(September 19, 2017 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence. Therefore: no special pleading," is one of the laziest arguments I have seen put forth by an apologist on these forums in two years. Why did he think that we were simply going to grant him that assumption, unchallenged?
While I am going to let you have the last word in our back and forth, I AM going to clear this little misunderstanding up.
In my OP, I said "For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence." under the section where I was defining my terms. This is because we just came off a rather long thread where some of you, despite logic and the reality that we as a society do accept testimony as evidence, actually have the position that testimony is NOT evidence. I was not going to rehash that nonsense.
YOU have to read in a lot of extra meaning to those words to come up with "For the sake of the argument, let's assume The Bible is evidence". Read more carefully. Ask for clarification if you don't know what I mean. Don't launch into smug attack mode--that's not a discussion.