On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

The argument is based on the absolute delusional arguments made in support of a deity. Every single one can equally well be used for arguing for gnomes in my garden. if you can refute the latter, I can equally easily refute the former.

Just accept that belief in deities is irrational to *exactly* the same degree that belief in garden gnomes is irrational. Well, actually, it's worse because even more claims are made about deities.

Refute what exactly?  You haven't presented evidence or reason for calling someone who is religious delusional.  All you have done is a make a vague reference and rather naive comparison to Garden gnomes.  You haven't presented any case for anything, and it's not my job to make an argument for you.  

As I have said numerous times, if you have an argument, then make I think that you should present it directly, rather than just stating over and over the same B.S. concerning garden gnomes.  Or you could state why you think a non-sequitur is reason to call someone delusional. 

This is only showing that you don't understand what you are talking about.  Perhaps the following will help with your confusion.  Most of the arguments you have mentioned, are arguing towards a conclusion, which is an attribute or characteristic of God.   Similar to Aquinas's arguments for a prime mover, and then stating something akin to "this everyone understands to be God".   I think that sometimes there is a criticism to be had (at least I do); that people are perhaps not as specific as they should be in stating this.  But your caricature of the arguments is just ridiculous.  Which is why I think that you should address them directly.  It's about as ridiculous as saying that disagreement about a logical conclusion is justification for calling someone delusional.  If this where the case, then Christians should be calling atheists delusional because they disagree.

OK, my argument is that belief in a deity is *exactly* as delusional as belief in garden gnomes and unicorns. They are both based on the same types of evidence and 'logic'. For example, the Primer mover argument in *no* way supports the existence of a singular deity, a deity with a personality, etc. Arguing that a Prime mover has to exist and be a deity is *precisely* the same as arguing that gardens grow because of gnomes: in the garden, the gnomes take the place of the 'Prime mover'.

The *form* of religious arguments and those for garden gnomes is the same. THAT is my argument: that any argument for a deity works equally well as an argument for garden gnomes and unicorns.