(August 13, 2010 at 5:11 am)Tiberius Wrote: People are forgetting the real problem with these "contradictions". If atheists were arguing against one position, then the statements would indeed by contradictory. However, atheism is a disbelief in *all* gods. Ergo, atheist arguments will differ depending on the sort of God we are talking about.
These arguments are used arguing with Christians, period.
Quote:As tavarish said, context is very important.
Look, put them in some context that makes sense and nothing will change.
Quote:Take the first two examples. I wouldn't expect any atheist to use Argument A against the Christian God; it would be rather silly, given that the reason for the Christian God caring about humanity is set out in the Bible.
Well no. They are all used often. Are you saying I made them up?
Quote:So, context is important. Even if you were to find an example of an atheist using both those arguments in the same context (against the same God), you wouldn't prove anything. One atheist doesn't speak for the rest of us.
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.
Quote:There isn't an atheist doctrine;
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.
Come to think of it, maybe the majority of skeptics don't care about contradictions as much as they claim. Is that possible?
