Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[fr0d0]

Mainstream Christianity does not consider god to be omnibenevolent. Period lol.
You misunderstand the pope then.

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

I like their justification which shows no justification whatsoever.
Fact is there's no biblical support for it. That's what I understand. Feel free to prove me wrong. Once more, I have no axe to grind here. Happy to be proven wrong.

No, I didn't.

Faith should produce works: Fruit. Works alone are irrelevant. Secondly, the pope isn't infallible. I don't know why anyone would think so. If he made a mistake, that's all good. I know the pentecostal church doesn't accept Catholicism as Christian at all. I have some sympathies, but believe that Catholics can be Christian. I concede this point if it is indeed made correctly on that mess of a web page.

Yes, you did.
And you've yet to substantiate your claim of inerrant information.

Seems like I'm saying the same as I'm saying here. You're ignoring what I mean when I'm being quite precise about it. Our knowledge of God as written in the bible is so far flawless. Yes. There are no improvements on it known to man. I say that repeatedly. I'm sorry you're confused about that.

I've been here 5 years and seen most of them. All are complete BS. Nothing has come close. Seriously. I'm not talking biased perspective here. I'm looking for fault.

Like I said: That happens when you stay blind to the facts.

Bias is bias. Show me irrefutable evidence and I shall gladly concede. Show me none and I shall assume it is only your bias talking. How about the skeptics annotated bible? Don't you actually think that amassed wisdom should contain at least one successful challenge? Perhaps we should put a million on it. But then I'm not saying that words written by men should be inerrant. (some Christians do, I don't. No biggie), just that up until now, it remains undefeated.

I explained it again for you. At some point you're going to need to address it. Saying "I don't get it" won't do. To me it's as plain as the nose on your face.

You haven't explained anything - you simply keep repeating that "morality based on assumption of just god is better than morality sans god" - but you haven't proven it yet.

It's self explanatory. You're asking me to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. The proof is already stated. What you have to do is challenge it. No challenge. No need to reply.

It's self explanatory. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

It not self-explanatory. In fact, I regard morality based on absence of any justice in real world to be far superior to your god-based morality.

Great. a blind assertion. Why do you think that? Gimme something.

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

So who knows everything? Do you?

Why does anyone have to know everything?

I have no idea, you said it!

Do you understand the difference between the logical possibility of full knowledge and the actuality of someone having full knowledge?

So you agree with me then?