On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Poly hasn’t really made any arguments yet, or given any reason. It’s jist statements. There is nothing to refute. Which is why I have suggested multiple times that she give the reasons directly.

[Silver]

Poly hasn’t really made any arguments yet, or given any reason. It’s jist statements. There is nothing to refute.  Which is why I have suggested multiple times that she give the reasons directly.

You might try by realizing that Poly is a he.

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple fact.

If garden gnomes are mere conceptual representations of what the imagination can conceive, then so is god. After all, garden gnomes are made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present the statues in the garden. God is made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present him in books.

Understand?

[Amarok]

Poly hasn’t really made any arguments yet, or given any reason. It’s jist statements. There is nothing to refute.  Which is why I have suggested multiple times that she give the reasons directly.

Poly like always made a incredibly substantial argument unlike you and Steve who just repeat talking points like parrots

[RoadRunner79]

Poly hasn’t really made any arguments yet, or given any reason. It’s jist statements. There is nothing to refute.  Which is why I have suggested multiple times that she give the reasons directly.

You might try by realizing that Poly is a he.

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple fact.

If garden gnomes are mere conceptual representations of what the imagination can conceive, then so is god. After all, garden gnomes are made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present the statues in the garden. God is made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present him in books.

Understand?

Ok... now you just need to support your claims. This is only making it workers for thinking that atheists don’t really think through these things.

[polymath257]

You might try by realizing that Poly is a he.

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple fact.

If garden gnomes are mere conceptual representations of what the imagination can conceive, then so is god.  After all, garden gnomes are made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present the statues in the garden.  God is made representational by imagination and created via man's hands to present him in books.

Understand?

Ok... now you just need to support your claims.   This is only making it workers for thinking that atheists don’t really think through these things.

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.

[Amarok]

Ok... now you just need to support your claims.  

Which he did you and the rest of the theists on this site should take notes 


 

This is only making it workers for thinking that theists don’t really think through these things.

Fixed that

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... now you just need to support your claims.   This is only making it workers for thinking that atheists don’t really think through these things.

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.

[Cod]

Ok... now you just need to support your claims.   This is only making it workers for thinking that atheists don’t really think through these things.

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

[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.

[RoadRunner79]

Well thanks for the laugh. And now when atheists call a religious person a delusional, I will just chuckle... and feel a little sad for them.