Does the possibilty that something exists beyond mortalty bother you foob? Do you find it more comforting in oblivion rather than the hope of obtaining eternal life?

I just can't see the logic of choosing nihilism over hope.



Then the idea of oblivion and never to be held accountable for one's actions appeals to emotion as well. A lot of people probably dislike the possiblity of one day facing thier Maker...and having to give an account of thier lives...knowing the wicked deeds they done or good deeds they should have done....the idea of doing pretty much anything they please so long as they don't hurt others without having to answer to a supreme authority has emotional appeal.

So the saying "No God No Problem" is a very attractive choice for a growing number of people..little wonder we're seeing the rise of iniquity and wickedness these days.



That you will have to find that answer for yourself Foob. Only by the Spirit which manifests the truth will you know and be convinced. Nothing I could say is going to convince you. Your heart is closed on the matter.

Once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of the word "logic."

The logical fallacy of appeal to emotion is attempting to use emotion as proof of a logical argument. The only one doing that here is YOU.

I know the answer. There is no logical fallacy in the statement "maybe there is nothing after death."

"Maybe there is nothing after death" is not illogical. "Maybe there is an afterlife" is not illogical. "Maybe there is a God" is not illogical. If you understood the meaning of "logic" you would know that, and stop using the word like that. Therefore, you do not understand the meaning of the word "logic." There, I just used logic for you.

You keep going on about the definition of logic and the exact wording of it.

Perhaps you should study to become a lawyer..that seems to be up your alley...which btw imo.. most lawyers are contributing to the growing problem of court cases bogging down the legal system in both our countries and making a mockey of justice.

We could keep going in circles on the wording of logic and get nowhere in a hurry.

I have nothing more to say to you on this matter.Why bang my head against the wall arguing with you?

Because I stated that you do not understand the word "logic," and you stated that you do. Obviously, the definition of the word would play a critical role in settling that.


See you the next time you make this exact same argument.

You might wish to take you own advice and pick up a history book yourself silky.

It might surprise you to learn that the Church was largely responsible for the salvation of much of the learning and arts from ancient Greece and Rome and that, in fact, it was under the aegis of the Church that science and art flourished and this even goes back as far as what has been misleadingly called the "dark ages."

It would be interesting to assess just what advances in science and the arts were made under aegis of communist regimes.

And since you seem focused on the killings committed in the name of religion, if you did some objective research you might be surprised to learn that the death tolls over HUNDREDS of years would STILL be dwarfed by the death tolls created by a mere 60 years of communist rule in several countries - and in NONE of that time had any of those regimes made ANY significant contributions to science or the arts (if they made any at all).

Were there atrocities committed in the name of religion? Of course there were, plenty of them. Hell, they are being committed to this very day by various religions.

But, when one honestly and objectively views the entirety of their histories, religion has contributed as much good if not more to society than bad.

The same cannot be said about communism.

ahh glorious silence, way ta go foobar.

Ah yes, precisely the sort response I'd expect from a committed leftist - silence in the face of facts.

Good job Silky. You keep on living in your insular world of ignorance.

I don't know what you mean by "the logic," do you mean "that which is comforting?"



Whatever anyone thinks of it, I know of no proof, or the potential of a proof, for God, for the most common definition I've heard.



If by Spirit, you mean an entity similar to, which has similar properties, or which contains, as you would say, God, you are indirectly speaking of it as though you know exists. However, I no of no proof or the potential of a proof for those concepts, if I know how they are defined.

What things are supposed to be in opposition? None of the following statements contradict any in the preceding section.

1oldminer - Take my advice, never EVER try to back up your arguments with a claim of "logic". You seem to have a fundamental inability to comprehend what logic is, so claiming that you are using it is only hurting your argument.