On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

You disagreed with the analogy, but gave no reason for that disagreement. I understand the classical (and many non-classical) arguments for Christianity and have yet to see one that isn't childish or that can't be applied to gnomes in my garden.

I asked why you don't think that someone believing in garden gnomes isn't to be considered to be delusional. As far as I can see, they are. I also see most religious beliefs as being on the same level as belief in garden gnomes. You have yet to give a distinction that cleanly separates those beliefs.

You claim that my argument for garden gnomes uses bad logic. I agree. But it is the same bad logic as is used for the existence of deities. if you reject one, you should reject the other.

As I said, I don't agree with that overly simple analogy.  The reason, is because it is not analogous to any argument for Christianity that I would support.  Which if you think that it is accurate, then I think you need to listen better, and think more.

God exists because the universe exists and the universe needs a creator. Just like the garden needs gnomes to grow.

I answered why.  Because it is just bad logic, to come to a false conclusion.  If this where delusional, then I would be calling atheists delusional, because we don't agree, and I hear bad reasoning here all the time.  As I said, you seem to be just making a statement, that you consider the two things the same, rather than offering reason for calling them delusional.  I would say that delusional is a disconnect from reality.  I would consider it bordering on delusional when atheists claim, that Christians don't give reasons or evidence for their belief, when the clearly do. Not just disagreement, or not being convinced, but acting like no claim was made (a disconnect from reality).    Or that they are not making claims, when they clearly are.  

If you are using that logic and premises, then I do reject the conclusion for both (it doesn't follow).  However this is just dismissing that argument (a bad argument doesn't make the conclusion untrue).   The problem is that you have a poor understanding of Christian arguments (that I recognize and hear anyways).  As I said, if you are just going to make statements and say that don't believe in God, then I think we are done here.   Unless you wish to support that claim, or give some reason or evidence for calling it delusional.

The arguments that theists give are really at the level of me claiming evidence for gnomes because my garden grows. The first-cause argument? The argument from design? I won't even dignify the ontological argument. The argument from moral authority?

Every single one of these is completely analogous to the argument for gnomes.