Contradictions in "rational" thought

[Zen Badger]

Since you are apparently having trouble understanding whythese are not contradictory statements. Let's examine the christian statements to to which these are usually used as responses......

Xtian statement;
"god loves me and cares about me"

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

xtian statement;
"god is all powerful and all loving"

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

xtian statement;
"god loves us all"

Argument A: Your God is too intolerant

I have to say I've never heard any atheist utter this comment;

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

Usually it's more along the lines of "god doesn't care what sort of utter bastard you are as long as you are prepared to kiss his arse for the rest of eternity", or some such.

Again, no atheist would make this comment. As has been pointed out numerous times, none of them are right.

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

So it doesn't actually contradict your next statement at all....

Argument B: Christians should think for themselves.

Some do, most don't. The ones that do usually end up as atheists.

Maybe you guys should get my whole list and hold a council, before the faithful figure out that maybe "rational thought" is in the mind of the beholder, and that assuming otherwise is more dangerous than becoming a Christian

Why? if the rest of your "examples" are as vacuous as these I think we're well ahead of the game


So when viewed in their proper context; i.e as responses to bullshit xtain claims of how wonderful their imaginary friend is.
It can be clearly seen that these are not contradictory at all.

[RAD]

Have you guys seen the latest?

Argument A: "Religious people hindered science and oppressed people"

When presented with the fact that Protestant Christians led the Enlightenment, it's:

Argument B: "Those were individuals. Religion had nothing to do with it."

Like I said, you guys need your own ecumenical council, bad.

I know, it must be the context.

---

Since you are apparently having trouble understanding whythese are not contradictory statements. Let's examine the christian statements to to which these are usually used as responses......

Xtian statement;
"god loves me and cares about me"

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

xtian statement;
"god is all powerful and all loving"

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

And? what's your point? Are you saying the atheists who made the statements are merely insincere, have no opinion, and are just baiting Christians? That would be a requirement to accept your argument.

Of course you have another problem with your rationalization here. Two posters have recognized the contradiction and picked between the two.

So when viewed in their proper context; i.e as responses to bullshit xtain claims of how wonderful their imaginary friend is.
It can be clearly seen that these are not contradictory at all.

True if you can show the speakers had no opinion and were merely baiting people. I have no proof of such motives, do you? Then perhaps you should go discuss your argument with the atheists who did pick one or the other.

[KichigaiNeko]

Have you guys seen the latest?

Argument A: "Religious people hindered science and oppressed people"

When presented with the fact that Protestant Christians led the Enlightenment, it's:

Argument B: "Those were individuals. Religion had nothing to do with it."

Did they really?? Where is the linky so I can look it up please??

Religiosity Does seem to always be getting in the way of science .....especially with the "you shouldn't play god" line....

[Zen Badger]

Have you guys seen the latest?

Argument A: "Religious people hindered science and oppressed people"

When presented with the fact that Protestant Christians led the Enlightenment, it's:

Argument B: "Those were individuals. Religion had nothing to do with it."

Like I said, you guys need your own ecumenical council, bad.

I know, it must be the context.

And look what happened to them when they went against the churchs wishes.

And? what's your point? Are you saying the atheists who made the statements are merely insincere, have no opinion, and are just baiting Christians? That would be a requirement to accept your argument.

What makes you think I'm saying that? that's one hell of a stretch boyo.
They are replies to the usual xtian crap, though xtian baiting isa lot of fun

Of course you have another problem with your rationalization here. Two posters have recognized the contradiction and picked between the two.

What problem? that you can't understand my comments? Not my problem.

So when viewed in their proper context; i.e as responses to bullshit xtain claims of how wonderful their imaginary friend is.
It can be clearly seen that these are not contradictory at all.

True if you can show the speakers had no opinion and were merely baiting people. I have no proof of such motives, do you? Then perhaps you should go discuss your argument with the atheists who did pick one or the other.

Why the bit about having no opinion? Is this how you deal with atheist challenges to your little fantasy?

No, it's not "only" true if the speakers have no opinion on the matter, I make these challenges to xtains all the time and I have very strong opinions on xtianity

So again you fail on an epic scale.

[Rhizomorph13]

Hey, check out these conflicting Christian arguments:

Argument A: Creation is true and the world is only 6000 years old.

Argument B: Evolution is true and the bible is only to be taken as allegorical.

These are beliefs held by a couple different Christians on this forum but I wouldn't say that Christianity is defeated. I would say that one of them is wrong in this one case.

Rhizo can't believe he is actually posting in this waste of forum space.

