Contradictions in "rational" thought

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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?

I believe that is something I've managed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt given that I've supplied the actual definition of the term 'rational.'
Though I don't believe any mention has been made until the statement about about the arguements also being inconsistent, which is something that will need to be clarified.

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

What do you think rational means?
If I've proven nothing else, it's that you entire premise for this thread is wrong which means that two arguements can both be rational and mutually exclusive. If you've ever paid any attention to two scientists disagreeing over something, then yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and no, it doesn't appear to lead to any confusion if you know the topic, concepts, and lingo the disagreement covers.

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

Something other than what?
Since none of those arguements have context in the first place, the fact that you listed them in a manner that points out some arguements contradicting other arguements doesn't prove anything! It certainly doesn't prove that any of the individual arguements have or don't have merit, it doesn't prove that rational arguements aren't. It doesn't even prove that whomever spoke those arguements are even necessarily contradicting one anther. It depends entirely on the topic, the arguement that those arguements are supposed to be countering, and the point that all involved are attempting to make. If you had read all of my post, you should have been introduced to that point but right now, I'm guessing you didn't read all of it.

Thank you. That's where we completely disagree. At least one is irrational and wrong, 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.

I know I can understand the nature of the universe better by going by what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell than by inventing a reason purely from my imagination based on my ignorance of the truth.
More to the point, however, you haven't said, done, or proven anything to the extent that you have provided any level of 'truth' to anything you've attempted to prove here.
What I've done here is merely point that out to you.