Koyaanisqatsi

Only if you do as you did and leave off the qualifier: "If, I say, however, 'I reject belief in leprechauns' then I am tacitly conceding that 'belief in leprechauns' is a legitimate belief; an acceptable proposition to some, that "I" simply reject.

As you can plainly see, "legitimate belief" was qualified with the phrase, "an acceptable proposition to some..."

WJ

"If I say I have no belief in leprechauns, the meaning is absolute."

Koy, I thought you said there were no [universal] absolutes? Need me to quote you? Or is that out of context?

Walrus
----------
What does it mean to hold a belief?

HelenM

Koy, I know the initial and final contradict. The initial is yours, the final is mine. I resolve it by saying the initial is worded wrongly imo and needs rewording more like the final. You resolved it by saying the final is wrongly worded and needs rewording like the initial.

I see no way to reconcile that each of us resolves the contradiction differently.

However, I am willing to put 'imo' in there as a way of saying "I respect that you are doing this differently from me".

You didn't; you asserted I was wrong. However you wrote in a civil way so I appreciate that even though you asserted I was wrong. Which I don't know how you can assert unless you are the fixed-reference-point of the universe But still, like I said, I respect your civility. I know that it's not extended to all theists!

love
Helen

HelenM

See, I don't think that most people see you as conceding anything if you say it the second way. I don't think they'd say you conceded that belief in leprechauns is legitimate, just because of that slight difference in wording. So - if they don't see you as conceding anything, what have you conceded?

Thinking of Monty Python, if the insurance you bought only pays on claims that you don't make, you don't really have any insurance do you?

I see you as sincere in holding there to be a difference between the meaning of the two statements. But I still don't see what it matters, if virtually no-one else sees the difference. I don't see where it gets you to make fine distinctions that are lost on the world...can you explain where it gets you as opposed to just 'what is correct/right'?

I really am curious to know what value it has, for you.

love
Helen

CX

seems to me this is more appropriately term noncognitivism. Atheism only denotes an absence of belief in deities however they are defined.

Goliath

Helen,

I'm afraid this is demonstrably incorrect. If I have no belief with regards to X (X being any particular topic--eg the existence of a god), then I am making no logical claim whatsoever about whether or not X is true.

However, if I believe that X is not true (ie reject X), then I am making a logical claim about X.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Koyaanisqatsi

The "initial" is a declaration: I have no beliefs.

The final, as I demonstrated, is also a declaration: I consider based upon critical analysis of all evidence presented leprechaunism is not true.

As you should be able to plainly see, the INITIAL and the FINAL do [i]not[/b] contradict one another.

Then the rewording would be: I consider based upon critical analysis of all evidence presented leprechaunism is not true.

Again, as you can plainly see, this is not equivalent to holding a belief, since holding a belief is to beleive regardless of the evidence.

You have misused a word in your FINAL statment ("believe") since no atheist means, "I believe christianity is not true," even if they were to colloquially say this in conversation.

What an atheist means at all times is, "I consider based upon critical analysis of all evidence presented christianity is not true."

This is not and cannot be classified as a "belief," so to do so would only be an example of building a straw man argument predicated on the improper use of terminology.

No, I demonstrated how you were misusing terminology in a very understandable, but nonetheless invalid way.

That's just it, though. There is no contradiction. You simply used incorrect terminology.

An atheist does not say, "I believe christianity is not true," other than colloquially, but even then, what the atheist means by using that improper, colloquial terminology is, "I have critically considered the majority of the available evidence that allegedly suports the truth claim of christianity and consider that evidence to be insufficient to support the truth claim."

Obviously, no one's going to go around at parties and spout such precise terminology, but clearly around here, it is necessary, yes?

No, I demonstrated that you were incorrect.

There is a significant difference. The way you worded it implies that I did not support my position, allowing you the ability to review my argument and offer counter-refutation in kind.

Again, I did not, but thank you as I am trying to be more civil in my approach. It is a difficult battle.

Again, it wasn't asserted. I showed you my deconstruction and took you step by step through it all, detailing along the way the logical progression and fallacy of your syllogism.

You are, of course, therefore free to offer counter-argumentation and show me in kind how my position is not supportable, as you did previously.

I then rebutted that and demonstrated again why you were incorrect, so it is now "your turn" to rebut my rebuttal, demonstrating the flaw in my reasoning.

And damn few atheists!

HelenM

Goliath, Koy (in no particular order )

Thanks for your comments; I have nothing more to add about 'belief' vs 'lack of belief'.

If that means I concede then I concede.
If it means I lost and you won then, you won.

love
Helen

Goliath

Helen,

Concession accepted.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule

I plainly see it, but I honestly don't get it (and probably don't want it). Are you truly arrogating to yourself the right to inform the theist what constititutes a legitimate and/or acceptable proposition to her/him?