My original post had a very narrow focus: "The characteristics of a True Religion are that they have been revealed and if that ever happened, there would probably only be a single consistent set of facts that would be revealed."

Fair enough, perhaps your original post did. But your subsequent comment ("thought experiment", as you called it) went much further. Specifically, as part of showing how any "true" religion must be "revealed", you demonstrated (pretty conclusively, I might add) that "[r]ational thought and skepticism are complete non-discriminators in who will be a believer." Your reasoning on this was compelling--absent personal direct revelation from God himself, there's simply no amount of evidence that would cause rational persons to believe, on your word alone or on some small group's word alone, that things they know from experience to be impossible actually happened. In other words, pure "evangelism" is, by your own acknowledgement, insufficient to overcome rational skepticism. Consequently, "rational thought and skepticism are complete non-discriminators in who will become a believer."

"Complete" is a strong word. And it's your word. I'm holding you to it, because you were actually right. It's disingenuous to now back away from from the rightful conclusion of your thought experiment and instead fall back on "evidence" as the means of discerning the "true" religion from the false ones.