Contradictions in "rational" thought

[Zen Badger]

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.

And look what happened to them when they went against the churchs wishes.

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.

What makes you think I'm saying that? that's one hell of a stretch boyo.
They are replies to the usual xtian crap, though xtian baiting isa lot of fun

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

What problem? that you can't understand my comments? Not my problem.

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.

Why the bit about having no opinion? Is this how you deal with atheist challenges to your little fantasy?

No, it's not "only" true if the speakers have no opinion on the matter, I make these challenges to xtains all the time and I have very strong opinions on xtianity

So again you fail on an epic scale.