You started with an egregious misrepresentation of what I said based on a post you admitted you hadn't even read.
Why should I think you are an honest broker interested in good faith discussion rather than a clown?
Hehe the absolute clincher of cognitive dissonance
A rationalist dismissing the very concept of providing scholarly evidence in support of a claim.
Even fundies have the intellectual honesty to make **** arguments against the scholarship that shows them to be wrong, it's only "rationalists" on RF who have to dismiss actually being ables to cite academic sources in support of your position as"copy/paste" and thus invalid. It's actually called quotation and is a standard part of academic discourse buttercup
Usually, being able to refer to diverse sources beyond wikipedia and the first page of google is actually seen as evidence you have bothered to research before opining on an issue.
The "rationalist", who personally understands they have read nothing substantial on the topic, still has to pretend they are being rational in dismissing scholarship out of hand though. If you can't argue against it just disparage reading and evidence itself.
"The Nobel Prize winning physicist you quoted obviously knows less than me about science. He obviously doesn't have a modicum of understanding about the scientific method and its practical and theoretical applications"
"I have repeatedly said you are wrong without argument or evidence in response to your peer reviewed scholarship. I have thus handed you your *** with my immense rationalism. Have at ye varlet!"
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia
Cheerio