[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My statement dealt strictly about rationality. Yet, you respond with a statement about reasonableness and not rationality. You're telling me that they mean two completely different things here, and you're switching the game up mid stroke. Hide the ball doesn't work here. Please, elaborate on the difference, and why you would respond with that. Was it meant to say that all religion is wrong? If so, the debate is not about the correctness of it; it's about the rationality of belief under a given set of circumstances. From my point of view, this change-up (if it was indeed intentional) appears to be nothing more than obfuscation.

Further, I did present a scenario which contained evidence. Circumstantial though it may be, predictive and prophetic writings, historical substantiations physical and locational, and historic accounts can all be viewed in an evidentiary light.

Now follow me here, at no point did I say that such evidence was correct or appealing to the discriminating palate. I simply used a hypothetical to illustrate a point where one can make a rational decision after weighing relevant factors.

Shit let me switch it up then, you are demonstrating a deficiency in reasoning.!