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

[polymath257]

Yes. If there is *any* sort of theism that makes any sense, it is pantheism: identify the universe as God. The problem, as I said, is that this seems to shift the definition of 'God' so much it has little link with the usual concept (however poorly defined it is).

---

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

Why do you think that there is?  If you are claiming, that because we can’t see something, that it does not exist, and hence a person claiming so is delusional, then I don’t think that is a very good argument and one that I can make you contradict fairly quickly; if that is the road you are intending to go down.

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

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

[Amarok]

Why do you think that there is?  If you are claiming, that because we can’t see something, that it does not exist, and hence a person claiming so is delusional, then I don’t think that is a very good argument and one that I can make you contradict fairly quickly; if that is the road you are intending to go down.

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

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

"My invisible dragon is sound proof cannot be detect by light heat or radiation produces no gases etc etc but you need to prove it does not exist before you can not believe in it and reject my belief in it you need to have special dragon finding powers lol"

[LadyForCamus]

Pshhh, I have dragon-finding powers. 🐲

[Amarok]

Pshhh, I have dragon-finding powers. 🐲

Your powers are heresy according to the source of my magic dragon finding powers mine is the one true dragon finding powers according to magic book i have hidden in my basement that only i can understand because... special revelation ...

[robvalue]

Almost every theist does a lot more than just "claim God exists". They only retreat to this position when challenged, to gain cover behind all the other theists, who actually disagree with them about what is really being claimed. This is, of course, instead of providing evidence for their own beliefs.

---

PS: It's not like they are obliged to provide evidence. A religious belief appears to be required to be speculation to even count as such.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism is, by definition, more than the claim or belief that god exists.  That would be deism. Deism is, however, in no way shape or form a supporting argument for theism.

[robvalue]

Well, it's a matter of definition, but I would count deism as a subset of theism. Theism is just belief in God. It doesn't tell you what that "God" is supposed to mean, nor necessitate further beliefs.

But sure, you can exclude deism from theism. It doesn't matter which way round.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism is just belief in God.

Again, that would be deism.  

Theism is a belief in a personal and interceding deity which actively participates in the world and our lives.  It is a comment on a type of god and what god means defined by further beliefs, additional to and from deism.

I know it's pedantic, but it's useful to know.

(it also helps to explain why pantheism is not pandeism...pantheism asserts that nature/universe, like a personal god, is an actual necessary being..and, ofc, that it actively participates in our lives - how could nature not..right. )

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think that there is?  If you are claiming, that because we can’t see something, that it does not exist, and hence a person claiming so is delusional, then I don’t think that is a very good argument and one that I can make you contradict fairly quickly; if that is the road you are intending to go down.

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

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional? Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments. Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.