On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Uhmmm sure....I think thet you should probably stick to making your own arguments. Or is your whole argument based on straw men?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right back to it, huh?  What a fraud.

[Amarok]

You can set a watch by Roadies desperation to defend his nonsense

[polymath257]

God exists because the universe exists and the universe needs a creator. Just like the garden needs gnomes to grow.


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.

Uhmmm sure....I think thet you should probably stick to making your own arguments.  Or is your whole argument based on straw men?

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.

[Amarok]

Uhmmm sure....I think thet you should probably stick to making your own arguments.  Or is your whole argument based on straw men?

Too Road anything he does not like is a Straw man

[Amarok]

Why do you think the authorship was uncertain?

Because they are 

 Certainly the people at the time knew who wrote the gospels.

You never answered why we should assume this let alone it be certain 

Do you think they were left on a doorstep? 

Hyperbole they would not need to to have unknown authors 

Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead? 

Pual being known means nothing nor does his confidence in something mean anything 

Different accounts by different authors is EXACTLY what you want. No evidence of growing over time.

Nope the differences are because they were not eyewitness and yes there is tons of evidence of additions and mythologized themes  


Your arguments suck Steve from you blather church traditions were the same per or post gospels to your nonsense that the Jesus character isn't mythologized or added to. To your crap about  the spread of Christianity. To your derpy acceptance of the persecution.All of it apologist crap .

[RoadRunner79]

Uhmmm sure....I think thet you should probably stick to making your own arguments.  Or is your whole argument based on straw men?

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.

[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.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I think that your arguments takes the same form as you garden gnomes argument. You make a statement, don’t support it, and jump to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the arguments. It is interesting to learn how your naive understanding distorts things though.

[Silver]

I think that your arguments takes the same form as you garden gnomes argument. You make a statement, don’t support it, and jump to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the arguments. It is interesting to learn how your naive understanding distorts things though.

Bitch, please.

Stop being so dense.

I like you, always have, but now you're just being silly.

The argument stands on the merit of logic. You are unwilling to accept the reality for the fact that it disrupts your personal perceptions and thus cognitive dissonance sets in.