On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

First, I think (1) is question begging. But I seem to see that in every atheist argument. 

Nope it's the state of affairs 

Second, I don't think (1) is true. Even if the belief is false, there are reasons to believe in God (do I need to trot out my long list?). 'Good reasons' is subjective and especially when it comes to the personal reasons people give for their belief, there is no way an atheist can qualify those reasons.  

Nope there is not and you have no reason just apologetic make believe .And nope it's not subjective you have been schooled on this over and over .

Third, for (2) Christians would claim this is a component of a cumulative case for belief: this is what we would expect to see if God exists. The defeater for such a thing is going to be something like evolutionary psychology programmed us to believe in causes and when none was apparent: God. Interesting theory that would be stronger if there were not other reasons to believe. With other reasons to believe, it is not at all compelling because it kind of assumes its conclusion. You need it to be compelling to get closer to the 'delusion' spectrum. 

Their is no case period and no it does not assume the conclusion 

Conviction that your beliefs are true is different than conviction that your beliefs are true and those beliefs entail some motivation/action/bigger picture. Inherent in Christianity is both exclusivity and a motivation/commitment to propagate the belief because the consequences of unbelief are severe. I think it is these (and other) characteristics of Christianity which makes the worldview either all true or all false. There is no middle ground. You interpret this certainty as unjustified (and approaching delusional)--but really it is a feature built into the worldview.

Utter crap