On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

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.

You only consider it childish because it puts up a mirror you don't like

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Well, I consider most of the arguments for religion to be at this level of childishness. It really isn't a caricature. There is a claim that everything needs a cause (incorrectly, by the way) and immediately claims that some ultimate cause is God. How is that any different than someone claiming their garden grows because of gnomes and unicorns?

I think maybe *you* should state your reasoning concerning God in a way that doesn't immediately apply to gnomes and unicorns.

---

I also do not think that someone being convinced or not convinced by evidence or reason, the same as you, is a correct usage of the word delusional.

But believing that undetectable things that cannot be measured are causing everything all around us *is* delusional.

Maybe we should ask this: what would it take for you to say that belief in gnomes in my garden is delusional?

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.

[Amarok]

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.

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

[RoadRunner79]

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.

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.

[robvalue]

Sure, sure, sure, sure...

But from a purely technical point of view, an atheist is someone who "lacks theism" or is "without theism". If deism isn't covered by theism, then it must be covered by atheism. This is why I find it neater to stuff them all in the same category.

[The Grand Nudger]

For clarity, is there a point at which you think garden gnome belief would be delusional..or....no?

[polymath257]

Well, I consider most of the arguments for religion to be at this level of childishness. It really isn't a caricature. There is a claim that everything needs a cause (incorrectly, by the way) and immediately claims that some ultimate cause is God. How is that any different than someone claiming their garden grows because of gnomes and unicorns?

I think maybe *you* should state your reasoning concerning God in a way that doesn't immediately apply to gnomes and unicorns.

---

But believing that undetectable things that cannot be measured are causing everything all around us *is* delusional.

Maybe we should ask this: what would it take for you to say that belief in gnomes in my garden is delusional?

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, sure, sure, sure...

But from a purely technical point of view, an atheist is someone who "lacks theism" or is "without theism". If deism isn't covered by theism, then it must be covered by atheism. This is why I find it neater to stuff them all in the same category.

From a purely technical point of view the description I gave you is accurate.  They are all in the same category, ofc, god beliefs. It's just that one is a more elaborate version of the other.

Theos is greek.  Deus..latin.

In the greek it would be "lacking god" - which, to the greek centric greeks..was to lack gods like their gods. Enlightenment deists latched onto the latin as a way of differentiating their pov, and were..coincidentally, called atheists for it.



As a fun aside, while we cant really know how the first god believers conceptualized their creator gods (when they had them)..if many surviving neolithic cultures (nativesa in the various countries we colonized) could be counted on to be similar at contact..and we think they can, there are alot of stories about creator gods who created and then sat back with other deities and spirits filling in as intercessionaries. The first intercessionaries were probably our dead family members - before we even got around to formalizing minor deities and spirits (we were burying each other quite elaborately long before we seemed to have started out in god beliefs). We might consider the march to monotheism; from animism, to ancestor worship, to deism, to polytheism, and then here... as an economizing of the divine. Lay off the supporting cast, roll every job into one, and it makes appeals that much easier. No need for this rite to that spirit in such and such sacred grove, and that rite to the water sprite in so and so pond, etc.

One ring to rule them all, lol.

---

-probably worth adding, to the above, that this isn't to say that the greeks were wholly unfamiliar with what we now call deism.  Entirely to the contrary, it's simply that this concept was..to an extent, rolled into their ideas of their own theistic gods.  The underlying reality, if you will..with theistic gods being some fraction or portion or manifestation of a greater divinity or demiurge.

.....or, as most people are more familiar with, the theistic gods being the children of even more powerful, primal, and impersonal forces, titans all long since locked away.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

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.

[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.