Is the Buhddist really warranted to believe as they do yet at the same time and in the same relationship the bible tells us indirectly that they are not?
They are warranted---because of the fall, their sensus Divinitatus is not working properly. This is part of what giving a person over to their unbelief means.
Russell's analysis fails at this point which is why we must bring the logical idea of presupossition to make more sense out of it.
And I would say that Russell's problem is grounded in a bad understanding of language and meaning. His analysis is unnecessary.
The logic is still sound here, all talk about barlogs would not be false but meaningless if Tolkien had never invented them. Their existance is not the point but does anytalk about them presuposse that Tolkien invented them?
The point of Russell's paradox is precisely their existence. You and I maintain that it is irrelevant, though, for entirely different reasons.
Making sense out of creation means correctly interpreting it.
I think you have confused "making sense of" something with understanding it. One may be false in how one makes sense of something.
For instance pointing out to someone that they are committing a logical fallacy in a beleif that they had warrant for previously seems to me to be sufficient evidence that they no longer have said warrant.
If and only if the belief in question was reached by means of formal logic. If it was reached by means of the senses, or some other form of deduction, it is more likely that a de facto critique is needed.
Both of those arguments are logical in nature. But in our discussions you seem to rule out such arguments on grounds like "the person finds such questions stupid", which seems to me to only base warrant on more ignorance which would make the whole thing irrational.
I'm simply pointing out that the rank and file even of intellectuals will find your criticisms to be either a) a logical puzzle to be solved away (the way that atheists, like William Rowe, treat the ontological argument) b) "quaint" in its reasoning c) uninteresting and irrelevant. My point is that you should probably first explain why they should care.
Yes but how will do they function on their beleifs?
That question only works from the outside. Inside the delusion, it's irrelevant.