Contradictions in "rational" thought

[Minimalist]

All you have done is list arguments that on their own are made to address specific points about specific arguments. They're not meant to be taken together.

A difficult concept for bible-thumpers, El. I wouldn't expect Rad or any of his ilk to understand your point.

They love things to tie together neatly into one big bullshit story.

[RAD]

With your same mode of reasoning, these two phrases, both true but taken out of context, can seem contradictory.

Argument 1: Darth Vader is an evil and malevolent leader.

Argument 2: Darth Vader does not exist.

Do you understand how important context is?

The statements I made are stand alone arguments made by atheists. I can clarify very little but will try if asked. One of them was just asked in another thread, i.e what makes you think the God of a universe would care about a lttle speck like you? We also know atheists sincerely argue that God should show proof of himself by healing everybody, stopping evil right now yada yada. So the contradiction is crystal clear I'm afraid. "He should care more" and "He has no need to care"

These sorts of contradictions are found a few days apart on these forums by one who actually thinks. (Christians make the same errors of course).

---

"his ilk"

Yikes

---

All you've done is to take a few sentences, totally out of context, from different sources and then formed them in such a way as to try and prove a point.

Also, they all seem to be 'sarcastic' quips and were not actually making any claims themselves.

And this statement "Christians are so divided, I can't figure out which denomination is right" is unlikely to be asked by any atheist as we tend to think they are all wrong. Did you make this up yourself just to try to provoke us, hmmm?

You are simly wrong. They are not sarcastic in the least. I have no idea why you think that. I've heard them all from atheists and skeptics many times, and they clearly contradict one another.

[Cego_Colher]

So, I'm squishing a bunch of ants. They don't really mean anything to me and they aren't harming me or in my house. so I should care more, but I don't need to.

[tavarish]

With your same mode of reasoning, these two phrases, both true but taken out of context, can seem contradictory.

Argument 1: Darth Vader is an evil and malevolent leader.

Argument 2: Darth Vader does not exist.

Do you understand how important context is?

The statements I made are stand alone arguments made by atheists. I can clarify very little but will try if asked. One of them was just asked in another thread, i.e what makes you think the God of a universe would care about a lttle speck like you? We also know atheists sincerely argue that God should show proof of himself by healing everybody, stopping evil right now yada yada. So the contradiction is crystal clear I'm afraid. "He should care more" and "He has no need to care"

These sorts of contradictions are found a few days apart on these forums by one who actually thinks. (Christians make the same errors of course).

Which is why context is important. My arguments are also standalone arguments, but when put together, they can SEEM contradictory when you take them in the same context. If you have any specific person that has contradicted themselves within the same context, please present the argument. Otherwise, it's pretty irrelevant to make these sorts of judgments when you're comparing apples to oranges.

[RAD]

Which is why context is important. My arguments are also standalone arguments, but when put together, they can SEEM contradictory when you take them in the same context.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

Which is why context is important. My arguments are also standalone arguments, but when put together, they can SEEM contradictory when you take them in the same context.

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.

Just like the famous fictional 'god' character.

Bazinga

[RAD]

Should I take your red herring as an admission of defeat?

[tavarish]

Which is why context is important. My arguments are also standalone arguments, but when put together, they can SEEM contradictory when you take them in the same context.

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.

How is context not necessary? If taken within the same context, the assertions are contradictory. You cannot be a malevolent leader and not exist at the same time - it's logically impossible.

However, if Vader exists within the context of a fictitious movie plot, and does not exist in demonstrable reality, then no contradiction is made.

Keep in mind you're making an appeal to popularity. "We all know" does not necessarily have any merit in trying to make sense of an argument, nor does it have any explanatory value. Darth Vader isn't fictitious because "we all know" he doesn't exist. He's fictitious because there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that he's real, but there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that he's a conjured character.

If you want to continue this conversation, please tell me where specifically anyone made the arguments you first presented within the same context.

---

Should I take your red herring as an admission of defeat?

LOL.

You should consider your own arguments before criticizing others.

[Tiberius]

People are forgetting the real problem with these "contradictions". If atheists were arguing against one position, then the statements would indeed by contradictory. However, atheism is a disbelief in *all* gods. Ergo, atheist arguments will differ depending on the sort of God we are talking about.

As tavarish said, context is very important. Take the first two examples. I wouldn't expect any atheist to use Argument A against the Christian God; it would be rather silly, given that the reason for the Christian God caring about humanity is set out in the Bible. In that religion, he created humans as his "chosen people". Argument A is more suited to people claiming a more relaxed version of theism (a souped up version of deism would do). Likewise, Argument B I would expect atheists to use against Christians, since it exposes one of the weaknesses (in the atheist view) of the religion; the fact that despite God being all loving and all powerful, he can't remove "evil" from the world.

So, context is important. Even if you were to find an example of an atheist using both those arguments in the same context (against the same God), you wouldn't prove anything. One atheist doesn't speak for the rest of us. There isn't an atheist doctrine; some atheists may use the arguments you listed, some might use a fraction, some might use none of them at all.

[RAD]

People are forgetting the real problem with these "contradictions". If atheists were arguing against one position, then the statements would indeed by contradictory. However, atheism is a disbelief in *all* gods. Ergo, atheist arguments will differ depending on the sort of God we are talking about.

These arguments are used arguing with Christians, period.

As tavarish said, context is very important.

Look, put them in some context that makes sense and nothing will change.

Take the first two examples. I wouldn't expect any atheist to use Argument A against the Christian God; it would be rather silly, given that the reason for the Christian God caring about humanity is set out in the Bible.

Well no. They are all used often. Are you saying I made them up?

So, context is important. Even if you were to find an example of an atheist using both those arguments in the same context (against the same God), you wouldn't prove anything. One atheist doesn't speak for the rest of us.

I'm afraid that's painfully obvious to all. What does that have to do with the fact that at least one argument is irrational? You know the problem just looks worse as you go. Instead of admitting that at least one argument is irrational, you just go on rationalizing, and ignoring the point.

There isn't an atheist doctrine;

Precisely. It's a bunch of often angry, cynical people people throwing half thought out shtick on a wall and assuring everybody it's all rational. But as I said, half of atheists making these arguments could be correct. But then that's roughly the odds anybody else has.

Come to think of it, maybe the majority of skeptics don't care about contradictions as much as they claim. Is that possible?