Why knocking is so important.

[Drich]

I'm suggesting that if your method of looking will turn up a number of very different contradictory gods, it's a bad method, that confirms what your were seeking, whatever it was that you were seeking. As it confirms anything you look for, it's simply a method of self delusion.

actually it won't because none of the other gods make this claim.
That's not to say someone steeped in self delusion could not use this method to confirm whatever he likes. But, again as I have illustrated some perfectly adjusted member of society could also use this method to find themselves a spouse.

Ask seek knock is a tool nothing more. Trying to vilify a tool is foolishness. It is always been the intention of the one who wields the tool that decides if a tool is used for noble or destructive purposes. To vilify the hammer for being used in a destructive way is lazy philosophy.

Sorry, a lifetime of looking is not remotely reasonable. If someone told me to look for an elephant in my house and a day's looking didn't turn up an elephant I'd stop. Any sensible person would.

and if you wanted to find a husband, but could not find a suitable mate right away? Then what would you quit just because your first attempts failed? Or would you keep looking?

There's plenty of evidence marriageable men exist and none that god does.

only if you know where to look. If you only looked at a battered woman's shelter (where their is an absence of real love that a husband shares with a wife) or if you looked in a country where the married women are made to wear big black sheets, I'd bet you would have a different opinion. But rather because you haven't given up on getting marriage you have seen at least a glimmer of the positive love a man can have for his wife somewhere.

The same is true with our relationship with God. One can not see evidences, if one does not know where or how to look. (It's like only viewing love through that women's shelter.)

If I had been looking for unicorns, I have given up long before 30.

And what if you were privy to have met a unicorn once?
Would you give up so easily?

Thanks, but no. I've found a sense of morality, no god required. What is a "spiritual hippy sense of morality" and why would anyone want it?

And no it's not like looking for your car keys. The keys exist and you need them. God doesn't and I don't need him.

The funny thing about 'no God required morality' is that it's tied to our various societies. Get the wrong one and your putting God's people into gas chambers and then [/quote]ovens.

---

If you remember God did this once before in the way of Christ, and the whole of humanity did not acknowledge Him. His own people did not recognize Him. Why? Because they themselves built a myth (much like you have) of who and what God was supposed to be.

He's an omnipotent being, i.e has the power to make the people he appears to know he is their god. But that would just be doing it the easy way.

And if He confirmed His existence with your corrupt view? Then you would be worshiping your Version rather than God himself.

[KUSA]

There is no God Drippy. I knocked on the nonexistent gods door and got a nonexistent answer. If there is a god then he needs to knock on my door now.

Also for your information, there are as many versions of God as there are people that believe in a god. So when you say that someone is worshipping their Version of God then that applies to everyone including you.

[Tobie]

How do you know the god who you claim revealed himself to you is the real one?

[Drich]

The problem is, your method does not stand up to any external form of scrutiny. Like jesus_wept said (and his point flew over your head), you can make up all sorts of crazy horseshit with this method and having them confirmed to you because you heard some voices in your head.
You should present us with OBJECTIVE evidence, not something that depends on one's personal thoughts.

not my method. It was Christ's method. Which would indicate Christ was forcing people to seek Him out on a personal and not a corporate level. Meaning to scrutinize is to test expecting to yield a given result and to be able to duplicate it. In short you want to put God in a box, and poke Him a certain way to get an expected response... Well, what if God does not want to get inside your box and be poked?

The alternative is to tell the people who fancy themselves sophisticated monkeys, to do XYZ and they will get 123. Which as it seems is as close to being able to put God in a box as He will allow you to get.

Plus (I will repeat it even though it has already been said countless times in this thread) A/S/King is not even falsifiable, as if one fails to reach the conclusions you wanted them to, you can always say he didn't try hard enough, without ever showing a clear and rigorous course of action.

Again, (I will repeat it even though it has already been said countless times in this thread and in others already) to falsify this process one must let go his 'straw god' and ask seek knock as outlined in Luke 11. A promise has been made by God here. If one follows luke 11, and does not receive what was promised, the premise has been falsified.

You may not like the terms but the premise is indeed falsifiable.

[ShaMan]

In short you want to put God in a box, and poke Him a certain way to get an expected response... Well, what if God does not want to get inside your box and be poked?

In short god wants to put me in a box, and poke me a certain way to get an expected response... Well, what if I don't want to get inside god's box and be poked?

