seagypsy,
]Define intuition and I will answer your question based on the given definition.
I noticed you used the word "until" rather than "if". This suggests that you consider the likelihood of becoming bored with God to be a certainty.
It's not about getting bored of God, but becoming bored of what was a supernatural event, but due it having happened, would no longer be a supernatural event.
This is atheists understanding of God, a being that performs tricks or magic in order to prove He exists. And when they look with their eyes, or under rocks, and He isn't there, they conclude that He does not exist. Modern atheists just aren't interested in God regardless of whether He exists or not.
If God is what religion suggests, how could one become bored with Him?
Your description had nothing to do with God, firstly.
Secondly the excitement of pretty light in the sky, however amazing, soon becomes yesterdays news.
Of course, you may have been talking about something all together different and just didn't choose words that made any sense in regards to the idea you were actually trying to present, would you like to call for a mulligan?
I talk about God from the scriptoral point of view, so unless you're aware of that, we may have slight communication problems. Best ask me to explain something if you're not sure. Or read scriptures and learn more about Him.
Your statement makes perfect sense because of the word in bold. "KNOWN laws of nature". They didn't know much about the laws of nature back then so it would be easy to convince people of miracles.
You don't need to know the laws of nature to be skeptical of miracles.
I'm sure someone walking of water, or bring the dead back to life (as per description)doesn't requite extensive knowledge of the laws of nature to prove what they just saw.
And yet some of the disciples still were clever enough to not be duped, at least not right away. Duped may be a bad word.
You're suggesting it didn't happen, more than likely because;
1. you've never had such an experience
2. according to your limited knowledge it cannot happen.
It suggests that Jesus intentionally misled them. I have no doubt that Jesus believed every word he said and trusted his perceptions completely. He had no reason not to. No conflicting evidences were available or offered at the time.
With all due respect, your opinion makes no difference, to you, me, or anyone, with regard to what Jesus believed, did, or didn't do.
Your position is this. Either you believe in God, or you don't.
Define Modern atheists please. How does an atheist today differ from an atheist of a previous time period?
I think Richard Dawkins celebrity, sums up modern atheism and atheists, pretty well.
One who believes in an all knowing all powerful supernatural being that created and controls the universe and everything in it.
It's a pretty broad description I know but this seems to be the common belief among most theists. Does this not apply to you?
It's the best description I've ever heard from any atheist.
If my perceptions of you are wrong, there could be many reasons for this.
Don't worry about it.
I agree with you 100%. And for some, there is comfort in believing in an omnipotent father figure watching over them and that death is not forever. So they choose to believe in God.
What about the others, what reasons do they have, in your opinion??
If you were told there was an invisible bridge across a river of lava,and the only evidence of said bridge was the assertion that it was there. Better yet if the bible stated that at very specific coordinates on the earth this bridge existed, would you trust it and attempt to cross said bridge? If the bible said, the only way to God is to cross the bridge, would you follow it and cross the bridge? That would be the ultimate test of faith wouldn't it.
Don't you think that level of faith is difficult?
Using the NT as an analogy again, Jesus' deciples, although with him 24/7, witnessed his works, and emersed in his teachings (including Judas Escariot). they still didn't have faith.
I don't believe that anyone TRULY believes in God. Very few are willing to prove their faith by doing things that would kill them unless God stepped in.
I think people do truly believe in God, but try to do so on their terms, or terms which accomodate their lifestyle.
Religion doesn't require strong proof of faith though. How convenient for the "believer". It only requires you to claim a belief. You don't even have to act any differently than you would if you were just a decent human being in absence of the existence of God.
I think you raise a good point.
First you complain that we make assumptions, then you refuse to answer a question forcing Neverfly to have to make an assumptions. Perhaps if you are more willing to be forthcoming in your position, no one would have to assume what that position is.
My position is as clear as a bell.
The confusion lies in the difference in communication. I always talk about God from the scriptoral level, which describes Him as a ''spiritual being'' (Supreme Soul), who communicates with His minute parts and parcels (finite souls), us. If we are are prepared to communicate on a spiritual level.
The atheist generally communicates about God as if He is flesh and bone, and sees things the way they do. They don't regard scripture as relevant or important to the discussion.
In this way they are never satisfied with the answers I give, because they haven't taken the time to learn about that which they hate/deny/despise/are ignorant about.
Ok, I'll take that. But that implies that God is not concerned with whether or not we know he is there. Being all knowing and all powerful and just, if he WANTED us to know he is there, why wouldn't he present evidence we can all comprehend and not invalidate.
Go and read some scripture, seriously, without preconception, and at least you will understand why you think the way you do.
Such as my suggestion before, show himself to us with a world wide booming voice or maybe those trumpets he mentioned in the bible. And if he intends to, why wait til the deadline for believing in him has passed, as Revelations suggests it will be. That doesn't seem to be fair or loving.
Do you think you have the ability to see God, in your current state of being?
If he doesn't care whether we know or not, that suggest our lack of importance to him.
In vedic literature, you can learn of an aspect of God that is eternally with you, this feature is called ''Param-atma''. You might want to look into it.
I don't have a problem with belief in general. But at least believe in something that is consistent and does not contradict itself.
God is the only subject that is unchanged, and has stood the test of time.
It is hard to take something seriously when its definition changes constantly to fit the mood of the one who declares it a fact. The Greek and Roman myths were more consistent and believable than modern monotheism.
These two cultures aren't famed for their spiritual prowess.
jan.
