Contradictions in "rational" thought

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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:

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,

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:

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"

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.