RE: Contradictions in "rational" thought
August 15, 2010 at 2:52 am
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2010 at 2:56 am by RAD.)
[i]
I never said any such thing. I am saying one "rational" thinker is contradicting another, therefore at least one is irrational.
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 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
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?
(August 13, 2010 at 4:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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
Quote: 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?
