(August 19, 2010 at 11:09 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote: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..

I'll takes that as agreement that scholars wrote the words of Jesus, rather than fishermen

Quote: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 .

That's an obvious straw man argument. I said nothing about turns of phrase. A similie is a similie in any language.

---

(August 21, 2010 at 7:17 am)Gfailure Wrote: 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?

I believe the Gospels for the same reasons the agnostic historian Durant believes them. He calls the contradictions "minutae." BTW I don't quite buy Matthew's "walking dead" report. I believe it is probably hearsay he heard and thought was true. It is also so fantastic that other narrators would have reported it as well. But then I don't know and I don't make the gross logical error of "false in one part so false in all." If half of Mark is true, Jesus is who he said and he is savior of the world, you see.

You do know all the logical fallacies and try to avoid them I assume?

The point of the thread is that at least half of atheists don't think logically, and make up stuff as they go, no more or less.

---

Contradiction #6

Skeptic #1: The crucifixion stories contradict each other, making them suspicious.

Skeptic # 2: Luke slavishly copied Matthews crucifixion story, making them suspicious. (Earl Doherty)

So then, are they too similar, or two different to be believed?

Once again, stand alone assertions that contradict, meaning somebody has a logical thinking problem.

[quote='RAD' pid='88364' dateline='1282405871']
[quote]That's an obvious straw man argument. I said nothing about turns of phrase. A similie is a similie in any language.[/quote]

A simile proves nothing. It's a fairly basic linguistic device anyway, but even good similes are a long way from proving Jesus' divinity.

[quote]I believe the Gospels for the same reasons the agnostic historian Durant believes them. [/quote]

If he believes them, why is he agnostic?

[quote]He calls the contradictions "minutae." BTW I don't quite buy Matthew's "walking dead" report. I believe it is probably hearsay he heard and thought was true. It is also so fantastic that other narrators would have reported it as well. But then I don't know and I don't make the gross logical error of "false in one part so false in all." If half of Mark is true, Jesus is who he said and he is savior of the world, you see.[/quote]

Simple solution: none of Mark is true... or, at least, not the supernatural bits. This seems an obvious option, given that you've dismissed the walking dead report. Plus, with something as big as Jesus' resurrection, why does no secular historian mention it?

[quote]The point of the thread is that at least half of atheists don't think logically, and make up stuff as they go, no more or less.[/quote]

That's probably true. Most of us are prone to erroneous thinking. Theists are best at it, though.

(August 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: If he believes them, why is he agnostic?

Maybe because agnosticism is about knowledge and not belief. Knowledge entails belief but belief doesn't necessarily entail knowledge.

Since the OP missed this the first time around, I'm going to repost a pertinent post I made earlier in this thread, on page 3.

(August 15, 2010 at 10:40 pm)RAD Wrote: 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:

RAD Wrote: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,

RAD, post #15 Wrote: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:

TheDarkestOfAngels, Post #24 Wrote: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"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational Wrote: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.

(August 21, 2010 at 12:23 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(August 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: If he believes them, why is he agnostic?

Maybe because agnosticism is about knowledge and not belief. Knowledge entails belief but belief doesn't necessarily entail knowledge.

I assumed that he meant 'agnostic' in the popular sense i.e. someone who suspends judgement about God's existence.

No worries. Most people do indeed use the popular incorrect bastardized version so I guess it's perfectly rational to assume they are (most likely) using that incorrect definition.

(August 21, 2010 at 2:21 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: 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

So you're saying two people can make two inconsistent contradictory arguments and both be making a rational argument? If so what is the point of even claiming to be rational?

Quote: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.

You mean if two arguments contradict they can both be true? If so, I think people in search of truth would be entirely confused

Quote: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.

Well no I said to go ahead and apply a context which makes them mean something else.
2) Context

Quote:

TheDarkestOfAngels, Post #24 Wrote: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.