I fixed that for you so you can see it clearly

[Lucanus]

And if He confirmed His existence with your corrupt view? Then you would be worshiping your Version rather than God himself.

And who decides which is the corrupt one? You? The Pope? Putin?

That's the point exactly: everyone gets the answers they want and there's no objective way of telling who is correct and who isn't.

And before you come up again with the spouse analogy: there's plenty of evidence that people of the opposite sex (or of the same sex, why not) exist. You might be discouraged, but the evidence is still there and it's self evident. You say there's evidence for god, but still fail to present even the tiniest shred of it. See the difference?

[Drich]

Is He obligated to be Omni benevolent as the Omni max God is bound to be? No. In this freedom God says He is loving and jealous, he gives and He takes from those who are not faithful to what they have, He punishes the wicked and offers redemption those who seek it.

So, God's message is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but he chooses not to behave in this manner. Is it any surprise that people don't? When you see people being vindictive and cruel, especially when they are Christians, they are only imitating the behavior of their Heavenly Father.

youve assumed too much here. It seems you believe everyone is entitled to what they have or what they want. God gives and takes in accordance to what we are able to be responsible for.

Which raises the question: does God actually want us to act a certain way? And if so, why doesn't he deal with us in a way that is compatible with how he created us to learn? Is he stupid?

God has dealt with us in a way compatible with our inability to live free of sin. That's what atonement is.

---

Perhaps it is you who should apply the same level of scrutiny to the voice in your head as you do mine? I have already done the test you said to do so why should I have to keep doing more while you just get to sit there and smugly assert that I should keep trying?

then explain to me how you went about testing. If you do not wish me to assert let's examine and scrutinize your actual effort.

Here's a test we can both perform, let's ask our "deities" something no human being knows, something useful like "what is dark matter?". If mine cant tell me what it is then I'm willing to admit I might be deluding myself and the voice in my head is neither external or the creator of the universe. If yours cant then I expect you will make excuses. You never know, you might even get a Nobel Prize out of it.

nounASTRONOMY
(in some cosmological theories) nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter ).

And c&p from dictionary.com isn't generally Nobel prize effort is it?[/quote]

---

I build my house on the hard rock of evidence, instead of the soft sand of faith. That is why I left religion.

yes good chad, that is a perfect example of how a foolish man's house gets washed away. The house (religious works and world view) get washed away by life's experiences and trials... Kinda how Christ described it exactly.

If the teachings of the church have become so skewed that a child can grow up in one and still not find Jesus, then it's a failure on your god's part.

my confused brother this was happening at the time Christ was alive. (Mat 7) The bible is littered with warnings to this condition. If this is the first time you have heard or applied this teaching it is not the fault of God that you did not read your bible.

If a parent raises a child, and he turns bad, you may blame the child. If a parent raises twenty children, and most of them turn bad, you usually blame the parent. the bigger the number of people the person is responsible for, the less excuse that person has if the majority of them turn out bad. 3000+ years after he starts talking to people, and his followers are split into three mutually exclusive groups, and each group is only a minority of the world's population.

Your deity either doesn't care, or his followers know so little about him that it's impossible to tell what he actually wants. The bible is insufficient, and it is unfortunately the only source of information about your god.

Ah, no. Your painting with a very broad brush and have not taken individual personalities into the fold. Your idea to automatically 'blame the parent' only works if we are all born little robots who can only behave how it is we are programmed. A parent can only influence a child unless he is beaten and broken to the point of following your will. The child no matter how he is influenced will be whom ever he will be.

---

Where does it say in the bible to spread the word? Mark 16:15- Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

You made a two part assertion sport. You only provided one verse. Where is the other verse that supports the other half of your assertion?

---

Drich, you're presupposing that a god exists.
We (and I hope I speak for this thread's atheist repliers) refuse to presuppose that, as we acknowledge it as a fallible method to discover anything.

i have proven that to be an inaccurate statement. A/s/k is used to find a mate or any other deeply desired relationship in life.

When you presuppose, you half-convince yourself that that thing exists and if you then proceed to try to find such a thing and you find a few hints that it may exist, you interpret them as positive proof that the thing exists, thus very likely ending up with a wrong conclusion to your investigations.

you assume too much here. Your assumptions are in accurate and wrong.

