This chapter explains that discussion does not presuppose that conversation is always good, that agreement is always good, that when people disagree with somebody, they must always try to convince her, that they always have to say that somebody who differs from they are wrong. Rationalistic discussion is only possible if everybody reasons in the same way, or if there are some arguments which are agreed to be good and some agreed to be bad which could be used to come to an agreement on beliefs which are under discussion. The chapter describes a more extensive understanding of disagreements which prove impossible to reconcile by means of argumentation. In analytic-theistic philosophy of religion, disagreements about how to make distinction between true and false in religion have seldom been noticed. Instead it has been implicitly pre-supposed that the distinction between true and false in this context is to be made in the same way as in the context of empirical questions.