Like I said, go ahead and apply one. You (Darkest) tacitly admits I am right by picking one of the arguments and saying it is a good argument. Fine, but then the request, according ot another atheist, would be arrogant. Why should he show himself to a little speck like Darkestofangels?

Quote: Two people who can be 100% rational can completely disagree on exactly the same topic.

Thank you. That's where we completely disagree. At least one is irrational and wrong to use their argument, unless of course you think truth is whatever you want to think it is. That wouldn't surprise me given the quantity of logical fallacies atheists use themselves. It would also explain why you haven't discovered the Way, the Truth and the Life.

(August 22, 2010 at 12:18 am)RAD Wrote: So you're saying two people can make two inconsistent contradictory arguments and both be making a rational argument? If so what is the point of even claiming to be rational?

I believe that is something I've managed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt given that I've supplied the actual definition of the term 'rational.'
Though I don't believe any mention has been made until the statement about about the arguements also being inconsistent, which is something that will need to be clarified.

(August 22, 2010 at 12:18 am)RAD Wrote: You mean if two arguments contradict they can both be true? If so, I think people in search of truth would be entirely confused

What do you think rational means?
If I've proven nothing else, it's that you entire premise for this thread is wrong which means that two arguements can both be rational and mutually exclusive. If you've ever paid any attention to two scientists disagreeing over something, then yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and no, it doesn't appear to lead to any confusion if you know the topic, concepts, and lingo the disagreement covers.

(August 22, 2010 at 12:18 am)RAD Wrote: Well no I said to go ahead and apply a context which makes them mean something else.

Something other than what?
Since none of those arguements have context in the first place, the fact that you listed them in a manner that points out some arguements contradicting other arguements doesn't prove anything! It certainly doesn't prove that any of the individual arguements have or don't have merit, it doesn't prove that rational arguements aren't. It doesn't even prove that whomever spoke those arguements are even necessarily contradicting one anther. It depends entirely on the topic, the arguement that those arguements are supposed to be countering, and the point that all involved are attempting to make. If you had read all of my post, you should have been introduced to that point but right now, I'm guessing you didn't read all of it.

(August 22, 2010 at 12:18 am)RAD Wrote: Thank you. That's where we completely disagree. At least one is irrational and wrong, unless of course you think truth is whatever you want to think it is. That wouldn't surprise me given the quantity of logical fallacies atheists use themselves. It would also explain why you haven't discovered the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I know I can understand the nature of the universe better by going by what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell than by inventing a reason purely from my imagination based on my ignorance of the truth.
More to the point, however, you haven't said, done, or proven anything to the extent that you have provided any level of 'truth' to anything you've attempted to prove here.
What I've done here is merely point that out to you.

Quote:RAD Wrote:
So you're saying two people can make two inconsistent contradictory arguments and both be making a rational argument? If so what is the point of even claiming to be rational?

Perhaps you'd like to have a little think about that statement.

That very thing happens all the time here, in the US and UK where we each have an adversarial legal system.IE each side has access to the same facts, yet argue an opposite position. Both sides are rational.


Perhaps it is a little pointless for any given human being to claim to be rational, because most of us aren't,at least with any consistency. I don'tr claim to be,and I can't recall ever running across a single human being who I could accuse of being rational even most of the time.

My observation is that as a species,our most highly developed reasoning skill is rationalisation,which is the antithesis of rational thought. To be fair,you'd have to go along way to find a more rational group of people than most of the atheists on this forum--and even some of them display a distressingly irrational tolerance of irritating theists.

Athiesm is not a worldview but a rejection of one. As such it is allowed to rebut and counter arguments for theism by showing each argument up. As has been stated here seemingly prima facie arguments which seem contradictory but support atheism could both be true and logically valid if you add a third premise which supports them both (ie becuase atheism is true). The context of these points is therefore vital, otherwise there isnio case for atheists to defend here. You would have a point if arguments for atheism started to make contradictory claims.