Why is an athiest and athiest?

[Falvlun]

The truth of the claim. I thought that was obvious?

So did I.

You stated that:

Reject means "not accept", it does not mean "hold it to be untrue".

If rejection means "not accept" and what you are "not accepting" is the truth of the claim, then you are holding that claim to be untrue.

Thus, rejection does in fact mean to "hold it to be untrue", by your own definition.

 

[McBell]

So did I.

You stated that:


If rejection means "not accept" and what you are "not accepting" is the truth of the claim, then you are holding that claim to be untrue.

Thus, rejection does in fact mean to "hold it to be untrue", by your own definition.

Again with the false dichotomy.

It is possible to be neutral on the validity of a claim.

You seem unable to accept this fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So did I.

You stated that:


If rejection means "not accept" and what you are "not accepting" is the truth of the claim, then you are holding that claim to be untrue.

No, it means you don't believe the claim is true. You aren't claiming that the claim is false.

Thus, rejection does in fact mean to "hold it to be untrue", by your own definition.

I've explained this at least three or four times now. Saying "I don't believe X is true" is not the same as saying "I believe X is false". How are you finding this so difficult to accept?

I've been very clear about my definition from the beginning, please do not twist my words.

 

[Falvlun]

Again with the false dichotomy.

It is possible to be neutral on the validity of a claim.

You seem unable to accept this fact.

I'm not sure it's a fact as much as it is wishful thinking.

My problem is with the word "rejection". I do not think that you can use the word reject and claim to be neutral.

If you are rejecting a claim you are not just not accepting it to be true. You are killing its possibility of being true.

If you want the neutral position, imo, you simply cannot use the word "reject".

 

[Falvlun]

No, it means you don't believe the claim is true. You aren't claiming that the claim is false.

I think that rejection carries a greater weight than mere "non acceptance".

But I agree that merely not believing a belief to be true does not necessarily mean that you believe it to be false. Though it usually does.

I've explained this at least three or four times now. Saying "I don't believe X is true" is not the same as saying "I believe X is false". How are you finding this so difficult to accept?

I've been very clear about my definition from the beginning, please do not twist my words.

Hey, don't get testy. I've explained my definition three or four times too. The problem, obviously, is that we disagree on definitions.

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure it's a fact as much as it is wishful thinking.

My problem is with the word "rejection". I do not think that you can use the word reject and claim to be neutral.

If you are rejecting a claim you are not just not accepting it to be true. You are killing its possibility of being true.

If you want the neutral position, imo, you simply cannot use the word "reject".

Unless I reject the validity of your claim, not the claim itself...

 

[Falvlun]

Unless I reject the validity of your claim, not the claim itself...

That's a possibility. thanks.