Then shouldn't you limit the scope of your arguments to the stories that are historical rather than start to define the prophecies.My understanding of the prophecies presupposes that there's no god and that they have to be interpreted in terms of the historical context in which they were written, they are not evidence against god's existence and I've never used them as such. No, that doesn't interest me either, and I can't see how it has any bearing on opportunity cost anyway. Maybe you need to look up what it means.
"The cost of passing up the next best choice when making a decision."
Reading the prophecies has no hidden cost other than being labeled a kook by the ones who don't believe in God, and if you disagree with the mass majority of that group you get the heretic label. Win-win anyway you look at it. The 2nd choice for me would be to accept something I don't believe in, it might make living with some people a little easier but then that not being throughly convinced part means living with myself would be more difficult. From my pov there is going to be one choice that is more rational than the other.
In the other case the alternative would have needed other tactics and that is a situation where the next best choice was really no choice at all unless rolling over and playing dead was the 3rd choice. It is better to be playing with just their money don't you agree? Those choices do have an economic impact for all the players involved.
Do you understand why I can separate the two?