Working backwards.

[Harry Nevis]

Been there, done that. I grew up religious and gave it serious consideration for my first 25 years of life. No god ever revealed itself to me in any form.

Given the large number of religions and even the misrepresentations of the those religions there are, "growing religious" means nothing to this approach.   Religious actually would be opposite to this approach, because, it just assumes one's religion is true without proof or investigation into other paths and religions.

See, Jesster, even though you were sincere in your searching, you obviously were doing it wrong, so god ignored you.  Must not have read the fine print...

[Jesster]

See, Jesster, even though you were sincere in your searching, you obviously were doing it wrong, so god ignored you.  Must not have read the fine print...

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll go back to bashing my head against the wall for another decade. I'm sure it will give way this time if I hit it just right.

[Harry Nevis]

Well, prove him wrong, hotshot. Tell us what you consider "proof". Hell, if it's proven, there must be objective, testable evidence.  Throw in some of that, also.

What if myself am need of guidance regarding the questions he asks? What if I need proofs? I am arguing in this thread, give the Creator, if he exists, a chance. Give those claiming to be intermediates an ear seeking the truth, and don't accept things without proof. That is all.

But you accepted your creators existence without proof, correct?

[Aoi Magi]

Yes, I agree till the point that if a creator exists only he should be able to properly present his case and am open to such presentation.

But the thing is all of the views being presented before me are being done by "humans", not by the creator himself. These humans have presented claims to have been chosen or appointed by this said creator, but as you yourself understand, these people cannot and have not presented a remotely convincing case yet. Think about it for a bit, even in your religion, is god making a case for himself or is a human acting as the intermediary and making claims on the supposed creators behalf?

This getting into semantics of what is considered God's direct guidance and what is considered not his guidance.

I would give a chance of those claiming to be intermediates between God and us. If they cannot show any wisdom of why they would be intermediates and cannot prove it, they you can let them be and even argue against them.

But without giving them even a chance, and just dismissing them because there happens to be mathematically more wrong religions, is lazy. If there is a true religon, most religions would be false. If there is no religion that is true, only one more religion would be false.

Therefore talking about majority of religions or believers of different religions not presenting a good case, if you look it objectively, doesn't really mean much.

Nope, before you get into the guidance bit, theres the part about defining the creator from whom the guidance is coming. And the confirmation bias starts right from there. Going by what you are calling the "reverse approach", one has to first choose the best description of god that matches their own imagination, before examining the proofs being presented.

If you want to start by examining the proofs first, then that's the standard approach, and you are quite wrong if you think atheists haven't given those a chance or haven't dissected those enough. In this very board, not a single religion has successfully presented it's case yet, and throughout the ages none have stood up to scrutiny. Atheists dismiss religions because they failed to make their case, not because something else is false.

If you have any real proofs which haven't been examined, then do let the creator present it.

[Mystic]

This getting into semantics of what is considered God's direct guidance and what is considered not his guidance.

I would give a chance of those claiming to be intermediates between God and us. If they cannot show any wisdom of why they would be intermediates and cannot prove it, they you can let them be and even argue against them.

But without giving them even a chance, and just dismissing them because there happens to be mathematically more wrong religions, is lazy. If there is a true religon, most religions would be false. If there is no religion that is true, only one more religion would be false.

Therefore talking about majority of religions or believers of different religions not presenting a good case, if you look it objectively, doesn't really mean much.

Nope, before you get into the guidance bit, theres the part about defining the creator from whom the guidance is coming. And the confirmation bias starts right from there. Going by what you are calling the "reverse approach", one has to first choose the best description of god that matches their own imagination, before examining the proofs being presented.

Not true. You can just eliminate religions you know are very irrational.  And keep studying religions that you see as possible. When doing this, you may come across arguments for the divine and for the proper religion and sect, and then you can further study different perceptions and perhaps come across many solid arguments and evidence for God. All I'm saying if God made a case for himself, it would be best found in the proper revelation and teachings of the truly chosen leaders he appointed, if he did appoint leaders and reveal a revelation. All I'm saying is give God a chance to prove himself through studying various claims of his revelation because you may come across his actual revelation that would make a compelling case to you.

We are not even arguing in this thread that God exists nor a particular religion is true. I am just arguing perhaps this going backwards approach might lead somewhere if God exists and true religion exists. I would not rule out this possibility just because people fail to present the case for God well.

[WinterHold]

Yes, I agree till the point that if a creator exists only he should be able to properly present his case and am open to such presentation.

But the thing is all of the views being presented before me are being done by "humans", not by the creator himself. These humans have presented claims to have been chosen or appointed by this said creator, but as you yourself understand, these people cannot and have not presented a remotely convincing case yet. Think about it for a bit, even in your religion, is god making a case for himself or is a human acting as the intermediary and making claims on the supposed creators behalf?

This getting into semantics of what is considered God's direct guidance and what is considered not his guidance.

Therefor, the answer is Ali !
Best guidance ever

I would give a chance of those claiming to be intermediates between God and us.

Again, who are these intermediates?
Let me guess: ALI !

Word gymnastics. Gigantic jumps just to reach this point. Isn't that what the whole Shiite religion is about, worshiping intermediates that make arguments for themselves...I mean God?
I refuse your intermediates. 
I just don't like them.
They are bloodthirsty. And waged so many wars. Actually, until this day some Shiite Muslims cut themselves in public gore festivals to celebrate the bloody intermediates you want me to follow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashura#Vio...ing_Ashura

Sorry, my "demon" is writing this; not me !!

If they cannot show any wisdom of why they would be intermediates and cannot prove it, they you can let them be and even argue against them.

Why is their "wisdom" is either:

1-A wall of text that hurt my demonically possessed eyes?
2-Cannot be preached but through rifles and bombs, like the Shiite fellas do in Iraq and Syria?

But without giving them even a chance, and just dismissing them because there happens to be mathematically more wrong religions, is lazy. If there is a true religon, most religions would be false. If there is no religion that is true, only one more religion would be false.

If you hold the "truth" in your hand, you will never use the word "most".
That's why you can fly a jet with science. But you can't using the "wisdom" of Ali. Which is written by somebody else, for a Persian kingdom some place.

Prove me wrong! Ride a carpet and say:
"Ali Ali Ali" 50 times.

How's the weather up there?

Turn off the AC !!

Therefore talking about majority of religions or believers of different religions not presenting a good case, if you look it objectively, doesn't really mean much.

They aren't. When you want to study in a good university, where would you go?
Saudi Arabia or London?
Tehran or Berlin?

You're writing in "Latin" in this forum; not Arabic.

No, believers did some nasty job. Excuse me, but what good case?
Is it the blood rivers soaking me and my brethren? The ISIS? or the Shiite gangs of rape and plunder in Iraq and Syria?

Saudi Arabia? or Iran's funny hats?

What good case?
No, believers cut down Islam into sects, killed each other, brought me and you into a dark age.

Just open your eyes to see that.

[Jesster]

Hehe. That was fun to read, Atlas.

[Harry Nevis]

Nope, before you get into the guidance bit, theres the part about defining the creator from whom the guidance is coming. And the confirmation bias starts right from there. Going by what you are calling the "reverse approach", one has to first choose the best description of god that matches their own imagination, before examining the proofs being presented.

Not true. You can just eliminate religions you know are very irrational.

Well, THAT was easy.

[Astreja]

The problem with this "working backwards" approach is that it sets up a framework of imagination that can subsequently be embellished by confirmation bias and self-hypnosis.

I can imagine gods of all sizes, shapes and colours. I can imagine gods till the cows come home and go back out for work in the morning. I'm not interested in imaginary gods, unless I need new characters for a story I'm writing.

No, I need something more... real. Something that transcends the limitations imposed by the physical world. Something that can manifest independent of belief, undeterred by arrogance, skepticism or any of the other excuses that believers regularly give for their god's inability to reveal itself to nonbelievers.

Because a god that one has to imagine simply isn't all that valuable to me.

[Aoi Magi]

Nope, before you get into the guidance bit, theres the part about defining the creator from whom the guidance is coming. And the confirmation bias starts right from there. Going by what you are calling the "reverse approach", one has to first choose the best description of god that matches their own imagination, before examining the proofs being presented.

Not true. You can just eliminate religions you know are very irrational.  And keep studying religions that you see as possible.

That's the thing, every single religion presented so far fall in the "very irrational" category after examining their claims.

Yes some philosophical religions like buddhism and certain sects of hinduism do have their saving graces cause they provide philosophical explanation attempts and not bold claims, but they too have failed when it comes to the claims about divine wisdom or anything supernatural.

The thing that you fail to realize is that atheists have been examining the claims of various religions since the first time religion raised it's head. Skeptics have always been there, even in the animal community outside of you humans. There are no known religions which "could be possible" so far. If you know of any such religion, do ask the creator to present it's case.