special pleading. If no, then you have all kinds of other metaphysical problems to work out. 

2. It's simply nonsense that there is no evidence. You might not think it sufficient for your personal threshold of proof, but it is just intellectually dishonest to say there is not any.  Along with personal experience (which is evidence), you have

2.1 The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
2.2 God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles. It is easy to meet these people and hear their stories.  
2.3 The natural theology arguments (which are additional reasons to think that the above is true):
     a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
     b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
     c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 
     d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
     e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

As always, belief in Christianity is based on a cumulative case of evidence. Each piece increases the probability that God exists. 

3. If you have come to a point of believing in God (of Christianity), that entails belief in certain truths about humans as well. We were created with a purpose, we have value, we have eternal souls, our sin separates us from God, God desires a relationship with us, and finally, that relationship will produce fundamental changes to our character for the good. Given these fundamental beliefs in the human condition, following God's moral precepts and allowing the relationship to guide your actions is the logical conclusion. To say it another way, there is no problem with the logic in a desire to make God the Lord of your life. You seem to think that the goal is to give up control, when in fact what you are doing is to change your heart so that your motives are more pure and you are open to opportunities/experiences that God has for you. 'Control' is the wrong word--or at least does not fully describe the process. 

4. Your analogy is a poor one. You, the maker of a robot, do not possess the qualities or characteristics worthy of worship. Christians don't worship God because he created them, they worship him because he is worthy of worship. The distinction is important. 

EDIT: left a sentence hanging from all the editing...deleted it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, that "evidence" never seems to turn up anywhere other than a christian's experience, and their experience invariably turns out to be disappointingly less than what it's billed as.

[KevinM1]

'Actual'. Steve, you keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

[The Grand Nudger]

Steve keeps saying alot of things.  I wish that he would find something else to put in his cumulative wastebin, for example

[Drich]

My actual father was a child molester who spent ~15 years in prison.  He's currently suffering from skin cancer that has eaten away parts of his face and skull, and I cannot wait until he's dead.  I will find his grave and piss on it.

Kin isn't always a beneficial arrangement, and I've yet to see anything but unevidenced promises regarding your god.

....And would you be such a father to your children?

Kin is a beneficial arrangement when righteous people full fill their roles.

All I've seen in my life despite the hardship and pain is nothing but full filled promises. God has given me more than I even knew to want or wish for. If you think God is dead, then maybe just maybe you have the wrong understanding of Him. Something so wrong He can't even meet you 1/2 way on as you are so far out there if He did, you'd be off making wishes to a monkey paw in a few months.

If you want to 'test' God do so on His terms and He has promised to meet you and carry you the rest of the way.

You will never get there on your own power/understanding.

[vorlon13]

[polymath257]

And I am speaking from what I believe to be the truth. I believe you have deluded yourself. The experiences you have had were NOT of God, but were, instead, a type of brain fart. After that, you get confirmation bias. [1]

I also will not deny the truth: that there is no evidence for a God. [2] That, to me, is quite sufficient reason to not believe in a God. To deny that is perverse, in my view.

As for Jesus being your Lord: you are, in essence, deciding to be a child. You pawn your moral decisions off on another being. But even if that being is beneficent, your refusal of moral responsibility is not. The adoption of a Lord is, in and of itself, an immoral act. Yes, even if that creature is your creator. [3]

Think about it the other way around. Suppose humans manage to create artificial intelligences with their own 'free will'. Would you want these intelligences to *worship* us? I certainly HOPE not. To even *ask* for worship makes one unworthy of it. And to worship makes the worshiper unworthy of respect. It is *inherently* degrading to adopt a dictator, even if that dictator is your creator. [4]

1. That is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no God. Your conclusion is not based on any  evidence related to GC's (or any other Christians's) experience. Can human experiences be relied on for truth? If you say yes, then your conclusion is just special pleading. If no, then you have all kinds of other metaphysical problems to work out. 

2. It's simply nonsense that there is no evidence. You might not think it sufficient for your personal threshold of proof, but it is just intellectually dishonest to say there is not any.  Along with personal experience (which is evidence), you have

2.1 The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
2.2 God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles. It is easy to meet these people and hear their stories.  
2.3 The natural theology arguments (which are additional reasons to think that the above is true):
     a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
     b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
     c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 
     d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
     e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

As always, belief in Christianity is based on a cumulative case of evidence. Each piece increases the probability that God exists. 

3. If you have come to a point of believing in God (of Christianity), that entails belief in certain truths about humans as well. We were created with a purpose, we have value, we have eternal souls, our sin separates us from God, God desires a relationship with us, and finally, that relationship will produce fundamental changes to our character for the good. Given these fundamental beliefs in the human condition, following God's moral precepts and allowing the relationship to guide your actions is the logical conclusion. To say it another way, there is no problem with the logic in a desire to make God the Lord of your life. You seem to think that the goal is to give up control, when in fact what you are doing is to change your heart so that your motives are more pure and you are open to opportunities/experiences that God has for you. 'Control' is the wrong word--or at least does not fully describe the process. 

4. Your analogy is a poor one. You, the maker of a robot, do not possess the qualities or characteristics worthy of worship. Christians don't worship God because he created them, they worship him because he is worthy of worship. The distinction is important. 

EDIT: left a sentence hanging from all the editing...deleted it.

1. Experiences alone are not sufficient for truth. After testing for biases, delusions, and hallucinations, they have some applicability for truth detection. Religious experiences are inevitably under the categories of delusions or hallucinations because they are inherently untestable.

