Contradictions in "rational" thought

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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 would really like to see a few examples (or as many as you care to list) of you actually doing that.

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

Why would an atheist care about what god wants for this odd example of yours to occur?

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.

I've been silently watching in on the arguements. I've not kept up-to-date with every post, but I've been getting the gist of what's been going on, but I thought this was done and over with pages ago when we determined that your contradictions ... well... aren't. Now you're saying that rational is illusory? I'm certain it seems that way when you're attempting to defend irrational assumptions with a fully irrational arguement, but none of these things hold water. I'm simply going to assume that you don't understand what being rational actually means if you continue to believe what you just said.

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.

Does this really matter? Even if different atheists arguing disjointed positions on a similar topic does contradict one another, it doesn't actually mean anything. It especially doesn't mean any of the conclusions you seem to think it means judging from this post and some of the earlier ones.

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?

No. 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.