for your opinions if they can't change the other person's mind? In a discussion, one generally wants to learn from someone, not about them, unless this is an intimate, rather than "rational", discussion. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Yes it does. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb I'm not open to "new evidence" that there are a finite number of primes or that some bachelors are married ... some claims are analytically true. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Whoosh! Of course extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence, but they require extraordinary evidence too. Only ordinary evidence is needed that Jesus existed, but extraordinary evidence is required that he was divine or born of a virgin because that contradicts so many other observations. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb I would, but I have little interest in a discussion with an ignoramus like yourself, Chris. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb "reason" and "rationality" are synonymous in the context he used. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Well, TIORBINIST,  you certainly fail the criteria in spades, with all those baseless assertions. And I don't need evidence against the existence of Odin and Loki to rationally disbelieve in them, any more than you do. And the hypocrisy of your tu quoque argument  is quite extraordinary ... if you proclaim the failure to provide evidence for an argument to be irrational, then you are indicating support for the position you are dismissing ... ah, but you condemn lack of evidence from atheists as irrational while exempting yourself. I would summarize this chart as demanding intellectual honesty, a trait you sorely lack. ttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIG\\... jqb Only to dullards.