Why knocking is so important.

[Drich]

I say A/S/K (ask seek knock) as out lined in luke 11. And you will be given a measure of the Holy Spirit.

And the holy spirit told me that the bible is a lie. Next.

Indeed, what did 'he' say next?

[Minimalist]

[Drich]

[Baqal]

Drich, why is it my responsibility to beseech God to reveal Himself to me?

[Esquilax]

ah, no. All anyone need do is seek with an open mind.

I am so tired of this dishonest nonsense from you. We both know where this goes, and handily you provided evidence of your escape hatch in the very next quote:

ah, no. Person b should say: "You didn't look long enough."

There it is! "You didn't look long enough." A slimy, squirmy little shit of an excuse that has no limitations. Whether it's one try, a week, a year, twenty, even an entire life, if someone doesn't come out of this process agreeing with you, "you didn't look long enough." No need for thought, no need for falsification, just a stupid, unthinking, "you didn't look long enough."

Because you don't actually care whether your beliefs are true or not, you don't care if your proposed method works, and you don't care about actually bringing people to god. All you care about is shoring up your own beliefs with the pretense of preaching, which is why your go to argument is nothing more than a fucking logical corkscrew with a convenient back door for you to flee out of the moment anyone discovers that actually, you're talking nonsense.

It took you 20 years to have your 'house' washed away. Now if you just keep knocking God will help you build a new one.

So how long will it take? When should we stop? Is there any possible length of time we could go that would actually falsify this belief of yours? Or would it always be, no matter how long, that conveniently we "didn't look long enough"?

Money where your mouth is, Drich: what's the acceptable minimum length of time before we can accept that it doesn't work? And if there isn't one, then why on earth do you keep telling us this shit? You don't want to hear if it's wrong, and you're not interested in any account that doesn't already agree with your presuppositions, so if it turns out there's not an acceptable minimum knocking period, then do us all a favor and just start telling this shit to an empty fucking room, instead of polluting the boards with it.

[Ravenshire]

Dear Dritch. Tried very hard to do that once. I wanted to make mother happy. Apparently god didn't. Next.

Yep, been there, done that.

When you're knocking on the door of an empty house, why should you expect an answer.

[Lucanus]

OP in a nutshell: "Wanna believe in god? Have a go with wishful thinking!"

No thanks. My mind alone is not the best thing I have to attain knowledge of anything. It's not even reason we're talking about, it's bloody imagination!

[BlackMason]

Then me: if you're not currently seeking you have not A/S/K'ed as outlined in luke 11. Because again the persistent neighbor did not stop knocking till he got what he was looking for..
So if you stopped before you got what you were looking for, you did not follow the outline Christ Gave.

Of course your method requires the suspension of rational faculties. That is it's problem. This is no surprise since religions like christianity require that to work.

Let's try apply that logic to other situations: First one is dragon hunting. I'm talking about the flying, fire spitting reptile. We have stopped looking. Are we foolish for having stopped? If not why? If we are right for having stopped why? Why should what you propose be treated differently?

It is a virtue to know when to stop. This is my next point and situation. Gambling. Should a gambler experiencing a losing streak continue gambling or should he stop? What about when he is winning? Ideally he should stop before he loses to maximise profits. My point is that it is a virtue knowing when to stop.

Now I will address your suggestion having established these things. As you can understand (hopefully) abandoning rational faculties impedes this critical self preserving act. What you suggest implants the image of a robot not realising that it has reached a wall. It continues to walk thinking it is gaining ground. Yet it is not.

Is it not more efficient to first establish that the alleged resident exists before knocking on his door?

[pocaracas]

Drich, psychology can explain how that works so mind numbingly easily, that it's a wonder people still fall for that line!
Since I'm on my phone I won't go in depth here, but I'll say: it's all in your head.

[Tobie]

Personal testament does not make a credible argument. Find some demonstrable way of showing us that this is correct, rather than your "try it for yourself, and if it doesn't work the first time, you obviously haven't been trying it properly!" method.