Contradictions in "rational" thought

[RAD]

Have you guys seen the latest?

Argument A: "Religious people hindered science and oppressed people"

When presented with the fact that Protestant Christians led the Enlightenment, it's:

Argument B: "Those were individuals. Religion had nothing to do with it."

Like I said, you guys need your own ecumenical council, bad.

I know, it must be the context.

---

Since you are apparently having trouble understanding whythese are not contradictory statements. Let's examine the christian statements to to which these are usually used as responses......

Xtian statement;
"god loves me and cares about me"

Argument A: What makes you think the God of a univrse would care about a little speck like you? Don't be arrogant

xtian statement;
"god is all powerful and all loving"

Argument B: Why doesn't your God show himself to us and stop evil?

And? what's your point? Are you saying the atheists who made the statements are merely insincere, have no opinion, and are just baiting Christians? That would be a requirement to accept your argument.

Of course you have another problem with your rationalization here. Two posters have recognized the contradiction and picked between the two.

So when viewed in their proper context; i.e as responses to bullshit xtain claims of how wonderful their imaginary friend is.
It can be clearly seen that these are not contradictory at all.

True if you can show the speakers had no opinion and were merely baiting people. I have no proof of such motives, do you? Then perhaps you should go discuss your argument with the atheists who did pick one or the other.