Why would we address two propositions at once? We are only addressing if the claim is true, not if the claim is false.

IE:

In a courtroom they do not ask if the defendent is innocent or guilty. They ask if he is guilty and you vote on the verdict of accept or not accept.

The same goes for claiming something does or does not exist. You only address one of the propostions at a time.

We aren't, Louis Cyphre's example is three responses to the same proposition.

No, his example contains two propostions.

1) the claim is false
2) the claim is true

They aren't the propositions under question they are answers to whatever the claim is.

Consider your example of the jury, to the question "Is the defendant guilty?" one may answer Yes, No or I don't know. Both No and I don't know constitute refusing to assent to the proposition:

P the defendant is guilty

But they are not the same.

The law is terrible about trying to categorize things like this that may not exactly fit within the category. For example, telecom law for years tried to interpret things like broadband into laws that were enacted many years ago.

This may help clear it up.

Two basic forms of philosophical scepticism

Yes, which is why "witholding judgement" is generally the same thing as "not accepting" the proposition. Unless you accept claims presented to you while witholding judgement. This was my point, it makes more sense to not accept claims while witholding judgement.

Either way, there are still two options.

1) I accept claim x
2) I do not accept claim X

The other propostion of claim x is not true has two options as well
1) I accept claim x isn't true
2) I do not accept claim x isn't true

When you withold judgement you should answer 2 to both questions.

No it isn't not accepting P can entail either denying P, assenting to ~P or it can entail withholding assent.

When did I say it couldn't? You are arguing that not accepting and denying are the same thing. They are not, not accepting is just "not" accepting. You have to accept this claim to be a theist. "not" accepting is an athiest.

To be clear, you can "not" accept and also deny the claim. You however, do not have to deny the claim to not accept it.

No I am not arguing that.

This is where we started

What I am saying is that this is incorrect, there are in fact three options when someone presents a claim to you;

1) Accept the claim
2) Reject the claim
3) Withhold assent to the claim

2 & 3 are different but they are valid responses to the same proposition. In presenting only two options you are either denying that a claim can be rejected or saying that rejecting a claim and withholding assent to a claim are both covered by your option 2, and if so I am pointing out that it is important to distinguish between discrete propositional attitudes.

O ok, I understand what you are saying now.

Can we put it like this?

1) accept the claim
2) reject the claim
2 a) reject the claim without certainty the claim is false.

This is what you are saying correct? You still agree that answering 2 a. is rejecting the claim?

You are making up your own epistemology. Fine. Just realize that most people disagree with it.

2 & 3 both entail refusing to assent but in philosophical discussions of propositional attitudes rejection/denial is reserved for those that say the claim is false.

With regard to the proposition

P1 There is a god.

The strong atheist denies the claim and assents to the proposition

P2 There is no god.

While the weak atheist withholds assent to both P1 and P2. The distinction is not trivial.

I think we are in agreement. I may have just worded it in an uncommon way.

So we both agree that 2/3 are atheists correct?

Yes.

Sorry I've contributed to a bit of a derail but there's a couple of interesting questions you raise.

Firstly I don't have a problem with atheists exploiting protections afforded religious groups. I can't say I'm familiar with the protections afforded atheism i the US but I don't have an issue with inmate groups for instance constituting a religious study group.

I would not legally forbid atheist groups from declaring as religions unless or until legal benefits afforded other religious groups are withdrawn.

No, I'd accept that once a group declares as a religion whether atheist, polytheist, theist or whatever then they lose any benefits afforded non religious groups.

A Bible study group is seen as an integral part of religious practices for many Christians. Google "small group ministry" if you're not familiar with this practice.

This is not unreasonable, though clearly certain types of group gatherings can and probably should be barred for the safety of both inmates and guards.

This is superficially sensible, but I think it's quite complicated. Since atheism doesn't have a core set of beliefs nor a religious "text" to point to as a source of beliefs, it's not clear how one would characterize beliefs.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwel...by_Stores,_Inc.

How would one apply this to an atheist organization? What could be the definition of "religious belief" for an atheist? Wouldn't *any* belief be a religious belief?

Do we have any evidence that the courts are leaning to such a conclusion in any way? I don't think we have much of a worry of a slippery slope here. Even if you and I and deregs all agreed that yes, EVERY belief an athiest had was a religious one (and I don't see why that would be case), that doesn't translate legally and I don't think we are at any legal risk of this happening.

Recall the quote from the previous case you brought up: I don't know the best language to use here - whether you might replace "ultimate concern" with something else - but it seems very reasonable for us to conclude that "I don't believe a deity created the universe" is a so called religious belief (for legal purposes, that is) in a way that "I believe Obama wasn't born in the US" just isn't. There is a certain character to the types of questions we are using when we say they are religious beliefs. Now you might be unhappy that precisely what this character is and is not is not carefully specified and delineated. But that is what the legal canon is for and over centuries it has accepted some types of things as being legally classified as religious and others not; so too is it here.

Well, we don't have to worry about legal risk because Dered's principle isn't actually codified in law:

This statement is simply not true under current law. An atheist group at this moment in history has more right to be involved in government than a church does on the basis of the separation of church and state.

Exceptions on the basis of religious beliefs apparently includes beliefs about contraceptive technology on a Biblical basis. Suppose an atheist objected to contraceptive technology. Without having a "Bible" (or other religious text) or a particular historical basis for belief, how can the atheist describe the belief as being religious?

As for trying to quote the case that I quoted earlier in defense of your statement here, I really think you ought to understand case law better than that. A ruling that is explicitly narrowly construed to be about a first amendment right to assemble cannot possibly be reasonably applied to a case in which first amendment grounds were not even addressed.

While also advantaged from the benefits afforded religious groups? Can you give an example.

Also your legislatures are full of people with religious allegiances the idea that the church and state are fully separated seems wrong, according to wiki the restraints entailed by the separation of church and state are better understood as constraints on the state rather than the church.

From wiki

Can you explain how this separation impacts the Church?