>Asserting that all claims are false per default, unless there's evidence backing them up, is what's reasonable. There's an infinite number of possible claims, and nearly all of those claims are complete bullshit. So the probability of any random claim without evidence being bullshit converges towards 1, to say it in mathematical terms, i.e. is as good as certain. Which is exactly what Atheism resides on. Making a claim without evidence. There is no evidence that the assumption (that is what Atheism is, de facto, relying on) is founded in reality. At all. The prerequisite for Atheism is to make a self-defeating statement. I really don't think you are grasping this concept for some strange reason. It's a very simple concept. If I'm born in a prison, and raised in a prison, and confidently assert that nothing exists except for said prison, and I assert that my beliefs are based entirely on evidence, I am immediately defeating my own belief because I have no evidence that this assumption is correct. There is no evidence it's correct. And indeed, it **isn't** correct. But this is exactly what Atheism is. >I'm wondering, if you really want to argue against this, because if you do, you have removed reason from the discussion You already did that by proposing a claim that immediately defeats itself. It is, by definition, unreasonable. It is impossible to be reasoned. It's truly bizarre to say that by pointing out that your claims are illogical, and demonstrating exactly why it's illogical, I'm removing logic from the discussion. Everything you're saying relies entirely on this assumption being true. And without that, there's a massive rug pull. And that's it. Poof. You're literally just guessing. And then trying to portray guessing as evidence and rationality. But **I'm** the one who removed reason from the discussion. I really don't think you understand just how limited your own worldview is, or the weaknesses associated with it. The way you talk suggests no indication whatsoever that you're cognizant of this fact.