Contradictions in "rational" thought

[Eilonnwy]

Adrian is spot on.

No. Context isn't necessary for your statements either. Your statements can both be true because one refers to the character of a nonexistent (we all know) movie character who (we all know) doesn't exist.

You do realize that your knowledge of Darth Vader as a fictional character is context, right? Not everyone knows who Darth Vader is. Not everyone has seen Star Wars, shocking I know, but there are people out there less privileged than us and have never had the pleasure. I could tell someone about Darth Vader and they may have no independent knowledge of Star Wars or that he is fictional, and if I tell him he doesn't exist, people may scratch their head till I clarify that I'm talking about a fictional character.

[Tiberius]

These arguments are used arguing with Christians, period.

Then the atheist making those arguments is wrong to use them. Though I very much doubt most atheist thinkers would use them in the groups you put them in, for the obvious contradictions they form.

For instance, I would use argument B from the first set, argument A from the second set, and argument B from the third set.

You see, as a rational person I know why argument A1 (A from the 1st set) makes no sense in the Christian doctrine, so there isn't any point using it. I think the Bible is a very intolerant book, so I would certainly use argument A2 to point out what I see as contradictions in the Biblical sense (i.e. an all-loving God who clearly isn't all-loving). I don't know in what context I'd use B2 though..., and finally I wouldn't use A3 since it is clearly ridiculous to say that the splitting of Christianity into other denominations has anything to say for the veracity of any of those sects. As fr0d0 has pointed out in the past, every Christian agrees with the Nicene Creed, regardless of denomination. I am, however, a big fan of people thinking for themselves.

Look, put them in some context that makes sense and nothing will change.

I'm not putting them in context...I don't know what context most of them should be in. That is your job...

Well no. They are all used often. Are you saying I made them up?

The point is, are they used often in conjunction with each other, by the same atheist, in the same argument? If not, then they can't be called contradictory.

I'm afraid that's painfully obvious to all. What does that have to do with the fact that at least one argument is irrational? You know the problem just looks worse as you go. Instead of admitting that at least one argument is irrational, you just go on rationalizing, and ignoring the point.

Read again...I did admit at least one argument is irrational, and I'm not ignoring the point. Are you ignoring my post?

Precisely. It's a bunch of often angry, cynical people people throwing half thought out shtick on a wall and assuring everybody it's all rational. But as I said, half of atheists making these arguments could be correct. But then that's roughly the odds anybody else has.

You could say the same about any group of religious or non-religious people. Luckily, the arguments for atheism are made by people who have a bit more expertise than the regular person on the street. I'd like to see an atheist philosopher that is angry and cynical. I'd also like to see one of their arguments that is "half-thought out".

The fact is, all you have done is taken some arguments against a particular religion (none of them really *that* good) and claimed that all atheists are using all these arguments. Well we aren't; we use many others too that aren't contradictory. Here are some of the more popular and well-thought out arguments for atheism: Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God.

Come to think of it, maybe the majority of skeptics don't care about contradictions as much as they claim. Is that possible?

If the majority of skeptics were using these arguments in parallel, and in the same context, then they probably wouldn't. However, this is clearly not the case. You have yet to point out a single instance of one person using these arguments in the same context. The ball is in your court.

[RAD]

[i]

The fact is, all you have done is taken some arguments against a particular religion (none of them really *that* good) and claimed that all atheists are using all these arguments.

I never said any such thing. I am saying one "rational" thinker is contradicting another, therefore at least one is irrational.

Well we aren't; we use many others too that aren't contradictory. Here are some of the more popular and well-thought out arguments for atheism: Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God.

Without seeing them, I can probably logically wreck most of those by showing they employ a logical fallacy, or show they contradict another argument.

I'm not putting them in context...I don't know what context most of them should be in.

I'm saying go ahead and invent one that proves your point. How hard can that be? You can't because they stand alone.

Er, let's try to think of two different contexts of the claim that the God of our huge universe shouldn't care. The context in one case is he's trying to show how arrogant Christians are. In the other context (well known actually) the atheist is arguing that if God wanted us to believe, he's do a lot more than he does. An OBVIOUS DISCONNECT. Sheesh

You have yet to point out a single instance of one person using these arguments in the same context.

