Contradictions in "rational" thought

[RAD]

RAD Wrote:
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?

Perhaps you'd like to have a little think about that statement.

It seems quite apparent I've thought about it as much as anyone here.

That very thing happens all the time here, in the US and UK where we each have an adversarial legal system.IE each side has access to the same facts, yet argue an opposite position. Both sides are rational.

As in O.J. Simpson wasn't there although the evidence was overwhelming. Pullleeeeeeze. Lawyers make up their own facts as they go. It's the lack of facts, or facts hidden from one side, that leads to hung juries and whiny claims of putting on the better case. Bad analogy. Mine are standalone opposing statements that contradict each other in all cases except one, and then it's a stretch.

Perhaps it is a little pointless for any given human being to claim to be rational, because most of us aren't,at least with any consistency. don'tr claim to be,and I can't recall ever running across a single human being who I could accuse of being rational even most of the time.

Thank you

My observation is that as a species,our most highly developed reasoning skill is rationalisation,which is the antithesis of rational thought. To be fair,you'd have to go along way to find a more rational group of people than most of the atheists on this forum--and even some of them display a distressingly irrational tolerance of irritating theists.


Aw jeez, too bad you messed up a semi rational post with a holier than thou statement. I thought you guys didn't like that. But I will say that so far this forum has remained more civil than most sites, (relatively speaking, which means almost nothing)

---

Well at least we are at the point of admitting erroneous and irrational thinking, but claiming atheists are the more logical.

I'm cool with that as long as you admit that, if that is so, we need a savior worse than anybody thought.

( whether one exists or not).

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It seems quite apparent I've thought about it as much as anyone here.

Irrelevant. It's not about whether you've thought about it, it's about whether those thoughts are correct or not. (They're not).

As in O.J. Simpson wasn't there although the evidence was overwhelming. Pullleeeeeeze. Lawyers make up their own facts as they go. It's the lack of facts, or facts hidden from one side, that leads to hung juries and whiny claims of putting on the better case. Bad analogy. Mine are standalone opposing statements that contradict each other in all cases except one, and then it's a stretch.

Rational arguements are not dependant upon facts being true or not. It is possible to have a rational arguement based completely on falsehoods and misconceptions.
If anything, you've proven that you do not understand what 'being rational' actually means. If you had read and understood my earlier posts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.