Quote:
|
Quote by: Gallo Oooh. Did I hurt your little feelings? Nice try, but muddled even worse. If it is not believable, then it is not evidence. |
Sigh...
So, you're just a jerk then? Disappointing.
Quote:
|
Poor baby. It seems that when you start with the rudeness and condescention and you get it back, you can't take it. Instead you answer with, "oh yeah? so are you."
|
Actually, I dislike rudeness and condescention. I did it in return to you, to show you how annoying it is. Looks like that is the sort of debate you enjoy. That is unfortunate.
Quote:
|
The difference may be subtle, but making assertions about whether or not something is or is not evidence is not the same as defining evidence.
|
Right. It is using examples to show what is meant by "evidence." I used examples rather than a literal definition. When my point was not getting through, then I resorted to quoting the dictionary.
Quote:
|
The Iliad and the Aeneid are evidence in the same way that you claim the Bible is - people based belief on them.
|
Did they? I dunno, but they do not do so now. Thus, now, no one considers them evidence of gods.
Quote:
|
Are you willing to stop making claims that you are doing something when you are not?
|
I pointed out to you, very clearly, how I was trying expound upon the concept of evidence. I was using the Bible as an example.
Would it satisfy you for me to say that I was attempting to discuss the meaning of the word "evidence" and what things should be considered evidence? I guess that is different from the definition, but not enough to be such a jerk about it.
So, are you willing to acknowledge that the Bible falls within the definition of the word "evidence" because some people find it useful in reaching the conclusion that god exists? Perhaps you could say that it is evidence for them, but not for you. I think that would muddy the waters, personally.
Quote:
|
Anyway, you reap what you sow.
|
As do you.
And, Gallo...
You started in with the condescending/baiting talk in post #1242.