I just did, no change and you are just wasting our tim eunless you can invent a context which changes the meaning. You can't do that either because it doesn't exist.

Some atheists are probably seeing my point and saying nothing (No I can't prove it) A few are defending the indefensible because it hasn't dawned on them the "rational" could be a figment of the beholder's self-absorbed imagination. That's why they keep arguing that some how the context must hopefully, maybe, some way make a difference.

It's rather infantile, which is why I don't think most atheists need any context to see the point. They've heard both pairs of arguments if they've done this awhile, and either know the context or recognize them as stand alone.

By the way, do you think an extant God of this enormous universe should ignore us completely, or do you think he should come down here and prove he exists by healing all the blind people, as one atheist told me? If the latter, isn't that rather arrogant?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Without seeing them, I can probably logically wreck most of those by showing they employ a logical fallacy, or show they contradict another argument.

I would really like to see a few examples (or as many as you care to list) of you actually doing that.

Er, let's try to think of two different contexts of the claim that the God of our huge universe shouldn't care. The context in one case is he's trying to show how arrogant Christians are. In the other context (well known actually) the atheist is arguing that if God wanted us to believe, he's do a lot more than he does. An OBVIOUS DISCONNECT. Sheesh

Why would an atheist care about what god wants for this odd example of yours to occur?

Some atheists are probably seeing my point and saying nothing (No I can't prove it) A few are defending the indefensible because it hasn't dawned on them the "rational" could be a figment of the beholder's self-absorbed imagination. That's why they keep arguing that some how the context must hopefully, maybe, some way make a difference.

I've been silently watching in on the arguements. I've not kept up-to-date with every post, but I've been getting the gist of what's been going on, but I thought this was done and over with pages ago when we determined that your contradictions ... well... aren't. Now you're saying that rational is illusory? I'm certain it seems that way when you're attempting to defend irrational assumptions with a fully irrational arguement, but none of these things hold water. I'm simply going to assume that you don't understand what being rational actually means if you continue to believe what you just said.

It's rather infantile, which is why I don't think most atheists need any context to see the point. They've heard both pairs of arguments if they've done this awhile, and either know the context or recognize them as stand alone.

Does this really matter? Even if different atheists arguing disjointed positions on a similar topic does contradict one another, it doesn't actually mean anything. It especially doesn't mean any of the conclusions you seem to think it means judging from this post and some of the earlier ones.

By the way, do you think an extant God of this enormous universe should ignore us completely, or do you think he should come down here and prove he exists by healing all the blind people, as one atheist told me? If the latter, isn't that rather arrogant?

No. There's no reason that requesting God's presence on earth, assuming his existance is actually known to someone, is not a perfectly legitimate request. Arrogance is assuming we already know what your deity wants without his intercession based on a heavily flawed book.

[RAD]

No. There's no reason that requesting God's presence on earth, assuming his existance is actually known to someone, is not a perfectly legitimate request. Arrogance is assuming we already know what your deity wants without his intercession based on a heavily flawed book.

Angels, you should have read the thread before talking. I pointed out that an atheist on another thread just "reasoned" that a Christian is being arrogant for asking God to do anything special. You have just proved my point here beyond a doubt because your own "rational" thought contradicts his.

You are generally better than this I think, from what I've read. You still don't get the point, so there is no need responding more than this until you do.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Okay, let's deal with these so-called contradictions:

Contradiction #1

Argument A: What makes you think the God of a univrse would care about a little speck like you? Don't be arrogant

Argument B: Why doesn't your God show himself to us and stop evil?

The first is saying that it is arrogant to suppose that a creator would care for us. The second is saying that, given what Christians believe about God, he should stop evil.

Contradiction #2

Argument A: Your God is too intolerant

Argument B: Your God saves an awful lot of stupid, arrogant people.

First one is self-explanatory. Second one, though I've never heard it myself, presumably means that God could save better people than those he does.

Contradiction #3

Argument A: Christians are so divided, I can't figure out which denomination is right

Argument B: Christians should think for themselves

First one says that, even if we accept Christianity (which atheists clearly don't), how do you decide which denomination to follow? Second one says that Christians shouldn't follow the teaching of any church or holy book.

