I think the problem that Irrational AKD is having is equating "I don't believe in X because there's no evidence for it" with "X is impossible because there's no evidence for it." The former is logical and rational, and the latter fits his irrational fallacious argument idea. But when we say we don't believe, we're not totally closing our mind to other evidence and concluding beyond any doubt that there not only is no god, but it's impossible for one to exist.
If he refuses to realize this then it's not my problem. He can continue to make claims of "You're being irrational and fallacious!" all he wants, but he'll be wrong. Saying "If there's no evidence, I don't believe" is not argument from ignorance.
If he refuses to realize this then it's not my problem. He can continue to make claims of "You're being irrational and fallacious!" all he wants, but he'll be wrong. Saying "If there's no evidence, I don't believe" is not argument from ignorance.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.