On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

Yes, I am male.

Second, I think it is theists that haven't really thought through their arguments. if they did, they would realize that they all equally well support garden gnomes.

I challenge you to give an argument for the existence of a deity that doesn't equally well work for the existence of garden gnomes.

Have you ever tried to nail a gnome to a cross? Your argument fails

It's difficult, I admit, but the garden gnomes tell of one of their hero's, Fred, who was nailed to an old tree by an ancient garden. The tree enveloped him and since then gnomes have been able to make gardens grow. It was quite something according to them. Again, it must have happened because gardens do grow.

---

Yes, I am male.

Second, I think it is theists that haven't really thought through their arguments. if they did, they would realize that they all equally well support garden gnomes.

I challenge you to give an argument for the existence of a deity that doesn't equally well work for the existence of garden gnomes.

I have no doubt, that you can just say garden gnomes after each argument.  And it will be no more impressive than you started.  I could do that as well.... It's not very difficult.   I think that one could do this with a number of other things as well, which would show it to be an invalid tactic.

In your unusual handling of the word delusional (coming from bad logic).  You might also want to consider the fallacy, fallacy.  that even if you show a particular argument to be fallacious, it only shows that the conclusion was arrived at for the wrong reasons.  It doesn't mean that it isn't a reality. It certainly doesn't mean that a person is delusional.   Do you think that everyone who doesn't see things the way that you do; is delusional?  I'm not interested in playing your garden gnome game; because it's rigged.  After everything and all the reasoning (which is not - garden grows; therefore gnomes and unicorns), you can ignore the arguments and not deal with the conclusions by just saying it is "garden gnome". One that has all the attributes that where reasoned to.  One that is very similar to the concept of the monotheistic God.  This doesn't take any thought or reasoning, it's just incredulity and you stating an opinion.  You still wouldn't have given reason or evidence for saying that a good number of people are delusional.  Jumping to something else (perhaps that we both don't believe in) doesn't refute the arguments, it's just making a statement.  It's not just bad thinking, it's lazy thinking.  And what you have given so far, doesn't incline me to follow you down this rabbit trail.

My argument:

1. Believing in garden gnomes is delusional.
2. Any belief that is no more rational than a delusional belief is also delusional.
3. Belief in a deity is no more rational than belief in garden gnomes.
4. So belief in a deity is delusional.

If the only objection to the use of the word 'delusional' is that many people actually believe in the delusion, then substitute 'deeply irrational'. But I would also point out that belief in deities also leads to confabulation, a typical symptom of delusion. In fact, the whole subject of apologetics is just confabulation concerning deities.