evidence. And for example I put forward the following claim.  Jesus was born of a Virgin.  An extraordinary claim.  But where is your ordinary evidence that Jesus even existed at all rather than just a mythical man. ttp://twitter.com/trueholygoat Chuck Long "The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should be accepted as true." Who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb That's not relevant. The question is whether you will abide by the principle ... if not, then you aren't engaging in rational discussion. The point is that there are (many) people who stick to their guns even when they realize that their position is not the more reasonable with more supporting evidence. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb You didn't name any point that doesn't work. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb "" I think one can find many faulty unstated assumptions reflected in this model (some pointed out here). " Sorry, but you didn't demonstrate any faulty assumptions. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb It's implied. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Yes, so? You imply that there's something wrong with that but give no reason to think so, whereas it is quite obvious that some demands, like not blowing smoke in one's face, shouting obscenities, injecting random insults, and so on are quite reasonable. One can debate whether all the demands in the above chart are reasonable, but you didn't do that, you just used sarcasm ... not a very good way to have a discussion. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Why should anyone care about your opinions? Why give the reasons