Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

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.

In this matter, I don't care about proving you wrong. According to the link, mainstream Christianity believes in omnibenevolence, you don't. That's a contradiction and I'm fine leaving it at that.

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.

Again, I don't care about resolving this contradiction - simply showing its existence.

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.

Identifying the presence or the absence of any flaw would require a correct standard to measure it against. Without the availability of such a standard, you cannot claim your knowledge to be flawless.

So, to be even more precise, you are saying one of three things:

1. Either - your knowledge of god comes from the bible and it matches the bible's conception of god. I could care less about this position. You understood and interpreted the bible correctly? Good for you. You still have to establish that your standard, i.e. the bible upon which you are claiming flawlessness, is accurate. And that I know it not to be.

2. Or - your knowledge of god comes from the bible and it matches how god actually is. And you can't make this claim without actually proving the existence of god.

Which one is it?

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.

You have been shown evidence. And no, covering your eyes and going "la,la,la" does not count as a refutation.

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.

I'm asking you to prove that "morality based of assumption of just reality is preferable to the alternative". It is neither self-explanatory nor is it already stated. I don't have to challenge shit until you prove it.

And for the record, if 1+1=2 was your claim, I'd require proof for that as well - I won't accept "self-explanatory" as answer.

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

You first.

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?
[/quote]

No.