2. Would you claim there is evidence for the existence of Athena and Apollo? The Iliad gives testimony for both.

No, I do not consider the NT to be good evidence. It is no better than the Iliad, for example.

No, I don't consider personal change to be evidence. We know full well that personal change can happen from a wide variety of opinions.

No, those claims that God are the 'best explanation' are simply false. God cannot explain why anything exists at all, because the existence of God is assumed--i.e, not explained. The rest of the claims are equally BS.

Yes, if you are deluded into believing in a deity, that delusion spreads to the point you are willing to degrade yourself by slavery. That doens't make either delusion or slavery desirable.

And the robot analogy is spot on. Even if the creator is 'good' and 'awesome', that is nowhere close to being reason to 'worship' such a being.

[SteveII]

1. That is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no God. Your conclusion is not based on any  evidence related to GC's (or any other Christians's) experience. Can human experiences be relied on for truth? If you say yes, then your conclusion is just special pleading. If no, then you have all kinds of other metaphysical problems to work out. 

2. It's simply nonsense that there is no evidence. You might not think it sufficient for your personal threshold of proof, but it is just intellectually dishonest to say there is not any.  Along with personal experience (which is evidence), you have

2.1 The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
2.2 God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles. It is easy to meet these people and hear their stories.  
2.3 The natural theology arguments (which are additional reasons to think that the above is true):
     a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
     b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
     c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 
     d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
     e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

As always, belief in Christianity is based on a cumulative case of evidence. Each piece increases the probability that God exists. 

3. If you have come to a point of believing in God (of Christianity), that entails belief in certain truths about humans as well. We were created with a purpose, we have value, we have eternal souls, our sin separates us from God, God desires a relationship with us, and finally, that relationship will produce fundamental changes to our character for the good. Given these fundamental beliefs in the human condition, following God's moral precepts and allowing the relationship to guide your actions is the logical conclusion. To say it another way, there is no problem with the logic in a desire to make God the Lord of your life. You seem to think that the goal is to give up control, when in fact what you are doing is to change your heart so that your motives are more pure and you are open to opportunities/experiences that God has for you. 'Control' is the wrong word--or at least does not fully describe the process. 

4. Your analogy is a poor one. You, the maker of a robot, do not possess the qualities or characteristics worthy of worship. Christians don't worship God because he created them, they worship him because he is worthy of worship. The distinction is important. 

EDIT: left a sentence hanging from all the editing...deleted it.

1. Experiences alone are not sufficient for truth. After testing for biases, delusions, and hallucinations, they have some applicability for truth detection. Religious experiences are inevitably under the categories of delusions or hallucinations because they  are inherently untestable.

'Untestable' in no way even remotely implies "inevitably under the categories of delusions or hallucinations". That is really bad philosophy! There are tons of categories of things that are not testable. All human experiences/thoughts/emotions, logic, mathematical axioms, moral truths, aesthetics, philosophy. For crying out loud, science itself is governed by a philosophy of science--which itself is not 'testable'. Your claim that things have to to be testable to be true is itself not 'testable'. 

2. Would you claim there is evidence for the existence of Athena and Apollo? The Iliad gives testimony for both.

Do you think you have a parallel between ancient Greek Gods and the events surrounding Jesus in the first century? That is something a teenager might think is a good point. It is obvious from your responses that you don't even know much of anything about the thing you are sure is "not evidence". 

No, I do not consider the NT to be good evidence. It is no better than the Iliad, for example.

And so we continue... Did Homer see any of the events or talk to any of the characters? I'll answer for you. Homer was writing about something that oral tradition said happened 400 years earlier. Another question. Did Homer believe the events to have happened the way he related them? Yet another question. Were there any other people who wrote about the events of the Iliad at the time or shortly after the actual events to support Homer's version? 

No, I don't consider personal change to be evidence. We know full well that personal change can happen from a wide variety of opinions.

Not my point. It is the testimony of people as to the change and why. You would have to call them all liars or delusional. You don't have any philosophical or logical basis to do so. Your argument seems to be basically that God does not exists, he can't change people, therefore God does not exist. Good circular reasoning (also called question begging). You totally skipped over the mention of miracles. Are you sure you don't want to set up another question begging argument for that? 

No, those claims that God are the 'best explanation' are simply false. God cannot explain why anything exists at all, because the existence of God is assumed--i.e, not explained. The rest of the claims are equally BS.

Nope. Not even close. You logically need an uncaused cause for anything to exist. When you look around for available candidates that meet that description...hmm. See, God was not assumed, it is an inductive argument where the conclusion is a probabilistic one. Based on your response, I find it highly doubtful that you understand the other natural theology arguments (look at that, another example of inductive reasoning). 

Yes, if you are deluded into believing in a deity, that delusion spreads to the point you are willing to degrade yourself by slavery. That doens't make either delusion or slavery desirable.

And the robot analogy is spot on. Even if the creator is 'good' and 'awesome', that is nowhere close to being reason to 'worship' such a being.

Yeah--those were not responses to my points--you just restated yours. 

This post is more critical than usual because you think you know way more than you do about anything Christian. You really don't--you mischaracterize almost everything. You compound that error by criticizing the beliefs using really really bad logic. You are simply not good at this and your arguments are simple to pick apart. Just because the other atheists don't point it out, don't think you are making good points. Half of them reason as poorly as you do and the other half won't police their own ranks when it comes to religion. 

An intelligent person has two choices. 1) They can decide they do not need to know what the other side believes and why--and not ever engage them in a condescending, fallacy-ridden, critiques about things you know nothing about, or 2) they can be more respectful, ask more questions and have less opinions until they learn more. OR, you can keep doing what you are doing.