The nature of evidence

[robvalue]

I agree that each particular piece of evidence should be viewed on its own merits, and should be approached with an open mind.

However, trying to create extra validity in advance by overstating the importance of anecdotes is just as bad as writing them off before you hear them. Any particular piece of evidence is either convincing or it is not, to any specified examiner.

In the case of the bible especially, we've all seen it. There's no surprises. There are just people telling us "But it's great evidence!" No, it isn't. It's as unconvincing to anyone not part of the cult now as it was when they first saw it. Probably more so, because they've come to learn more about it and how absurd it is.

Telling us we're being unreasonable for not accepting the "evidence" is just an admission that you've got no cards left to play. I notice it's a common theist tactic to try and drag down the level of evidence required, and the level of evidence provided (in their estimation) by other things, to the level of the bible. What should be happening, is elevating the levels of evidence to meet what would usually be required.

This could work, if there was ever any new evidence. But all we've got are people resubmitting the same thing over and over. The jury has already seen it.

As for personal experiences... I'll gladly listen to anyone's. But if they've got nothing to demonstrate any of it happened, why exactly should I give it any weight?

People sometimes get very hung up on the idea of whether the person is lying or not. This is irrelevant. Lying or telling the truth is just about what you personally believe to be true, even about your own experiences. You can tell me "the truth" from your perspective, but that doesn't mean anything you say is actually objectively true. So focusing on motivations rather than evidence is a red herring.