that's also OK. I would need to spend time understanding Popper and his philosophy and I can't really do that right now. I concede that the flowchart's rules for rational discussion are difficult to abide by. Michael change "you" to we and reference "I" to we and I think you come even more closer to the intent of this -- otherwise you position yourself in the same position as the one you are setting rules for. RK A less arrogant and snarky version might be a useful framework. As it is? It looks like something you found on an angry atheist's web site. ;-) i'm not angry (and not a dude, last time i checked), and the flowchart actually works both ways. I felt kinda chastened to realize that I'm as stubborn as a religious person and would probably not get past step one. ttp://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Wat\\... Chris Watson Who would want to have a discussion of any sort with the pedantic twerp that drew up that chart. I bet he works for academia or the government. Nothing rational about being a control freak. Stephen M The first point is flawed. What if I knew I was 100% right and thought you were wrong about a subject. For example, I argue that within in closed environment without outside stimulus the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will increase and you say that within that situation the Easter bunny can allow for entropy to decrease. Then I would honestly say to the