Got that?

Good. Nighty night.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Angels, you should have read the thread before talking. I pointed out that an atheist on another thread just "reasoned" that a Christian is being arrogant for asking God to do anything special. You have just proved my point here beyond a doubt because your own "rational" thought contradicts his.

So you've managed to determine that I've contradicted myself because an atheist that wasn't me argued the opposite thing that I just did?

You still don't get the point, so there is no need responding more than this until you do.

How very convenient that you can't deign yourself to answer any of my points.

I've been keeping up with this thread ever since I first posted in it early on the first page and I still wrote what I wrote for the reason that those were the points I wanted to get across to you. The only thing you've told me in your response is that either you don't want to respond or you can't because if I honestly did miss your point, then you didn't help by not clarifying and just telling me that you refuse to bother.

More to my point, you still haven't responded to post #4 - which was my post if you're going to bring up whose been keeping up with what thread.

[RAD]

Okay, let's deal with these so-called contradictions:

Contradiction #1

Argument A: What makes you think the God of a univrse would care about a little speck like you? Don't be arrogant

Argument B: Why doesn't your God show himself to us and stop evil?

The first is saying that it is arrogant to suppose that a creator would care for us. The second is saying that, given what Christians believe about God, he should stop evil.

No you can't do that because the first also depends on the belief there is a God also. Besides we've already had two people recognize the contradiction and say one is wrong. (Which means they still don't get it)

Contradiction #2

Argument A: Your God is too intolerant

Argument B: Your God saves an awful lot of stupid, arrogant people.

First one is self-explanatory. Second one, though I've never heard it myself, presumably means that God could save better people than those he does.

It's clearly implied by a thousand atheist comments about how stupid and arrogant Christians are.

Contradiction #3

Argument A: Christians are so divided, I can't figure out which denomination is right

Argument B: Christians should think for themselves

First one says that, even if we accept Christianity (which atheists clearly don't), how do you decide which denomination to follow? Second one says that Christians shouldn't follow the teaching of any church or holy book. Got that?

No, the contradiction holds up because the denominations and disagreements prove some Christians do indeed think for themselves. I see what you are arguing, that if they could think for themselves, they would automatically reject any holy book. But then you get into whether Bacon, Newton and Locke could think for themselves, which would be rather foolish and anything you say would sound merely subjective.

---

So you've managed to determine that I've contradicted myself because an atheist that wasn't me argued the opposite thing that I just did?

No I never said that. If you were following the thread you would see that all I have claimed is that if one atheist is contradicting another, then one is irrational. Sheesh, how many times do I have to say that?

How very convenient that you can't deign yourself to answer any of my points.

I did answer your points until you showed you aren't keeping up.

More to my point, you still haven't responded to post #4 - which was my post if you're going to bring up whose been keeping up with what thread.

I am not going to answer the same thing over and over, nor would I expect you to if you were debating 5 Christians at once. You contradicting the other recent atheist post is proof of my point anyway.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I am not going to answer the same thing over and over, nor would I expect you to if you were debating 5 Christians at once. You contradicting the other recent atheist post is proof of my point anyway.

*goans*

Okay.

Short of hitting 'reply' on all nine posts you've posted thus far to make my point, let's go over a few things - points people are making, including myself, and let me look at your answers. If I get one more damn "you're not reading the thread" reply again, I'll re-post this response with every relevant response you've bothered to post here if I have to further my point.

Let's start from the beginning.

1) Your primary point:

I am saying one "rational" thinker is contradicting another, therefore at least one is irrational.

You still haven't pointed out why this is even relevant. You've been attempting to make the point that being 'rational' isn't so 'rational' at all, but being consistant between two completely different people over two completely different arguementation styles, knowledge, and personalities between debaters, and all those little things, in two arguements with a comletely different context can result in two contradictory answers despite each arguement being perfectly rational. Being rational and being consistent are two different things and your ultimately point doesn't really invalidate any arguement that any atheist makes, including each of the contradicting points within each arguement in which they are used. More importantly, these connections of yours doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove any of the contradicting points as being individually wrong nor does it make the topics those arguements are being used against as being right.

This is, in fact, the same point I made in post #4, which you still haven't specifically responded to and none of your nine posts in this thread address this point. At best, you've appeared to have mentioned that context is irrelevant, which is just blatantly wrong.

2) Context

Expanding a bit on the point above in terms of context, you specifically stated, in response to Tavarish's post,

No. Context isn't necessary for your statements either. Your statements can both be true because one refers to the character of a nonexistent (we all know) movie character who (we all know) doesn't exist.

Now, context is important because when people discuss something, they argue to make points.
Let's use something I said earlier:

There's no reason that requesting God's presence on earth, assuming his existance is actually known to someone, is not a perfectly legitimate request. Arrogance is assuming we already know what your deity wants without his intercession based on a heavily flawed book.

That is a perfectly rational arguement on its own that answered the question you asked.
Now, despite the complete lack of quote, context, or even a 'somewhere on thread X' someone, somewhere apparently made the opposite point in an apparently rational manner to what I assume to be the exact same question. Yet, without knowing the context of the arguement, I have no manner in which to determine if one is less rational than the other in this respect.

3) Rational Arguements

This 'conclusion' of yours doesn't make logical sense and it doesn't seem to even really prove anything. Two people who can be 100% rational can completely disagree on exactly the same topic. That doesn't somehow make one of them less rational than the other. This is also why context is so very important and also why this entire thread is completely pointless because even two 100% rational people can make completely contradictory arguements when arguing for the same point or same conclusion for the exact same reason that they can completely dimetrically disagree with one another over the same topic.

I will further my point with the very definition of "Rational"

ra·tion·al   /ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics .
a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.

Note that being rational doesn't have any correlation with the correctitude of a position. You can have a perfectly rational arguement for the earth being flat, relativity being 'just a theory', and that God is actually a massive creature composed of beef and starchy carbohydrates with a sprinkle of parmason.

Thus, you can post the arguements of, for example,

Argument A: What makes you think the God of a univrse would care about a little speck like you? Don't be arrogant

Argument B: Why doesn't your God show himself to us and stop evil?

Individually or together by two different people, or even the same person, doesn't make either arguement, on their own, irrational.

Moreover, any of the arguements being rational or irrational doesn't prove anything wrong or right. What's important with a rational arguement is the point you're ultimately trying to make - which is why context is so bloody important - because it also highlights the thing the arguers are arguing against and puts into light the ultimate point the people involved are attempting to make.

Now, not only have I re-iterated with a far grander explaination of what I said in post #4, I have to re-iterate also that you've not satisfactorially answered any of my points in a satisfactory manner, but in the process of writing this point, I beileve I've actually managed to completely invalidate your entire arguement.

Still, by all means prove me wrong.

[The Omnissiunt One]

No you can't do that because the first also depends on the belief there is a God also. Besides we've already had two people recognize the contradiction and say one is wrong. (Which means they still don't get it)

The first depends merely on a belief in a creator, who could be a deist, impersonal god. What atheists then argue is that, given a deist god, it is very unlikely that such a being would also care for us. It's a weak argument, but not contradictory to the other one.

It's clearly implied by a thousand atheist comments about how stupid and arrogant Christians are.

These are just ad hominem attacks. The two supposedly contradictory statements are just saying: a) based on his depiction in the Bible, God is intolerant b) given that God allegedly saves Christians, he saves many people who are stupid or arrogant (whether I agree with this or not, I'm not sure, but it's irrelevant), while presumably damning many decent Hindus, Muslims, Jews, non-believers, etc.

No, the contradiction holds up because the denominations and disagreements prove some Christians do indeed think for themselves. I see what you are arguing, that if they could think for themselves, they would automatically reject any holy book. But then you get into whether Bacon, Newton and Locke could think for themselves, which would be rather foolish and anything you say would sound merely subjective.

No, they don't think for themselves. Most just accept the teachings of the denomination in which they are brought up, so they don't think for themselves. Now, of course Bacon, Newton and Locke thought for themselves. Many religious believers do too, except where it comes to matters of religion.