Working backwards.

[Mystic]

So you will want Scientists to prove and explain all these things to you, but won't give the Creator a chance to speak by closing your ears to what potentially is from him?

Please see the OP, and see the argument I made for the case, of why I think Atheists should consider this approach.

Or approach is one of presupposition and is not a valid way to get to truth.
It is the opposite and will only lead to you seeing what you want to see.
You fit reality to the facts you want rather than the facts to reality.
Its why there are still creationists and other poor deluded fools.

It's not presupposition, it gives the possibility of the Creator existing, and the possibility that he would prove himself and the correct explanation to life. It doesn't assume he exists.

It just an approach instead of mocking this issue and belittling it, to take it seriously, to the extent, you give the possibility of the Creator proving himself and who he is.

[The Grand Nudger]

One way to approach religion is to say, all sects of a particular religion have no proof, and the religion itself has no proof, and all this is true because God has no proof.

Another way to approach religion is to say, if there was a god, what religion would be most probably true, and if that religion was true, which sect has proof for their stance. And you can then verify which sect would have proof for the particular religion, in which, then you would know which instance of the religion actually true represents it and hence makes the proper arguments for it. 

Sure, that's another way to approach it...and approaching it in that direction...I've concluded that it's not yours.  

Then you can say, what evidence does it have for humanity for the Divine Creator it presents to humanity if any at all.  How does it justify faith in God in the first place? etc.. etc...

I think you guys should consider this approach.

Moses coming down from the mountain with the tablets, eh?  A common fantasy of the faithful.  You aren;t presenting something original, to make me think about the issue in a way I haven't before.  

The reason is as follow if there is a religion that is true, they would have evidence for the truth. And if God is central to the truth of the faith,  the best arguments would for his existence would be found in that religion.

Ruling yours out.

Another argument is as follows: Who best to prove his existence and explain our purpose than the Creator himself. Who best to show how we can know him than the one who designed it.

Yup, again...ruling yours out for consideration.  If god wants to tell us whats up, he doesn't need to stick his hand up Mohameds ass to do so, now does he?  

The alternative approach is you don't attempt to find proofs in religions and just wait for believers to present it. Well according to Islam there came times when there were very few believers on earth.  Also, they may not be best able to explain things to you or they don't how to heal the issue of the evil that keeps people from seeing God.

This, I'd grant, is one thing they got right.  Once upon a time, islam was a cult with a diminutive following.  It's amazing what a few centuries of bloody conquest can do, eh?  

If you wait for proofs from people who are not appointed by God, you may perhaps never receive them or be overwhelmed with bad arguments or bad presentation of good arguments.

Appointed by god.....now wait a minute.....isn;t the best way to hear it from the horses mouth....I could have swore somebody told me that once, like, two or three sentences ago.  

But God, if he exists knows his creation and would be best suited to guide to the truth through a revelation from him and appointed interpreters and teachers that are chosen, pure and exalted.

It must be disturbing to have all of these arguing opinions in your own head. I'm a little bit amused though, that you think you have some chosen, pure and exalted teachers. Is that arabic for "tribal chieftans"?

[downbeatplumb]

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

---

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

[Jesster]

It just an approach instead of mocking this issue and belittling it, to take it seriously, to the extent, you give the possibility of the Creator proving himself and who he is.

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.

[Mystic]

What approach MK? Yes one can assume a "god" exists, but from that point on, what attributes that being has is entirely subject to ones own imagination, now in the third step looking for a religion and sect matching this preconceived notion is nothing but "confirmation bias". How can one accept a biased view as proof?

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

[downbeatplumb]

What approach MK? Yes one can assume a "god" exists, but from that point on, what attributes that being has is entirely subject to ones own imagination, now in the third step looking for a religion and sect matching this preconceived notion is nothing but "confirmation bias". How can one accept a biased view as proof?

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

That's not how I roll buddy
I base what I believe on facts not facts on what I believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

Well....god might be an idiot...but lets be generous and assume that this is true.  What does "god's" failure to do so tell us, then?  

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

No........why?

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

Maybe, someday.....but until the day that some god and some religion not ruled out on the grounds you describe above appears.......

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

Maybe it's -you- who needs to step aside and let "god" prove his case?  Honestly, Mystic, who's stepping on his dick, here?

[Mystic]

It just an approach instead of mocking this issue and belittling it, to take it seriously, to the extent, you give the possibility of the Creator proving himself and who he is.

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.

[Jesster]

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.

But you have the right one... just like everyone else says. Try again.

Also, you're saying a lot about misrepresentations when you just misrepresented me. I didn't just say I grew up religious. I said I gave it serious consideration for at least two decades. I didn't just look into the one religion, either. I looked around a lot before I just stopped believing.

[Mystic]

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.

But you have the right one... just like everyone else says. Try again.

Also, you're saying a lot about misrepresentations when you just misrepresented me. I didn't just say I grew up religious. I said I gave it serious consideration for at least two decades.

If there is a true religion, those claiming is to be true, would be claiming it while others would be claiming false religions to be true.

Giving it consideration means what exactly? How did you study? Did you break down questions into smaller questions. Did you investigate those questions? Did you make notes when studying a holy book? Did you try to see things in there?

Tell me how you approached it.