[Rwandrall]

I'm having a little trouble with all the contradictions I see in what is loosely referred to as "rational thought."

Here are 3 of the 20+ contradictions (paraphrased accurately I think) which I have identified:

Actually, the arguments you make do not contradict each other at all...the "contradictions" you make are quite weak.

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?

Both of these arguments are not contradictory, since they attack different aspects of your deity: the first questions the paradox between "God"'s massiveness and the smallness of the Earth. The second questions the paradox between his all-eternal love and its lack of intervention. They are not contradictions because they do not answer the same question. A contradiction would be two statements on a single characteristic of the deity that contradict each other. This isn't one.

Contradiction #2

Argument A: Your God is too intolerant

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

These arguments sustain the same point: God is too intolerant to anyone who sins, but is ready to forgive anyone who accepts him, even if these people are stupid and arrogant. These arguments, combined, do not make a contradiction. On the contrary, they show that your God is irrational in his approach to who deserves to be saved.

Contradiction #3

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

Argument B: Christians should think for themselves

Maybe you guys should get my whole list and hold a council, before the faithful figure out that maybe "rational thought" is in the mind of the beholder, and that assuming otherwise is more dangerous than becoming a Christian

Again...this is not a contradiction. Argument A is restricted to theism, argument B includes atheism. Christians are divided on small matters, such as the infallibility of the Pope or the role of the virgin Mary. They are divided, but they all share the same common beliefs and do not question the existence of God or the validity of Scripture. This is what Argument B is about, but you are taking it completely out of context.

And AGAIN, these arguments, when coupled together, make this argument: Christians pretend that they are thinking for themselves, but they will never consider the possibility that God does not exist.

[RAD]

OK I'll give you 3 though you put too fine a point on what constitutes thinking. Just because a person did no tbecome an atheist means nothing. Plenty of great thinkers, mathematicians and scientists became Christians. They realized self-righteousness and sin are generic, and Jesus was the only real hope after doing a reality check.

OK here's number 5:

I asked an agnostic today, who says the NT was made up, how fishermen managed to write similies like Shakespeare. He thought for a moment and said, "Well, they had scholars then you know."

So guys, were they fishermen and goatherders, or scholars?

Big difference, which obviously shows a wish (on one side at least) to believe something and make up excuses as one needs to.

[ABierman1986]

These seem like dumb atheists you are hanging around with....the crowd here is hopefully showing you our amazing diversity that we, as an entire atheist global community, which meets every 2 weeks in Jared's basement with hookers and coke, strive to engourage.....

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I asked an agnostic today, who says the NT was made up, how fishermen managed to write similies like Shakespeare. He thought for a moment and said, "Well, they had scholars then you know."

Oh please.The disciples did not write the NT .The authors are anonymous. Jesus' fishermen would almost certainly have been illiterate and probably spoke only Aramaic..

As for the Shakespearian turn of phrase: The NT was written in Greek and then translated into Latin. Centuries later, it was translated into English.The most well known translation is probably the King James version,written in what is known 'Skakesperean English' . Modern versions, also translated from the Greek,such as "The Good News Bible', lack the elegant prose of the King James Bible .

[Gfailure]

Seeing the original post, i can't help but feel that its incomplete! You put forward a proposition that atheists with their, what you call, "rational" thought contradict each other at times, and put down some arguments you say you have seen atheists make! And even though I do agree with the people who pointed out that you put them out of context and hence, right there, fail to make a point, I'm gonna play along and go with it! Ok so, lets, just for a moment, accept that what you say holds any kind of water, again, it doesn't but I'll play along! What is your end point? That because some atheists contradict some others, it means that God exists? How is that logic in any form? Also, you forget that there is no church of Atheism where we all get together and write a holy book and we live, die and argue according to it! The ONLY thing that really all atheists have in common, is the fact that they don't believe in the existence of a God. How we got to that conclusion, why and why not, you will find a million different answers to all of these questions, because that is the beauty of not having an imaginary friend or daddy, dictating to you what you should or shouldn't do, say or shouldn't say and so on! Also, you say that atheists contradict themselves, well, look at the so called holy books! There are loads and loads of contradictions! So why do you believe them?

Bottom line, the arguments you presented are not only weak, they are not even making the point you are trying to make, exactly because you use arguments out of context! But even with the logic you are using, and without changing anything in that logic, you yourself are being hypocritical by trying to render something invalid, claiming contradiction between arguments made by supporters of this something, and yet on the other hand, you accept and, obviously blindly, believe something else, who's supporters and official books, are also found to be contradicting themselves!