I'm not saying that it's necessary to say things like that to not be a smug skeptic. On the other hand it's sufficient.
For a Bayesian there no such things as good or bad evidence. Good or bad indicate approval and disapproval. There's weak and strong evidence but even weak evidence means that your belief in a statement should be higher than without that evidence.
It looks to me to be rather clear that what is being said ("myths are not evidence for Zeus") translates roughly to "myths are very weak evidence for Zeus, and so my beliefs are changed very little by them". Is there still a real misunderstanding here?
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are:
And one new rule: