(December 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I never said it was an argument. That was never my point. My point is that's why I don't believe, because there's no evidence that I know of.You keep on doing it. The "that's why" is reasoning. It is argument. It is using ignorance as an argument. Because of ignorance of proof of A, you don't believe A.
EvF
Well, it is a phrasing I could have used myself, that's not the point. I'm often not accurate enough myself. And I've seen enough of your postings to know you do not mean it as an argument. This is the difference between formally correct use and common use of language. And sure, this is hair splitting and it is going on far too long now. And I apologize for my nagging.
But the point is however that in your response you do not make a difference between the semantics at the formal level and at the common language level. Keeps one wondering.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0