It's not entirely true. You can run out of emotions, both good and bad. When you repeatedly hear or see someone being killed, tortured or whatever, you can stop feeling compassionate for those victims, and react as if it's normal. When you repeatedly enjoy something like say watching sunsets (no way a drug is an enjoyment!), you might find out that you are less enjoyed than before - it's called saturation and it can lead to lack of positive emotions connected to whatever you were enjoying. When you DO something bad, you can cease feeling guilty about what you do, it's called hardness of heart.

Your not running out of emotion in any of these examples, your simply being desensitized to the stimuli. This can usually be altered by changing ones routine.

You can also run out of love, if you're not get fed with love by your neighbors, for example.

That's counter to all of your other examples.

A believer can approach God and ask for love, but an atheist can't since he doesn't believe in God, and he needs other sources to fill himself if needed.

The emotions in regards to love hasn't changed much from when I believed there was a God and now. In fact given I don't get as depressed now I would even go as far as to say I may feel such emotions more so.

Let's say you got your legs burnt to the point of leaving only charred bones. Will you regenerate? She did, but not by her own virtue.

The stuff I'm reading doesn't seem to indicate she was burned to that point, only that the doctors thought they would have to amputate but that she ended up recovering.

Do I have to prove that your soul exists?

Yes you do.

Take some advice from the Dalai Lama. "We must accept reality, we must not rely blindly on scripture."

Do I have to prove that your soul exists?

That would be an interesting change for once.

But this set is divided into material and spiritual, the former is applicable, the latter is not. Emotions are immaterial, and you can observe them being at least irrational, I claim them being illogical just because you can't determine what emotion will be caused in yourself if you do something. Women's emotions are the best approximation of entirely indeterministic state, which cannot be described by logic, this means logic can't apply to something that exists. (I sense there are flaws in this argument, though can't determine them)

This was so carefully hidden, I missed them altogether yesterday!

Well, your first statement is that things in the "spiritual realm" are not subject to the laws of logic.

But surely, if they exist, they exist.  And they either:
Exist OR Don't Exist.

They can't simultaneously
Exist AND Not exist.

And If they exist, then they exist no matter what else exists (basically, anything implies a true statement).

And if they exist, and their existence implies some P, then that P must also be (axiom Modus Ponens).

And if them not existing implies that some P doesn't exist, then P existing implies that they also exist (due to them either existing or not existing).

It seems as though we can derive a great deal of theorems for these axioms stated.  It is clear that they are subject to the same laws of logic as everything else that either exists or doesn't exist.

But this set is divided into material and spiritual, the former is applicable, the latter is not. Emotions are immaterial, and you can observe them being at least irrational, I claim them being illogical just because you can't determine what emotion will be caused in yourself if you do something.

Emotions are the result of biochemical stimuli. There's nothing metaphysical about them.

Emotions are the result of biochemical stimuli. There's nothing metaphysical about them.

Even if they are in the "spiritual realm", the statements that you say about them are still either right or wrong, and they either exist or don't exist.  Thus, logic is still applicable.

Do I have to prove that your soul exists?

Uhm... yes. You can't really say this unless you have proof to back it up, so I would like to see this proof.

Went we ask him for evidence let's keep in mind what he considers evidence.

"okay, you have already disregarded the Bible, you disregard personal evidence, even cumulative like Fatima's miracle, some of you have also disregarded church tradition. I'm out of sources."

For me this statement put the final nail in his argument.

Can any Christianity prove Christianity by any means other than I feel Jesus out there?

Since in every religion there are people saying they feel their God I think you all must be wrong since the chance of any small group of you being right isn't even worth considering because it is so unlikely.