Working backwards.

[Mystic]

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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. 

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

[Jesster]

Another approach is to avoid religion entirely. I'll consider your approach when you consider mine.

[Mystic]

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. 

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Most Atheists say they don't believe God doesn't exist but don't know if he exists.  Why take a side of the fence before investigating? 

To say there are no proofs of God is a tall claim. Never seen an Atheist justify that but just say it would be presented to humanity and there would be no Atheists if there were some. But I think that is a weak argument. 

At the very least, if you wish to say there is no evidence to God, you should consider the approach that I talked about.

---

Another approach is to avoid religion entirely. I'll consider your approach when you consider mine.

Tried it for a bit. The questions essential to humanity and the very foundations of who they are began to break in my mind, the fabric that life is based upon, was questioned. It was then that I realized some holy teachings and understood the emphasis of what was emphasized on. 

It was then I began to scent Prophethood, and understand the argument for a door to enter by.

---

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. 

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Another problem with your counter argument:

It works for everything trivial, but God by definition is the being who deserves to be valued and centralized the most in our lives.

So your analogy would be true of everything trivial or non-beneficial.

But as God can the most beneficial and most thing to be valued, then the counter argument fails.

[Jesster]

Tried it for a bit. The questions essential to humanity and the very foundations of who they are began to break in my mind, the fabric that life is based upon, was questioned. It was then that I realized some holy teachings and understood the emphasis of what was emphasized on. 

It was then I began to scent Prophethood, and understand the argument for a door to enter by.

So you started to believe in things you had no evidence of instead to make you feel better. I prefer to accept the evidence I can actually investigate instead of feeling around at things that can't be evidenced. I have grown comfortable with saying "I don't know" instead of just making something up to fill in the blanks. Give me something stronger and I'll consider it. That's absolutely something you haven't tried, as you have shown here many times.

And before you restate it, no I am not saying that there is absolutely no evidence for religious claims anywhere in existence. I am just saying that there is no evidence I have found worthwhile. Come up with something better next time if you want me to consider anything.

[downbeatplumb]

Most Atheists say they don't believe God doesn't exist but don't know if he exists.  Why take a side of the fence before investigating? 

To say there are no proofs of God is a tall claim. Never seen an Atheist justify that but just say it would be presented to humanity and there would be no Atheists if there were some. But I think that is a weak argument. 

At the very least, if you wish to say there is no evidence to God, you should consider the approach that I talked about.

There certainly is no proof for god. In fact what a god is supposed to be has never really been explained to me.
What is it made of?
What does it look like?
How does it do these magical things its supposed to do?

I want well supported and peer reviewed scientific articles to back up anything you might put.

---

[quote pid='1515798' dateline='1487959864']

---

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Another problem with your counter argument:

It works for everything trivial, but God by definition is the being who deserves to be valued and centralized the most in our lives.

I disagree. In the unlikely event that there was a god and it happened to be the one you pick. It would be interesting but still just a trivial thing. How would it effect me other than to be a thing?
It would be like discovering quantum physics, interesting but it doesn't really affect what I do down the shops.

So your analogy would be true of everything trivial or non-beneficial.

But as God can the most beneficial and most thing to be valued, then the counter argument fails.

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

[Mystic]

Most Atheists say they don't believe God doesn't exist but don't know if he exists.  Why take a side of the fence before investigating? 

To say there are no proofs of God is a tall claim. Never seen an Atheist justify that but just say it would be presented to humanity and there would be no Atheists if there were some. But I think that is a weak argument. 

At the very least, if you wish to say there is no evidence to God, you should consider the approach that I talked about.

There certainly is no proof for god.

What is for certain is there no proof for that claim of yours. At least, none presented by anyone here.

 In fact what a god is supposed to be has never really been explained to me.
What is it made of?
What does it look like?
How does it do these magical things its supposed to do?

I want well supported and peer reviewed scientific articles to back up anything you might put.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[Mystic]

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.

[Aoi Magi]

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?