I'm surprised you have a limit on things that are not important enough to argue about. This is one of the more tedious conversations I've had on Reddit, but I'm game. Don't limit yourself for my sake. Let's make this as tedious as possible.

I mean "important" relative to this discussion. I'm keen to argue unimportant things all day long, this conversation is presented as evidence.

In support of that claim, I just simply don't see how it's an exaggeration to say that religious people don't think there's a physical dude sitting on a cloud changing the sequences of events just to make us happy.

This analogy, for instance, is superfluous and distracts from your point rather than explaining it. I thought you might want to know.

Not at all, it's directly analogous. The point is that "dumbing down" is dependent entirely on the "dumbed down" explanation actually explaining the original concept. If it's so wrong that it's no longer an explanation, then it's no longer a dumbed down explanation, it's just a non-explanation.

I'm simply pointing out that Jesus was a man with supernatural powers. I'm not saying he is the totality of God or that Catholics pray to him. Again, you said, "I don't know of any religion that thinks god(s) is/are men - they are usually supernatural beings." Christianity has a guy who's both. I'm not saying Jesus is OP's invisible man. I'm just toning down your exaggerated statement about gods not being men. He was a manifestation of God in a physical form.

I get what you're saying but what I'm saying is that you're misrepresenting the claim there. Jesus isn't a god, he's a manifestation of god. The "godness" (or "totality of god" as I say above) refers to the spirit, not the manifestation.

I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse. God created man in his own image -> God has the image of a man -> God looks like a man, he could be described as 'a man' -> There are people who believe there is an invisible man watching over them.

I'm not being "obtuse" at all, I'm just rejecting your woeful understanding of theology. Even if we accept your literal interpretation, where "image" becomes "copy", your quoted section suggests that god is both a woman and a man so the interpretation would still be wrong.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that "watching over us" only refers to love and peace and not physical protection or literal watching? According to Proverbs 15:3, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Watching the evil and the good."

Not at all, I'm just rejecting the idea of the common belief that god is a genie.

No one has said anything like this.

This is the suggestion from the OP in the original context. His point was why accept the medical help from someone who believes things can be cured by intervention from god.

No one has done that.

Except the OP, of course.

However, you did say that no religious person believes in this invisible man watching over them. So even if this were the kind of "watching" we were referring to, you've just said that some groups interpret it that way. So no matter how you want to interpret "watch over," someone out there believes it's happening. Someone, not no one.

I said that nobody accepts the description of god as presented, even if we accept the extremely strained and generous interpretation of "watching over", these groups don't view him as a man, or invisible, or sitting above us in any meaningful sense.

So no, still not accurate.

Is God visible to you? Have you seen a god?

No, I find the idea of gods to be absurd so I'm not a believer. My only complaint here is with shitty atheist arguments that fail to understand the things they're trying to reject.