> "I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" Except I never said that, whereas the previous post had a congruent summary of OP. Strike one.

> "I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" Except I never said that, whereas the previous post had a congruent summary of OP. Strike one. > You cannot rationally make decisions based on anything other than what you know and have seen or can reasonably project from there. True. But that isn't what we are talking about, you ventured into strawman territory all on your own. The person was claiming they've never seen a truthful source, this is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. We're not talking about god, we're talking about the fact that some journalism is unbiased. There is much of it out there, but OP seems to think there isn't, or has convinced him/herself due to their own desire to not be wrong. Strike two. > can follow a reasonable, logical, defensible chain of trust from what I can directly prove to myself, to proofs I can accept indirectly, and distinguish those from fairy tales. You've demonstrated that you aren't very good at following a "logical chain of trust" because you've reasoned to yourself, poorly, something that wasn't even being discussed. Strike three. First time playing with logic? It never ceases to astonish me how people who throw around the terms "logic" and "rational thought" really, reeeeeally don't know how to deploy either.