Contradictions in "rational" thought

[RAD]

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

So you're saying two people can make two inconsistent contradictory arguments and both be making a rational argument? If so what is the point of even claiming to be rational?

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.

You mean if two arguments contradict they can both be true? If so, I think people in search of truth would be entirely confused

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.

Well no I said to go ahead and apply a context which makes them mean something else.
2) Context

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.

Like I said, go ahead and apply one. You (Darkest) tacitly admits I am right by picking one of the arguments and saying it is a good argument. Fine, but then the request, according ot another atheist, would be arrogant. Why should he show himself to a little speck like Darkestofangels?

Two people who can be 100% rational can completely disagree on exactly the same topic.

Thank you. That's where we completely disagree. At least one is irrational and wrong to use their argument, unless of course you think truth is whatever you want to think it is. That wouldn't surprise me given the quantity of logical fallacies atheists use themselves. It would also explain why you haven't discovered the Way, the Truth and the Life.