Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play

[KevinM1]

Still the dumbest analogy.

Said the box of rocks...

Note how the theist results to insults when his argument rather than himself is insulted.

We know marriage is a thing.

Marriage is an institution, Like Religion or worship is an institution. If you are going to try and be intellectually honest you need to compare apples to apples.
If you know marriage is a thing, then you equally know Christianity is a 'thing.' Again both are institution that represent a formal Deeply personal relationship.

Also note the many words that don't actually say anything of value.

And marriage is functionally a socioeconomic status, granting certain privileges.  It doesn't have to represent a deeply personal relationship.  The two ideas, while connected, aren't 100% cause and effect.

 There are actually certificates involved and everything.

The same is true with religion.

Really?  Where's your certificate of belief?

 There's 3rd party evidence of it actually, you know, existing.

Again the same is true with the actual acts contained in religion.

Ah, here's the linguistic trick area.  What actual acts are you describing?  The various rites and rituals belonging to a religion, or the miracles your savior supposedly executed?

 There's also the fact that the people who get married actually exist.  They're not marrying a ghost, or holy spirit, or anything not tangible and evident to all.

Again real people goto a real Church so again you know that is real.

So?  Church is real.  Religion is real.  The feelings theists have towards their deity are real.  But none of that means that deity actually exists.  People form emotional attachments to fictional things all the time.  Those attachments don't lend those objects reality.

What you don't seem to get is what the marriage represents is just as intangible as God IF you have never experienced either. This is also why you don't think the analogy works. because to you marriage is only a 'thing'. You don't seem to be accounting for all the intangibles that go into a relationship before a marriage can happen. Not to mention all of the intangables that must be there in order for people to stay married. These 'intangables' are also what establishes and maintains a relationship with God.

A relationship has your intangibles (which really aren't intangible since brain chemistry exists, psychology is real, and physical responses to certain stimuli also exists).  Marriage is, again, a socioeconomic construct whose origins stem from maintaining lineage and maintaining/increasing wealth, often in the form of land holdings, cattle, and things of that nature.  It's also strongly tied to politics, namely in forming and strengthening alliances between tribes/clans/families.

You're stuck on the Hallmark ideal of marriage, that it's this grand final step in a loving relationship.  Actual human history shows that marriage has often been used as a tool, one utterly bereft of love.  It doesn't mean that people don't or haven't married for the 'right' reasons, just that there are far more things involved in marriage as a concept than it being a holy institution.

With god, there's what's presented in the bible, which is hardly an unbiased source, and the people who buy into its tripe, who are also obviously biased and their feelings/experiences can logically be explained by other, more mundane things which, following Occam's Razor, makes it far more likely that those mundane things are the cause rather than a god entity.  Beyond that, there is zero, as in nothing, nada, zilch reputable evidence that a god entity actually exists.

That's not true. The only thing you can truly say is you have found nothing to support the existence of God. just like if you were to never get married, the best you can say is that YOU have no proof of what Love is. You cant say love is not real or does not exist simply because you never experienced it.

This is idiotic.  I'm not married, but have been in love.  Moreover, I know, objectively, that love exists.  Again, brain chemistry is real.  We have brain scans of people experiencing all sorts of different emotions, and memories, and other things related to thought and feeling.

To get back to your tortured relationship/marriage analogy, you keep using the word faith when it comes to people searching for a partner.  But here's the thing - you're assuming that people believe that there's a soul mate waiting for them somewhere among the, what, 6 or 7 billion people on the planet.  But that's, again, presumptuous.  Plenty of people hope they find someone they can spend their lives with, but they might not believe that there is a single person out there that's utterly perfect for them.  Or, even if they do believe that there is because they watched The Notebook too many times, they might not be convinced that they'll find that person and are willing to make do and compromise.  Or they might not care at all, and are simply playing the field.

On the other side, you're assuming that there's one soul mate for each person, when there could be several out there.  Which utterly undermines your analogy, because you'll only accept your god as the right answer.

It's a trite, ill-fitting analogy all the way around, designed to paint belief in a romantic light.

And, yes, the bar is set higher for god.  The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to verify it.

 
A claim is only deemed 'extrordinary' if and when the item or concept is completely foreign. If heavier than air flight possible? was it possible 200 years ago? if not, then why would any more proof be needed 200 years ago, than would be needed now, IF indeed the concept is sound? Prejudice. People want to believe what they think they already know.

Except, the concept of god isn't sound.  Indeed, your particular god is utterly illogical and self-contradictory.  And, again, you're conflating disparate things - technological advancement vs. no evidence suggesting your claim of a deity is true.

Bro, can you even argue?

And the claim of being the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is far, far more extraordinary than the idea that there may be a proper partner/mate out there for everyone.

So again would a face to face with such a creator be evidence enough for you? That is what Jesus is offering in Luke 11. If we exert just the same effort we put into finding the person we want to spend our life with.

Not unless that face-to-face presented me the ability to ensure I wasn't simply hallucinating, or wasn't witnessing something else attempting to deceive me.  There's also that tricky question of which god.  You're presumptuous in assuming I'd see your god.

Again, you're relying on naive romanticism and a tortured analogy to make a point that is easily refuted.

Easily refuted if and only if one is not honestly looking at all of what is being said.

Or if the person trying to make the point couldn't form a coherent argument if their life depended on it.  Guess which accurately describes this little exchange?