Contradictions in "rational" thought

[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.