On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

No you call it childish because he does know and does understand you just don't like hearing the similarities .

Your straw men, don't bother me.   If you would like to make an argument, rather than trying to put words in my mouth, feel free.

If only it were a straw man and if it didn't bother you would have bothered to respond .I have made an argument and put no words in your mouth either. So if you would like to stop bullshitting feel free .

---

This doesn't seem to be making your case for calling others delusional; but rather you just making a statements and not supporting them.  It's not my job, to make your argument for you. I already disagreed with the logic of your analogy, although I don't think that bad logic, makes one delusional. If you disagree, then you will have to explain what you mean by delusional. 

Comparing one thing to invisible gnomes in your garden, isn't making an argument, but a statement.   You need an underlying premise to support it, and then the comparison must properly apply.   You can't just insert anything.   Do you have reasons or evidence for the claim;  or is this it?   Because if this is it, I think we are done here.

---

I also think that you believe that the arguments for Christianity are childlike, because you don't understand, and cannot accurately represent them.   If you think that it was is being put forth, then your ignorant on the subject, and I would suggest that you listen better.

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.

Of course he's going too .But hey wouldn't want to get panties ruffled with our "straw men" or "putting words in his mouth"

---

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. 

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.

Yes it is no analogous no matter how pouty you get about it. And no you don't give a shit about evidence or reason so shut up .

[RoadRunner79]

Doesn't follow..you say?  Then neither would an argument purporting to show that since god is the creator of x, and x exists, so too must god.  It is a one-for-one exchange with garden gnomes and gardens.  Anyone who thinks it doesn't follow for garden gnomes but does follow for gods, after having had this explained..is delusional.  

Glad to know that you'll be on hand to explain to your fellow believers, the next time this invariably pops up, that the argument doesn't follow.

Well that’s a different argument with a different form, which has a different issue. But I have no problem telling a Christian that they have a bad argument here (I’ve do done so before).

[Amarok]

Well that’s a different argument with a different form, which has a different issue. But I have no problem telling a Christian that they have a bad argument here (I’ve do done so before).

No it really isn't 

[RoadRunner79]

These representations are rather funny. I don’t know where the difficulty in understanding is stemming from, but this explains a lot. It’s an interesting contrast between reality and what yinz think.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't follow..you say?  Then neither would an argument purporting to show that since god is the creator of x, and x exists, so too must god.  It is a one-for-one exchange with garden gnomes and gardens.  Anyone who thinks it doesn't follow for garden gnomes but does follow for gods, after having had this explained..is delusional.  

Glad to know that you'll be on hand to explain to your fellow believers, the next time this invariably pops up, that the argument doesn't follow.

Well that’s a different argument with a different form, which has a different issue. But I have no problem telling a Christian that they have a bad argument here (I’ve do done so before).

No, it's not.....see, you're fuckin delusional. 

Well, my garden grows and the gnomes and unicorns are what makes my garden grow, so they must exist, right?

[Garden gnomes] are the cause of the [garden].  The [garden] exists.  Therefore [garden gnomes] exist.

[Gods] are the cause of the [universe].  The [universe] exists.  Therefore [gods] exist.

[x] is the cause of [y]. [y] exists, therefore [x] exists.

[RoadRunner79]

Well that’s a different argument with a different form, which has a different issue. But I have no problem telling a Christian that they have a bad argument here (I’ve do done so before).

No, it's not.....see, you're fuckin delusional.  ;)

Well, my garden grows and the gnomes and unicorns are what makes my garden grow, so they must exist, right?

[Garden gnomes] are the cause of the [garden].  The [garden] exists.  Therefore [garden gnomes] exist.

[Gods] are the cause of the [universe].  The [universe] exists.  Therefore [gods] exist.

[x] is the cause of [y].  [y] exists, therefore [x] exists.

I was referring to Poly’s previous argument. Just for clarification.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean....this?

Please prove there are no invisible gnomes and unicorns in my garden that make my garden grow.

Hmn, idk, seems like you're grasping.

[Angrboda]

I wouldn't claim that religious people are delusional in the same sense that a person with mental illness is delusional, but at the same time religious behavior shares some features with it that merely being mistaken does not.  Of particular note is the absolutism, the supposition that one's belief is knowledge, the fixedness of the beliefs, and the extreme lengths to which religious believers go to defend their beliefs, as well as the tendency to spin ad hoc rationalizations rather than questioning belief.  These are traits that are, at minimum, more emphatic in the religious than in those who are simply mistaken.  So I think there is some merit to analogizing it to delusion, even if it is not one in the same sense.  The reasons for this likely have to do with the neurological support for concepts like God which imbue them with a reality that mere abstract belief does not possess (e.g. the sensus divinitatis).  So religious belief seems to fall in a hinterland between mistaken belief and mental disorder.  And moreover, that aspect of religion tends to be responsible for motivating much of the harm that religious people cause in this world.

Claims of 'delusion' would require overwhelming evidence that the beliefs are false. All atheists have are ad hoc theories to combat the evidence/reasons Christians point to for their belief. Pressing the 'delusion' conclusion shows a complete lack of critical thinking and do no deserve an answer. However your comments are more interesting. 

You are saying something like:

1. There are no good reasons to believe in God
2. Christian belief has a component of neurological support 
3. Christians believe in God despite being shown persuasive arguments to the contrary 
4. Therefore Christians are more than merely mistaken

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

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.  

I believe the original question which Neo asked was why atheists refer to theists as delusional rather than just mistaken, with the implied question of whether it was reasonable to do so. Since the question grants a position of considering theism at least mistaken, your comment about question begging and premise one aren't relevant. Since the rest of your post follows on the heels of that mistake, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of it. I believe Neo has started a thread specifically on the question of whether theists are deluded (IIRC). Your questions might be more relevant there. For my part, I'm a bit tired of interacting and so don't have any immediate plans to follow up further in this thread.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

- and is it so hard to say 
"yeah, but my gnomes are totally legit!"

Because, ofc, they don't actually object to the form or that it follows....they object to how fucking stupid it all sounds when applied to anything else.  

I long...long...to hear some faithful dipshit to just own that shit and dare you or me or anyone else to follow through. I'd just fucking clap..I don't have shit to say to that level of honesty and self awareness...shit, I -respect- it.