Scientific knowledge is incomplete and will likely be incomplete for a long long time. So there is always some wiggle room for any divine claim to hint that a god exists on a person who is already half convinced that it may exist (your mustard seed).
But someone who takes the intellectually honest position and does his/her best to eliminate such pitfalls, then that person will never start half-convinced. They will start with no assumption of existence and work from there. If any evidence surfaces, it will be scrutinized and matched against other known phenomena. Only after exhausting all previously known explanations, must a new one be put forth.
Thus far, none of these new explanations have been "god-did-it".

Drich, this is the mountain you must go over to get through to us. Don't start on your side, start on ours and then walk us over.
You keep starting on your side... that doesn't work.

When have I ever ended an argument "god did it" unless I was mocking one of you for you appeal to stereotypes and general ignorance about the specifics I. Which you are trying to discuss?

Everything I teach incorporates science into God's creation. It is the How God works.. Nothing in the bible says God has to always remain unknown.[/quote]

---

Drich: All your metaphors fail because you are comparing looking for something or one that everyone can see exists with looking for something that can be seen only by those who really want to see it.

Nice try at a general dismissal without having to really address anything.. Too bad it's not true. There are many who see the evidences of God all day everyday, and shut them out or explain it away, because they are afraid they will have to change too much. Specifically all of those who are unequally yoked. They can see God I. Their spouce and yet turn a bind eye and a deaf ear.

Seek Kansas and you will find it, you don't have to want, need it, or fool yourself into thinking it's there because it is there.

how is that any different than seeking God?

Seek The Land of Oz and finding it's going to be a bit of a problem. I'm sure some people could convince themselves it is there if they tried hard enough, but I don't think that that would be a very good idea.

only if your seeking F.L.Balum's version of it. Which is what I was saying about God letting life's trials/rain wash away your version of God.

If you allowed yourself to let go F.L.B.'s Oz you could quite easily find Oz here on earth with a simple google search. http://www.ourstate.com/north-carolinas-land-of-oz/
Like wise if you let Go your version of God you might actually find the real one.

You may think Oz is a ridiculous comparison, but people do convince themselves of ESP, witchcraft, dead relatives communicating in knocks, and a variety of other things in just the same way you suggest looking for god. I'll pass thanks. Self delusion just isn't my thing, at least not on purpose.

What I think is ridiculous, is the perception that things like oz or even God can not exist outside our notions and expectations. I've already show you there is a place on the map named oz. While it may not follow all the rules FLB set his Oz to it does indeed meet the requirements of your query.

You foolishly thought just because the movie inspired fantasy land was all make believe that no place on earth could be fitted with that name.. Now tell me again about what is ridiculous.[/quote]

[Ryantology]

youve assumed too much here. It seems you believe everyone is entitled to what they have or what they want. God gives and takes in accordance to what we are able to be responsible for.

God proves that the ability to be responsible for something in no way serves as a compulsion to actually be responsible for something. God should be maximally responsible, and yet is not responsible in the slightest. He does whatever he wants regardless of how anybody else feels about it. That's what irresponsibility is.

God has dealt with us in a way compatible with our inability to live free of sin. That's what atonement is.

Demanding atonement for an inability we can't do anything about is mere cruelty, especially when he explicitly made it so that we lacked that ability. It's like beating an infant to death because it can't climb a ladder.

And, you still haven't addressed the dilemma I remarked on earlier.

[Lucanus]

Drich, your whole approach to this sounds circular and void.

Why do you believe in the god of the bible? (this includes believing that the bible is the 100% accurate and true word of god)

Because ASKing brought you to that conclusion.

Why do you believe that ASKing is a reliable
way of knowledge?

Because the Bible (Luke 11) says so.

Those four lines above are not a strawman and I'm sorry if they might look like one, rather it's genuinely what I could understand from what you have been saying.

Now, my question is, where is the hard evidence that the responses you get from ASKing are not delusional and caused by confirmation bias and circular reasoning? In other words, how is what you are saying different from the four lines I just wrote?

[Mystical]

Hey Drich... Think of how many souls aren't being won by you because you spend your time bashing your head against a wall on AF!

How about you stop casting your version of god's pearls at we swine here online? WWJD? He'd have left long ago, and advises you to do so as well.

6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

You're wasting resources bro....

Why you say such harshness? I for one am happy Drippy is here and tries. It shows me that he's mentally well enough to reach outside of himself. I'd never ask him not to do that.

And why do Minimalist call Drippy a loser? ad, sad bunny: