To Me this is not always true. In a philosophy forum the purpose of communication would be to be as precise as possible. The very nature of philosophy is in having the love of wisdom, and to gain more wisdom so as to become wiser it is better done with precise and succinct two-way communication. However, in just about all other areas of life any form of communication that gets the message across is good enough.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:16 am The purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible
That is why agreement and acceptance on the words and their definitions and meanings to be used in a discussion should be done prior to a discussion taking place. Then if complete honesty and openness remains throughout the discussion and peaceful clarification is sought, asked for, and given, then through this type of medium logical reasoning takes place and two-way communication is freely allowed to proceed, from which sound and valid arguments, which are unambiguous truths that can not be disputed, are very simply and easily found.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:16 ambut the ambiguity of language however cannot always guarantee this
All very simple really. Finding other human beings with the patience and temperament for this is the only hard part here.
You wrote, "The purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible". So, let us be as precise as possible. You also wrote,
1."Both atheists and theists are irrational since all human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent.
2. But atheism unlike theism is not irrational.
3. Because all it is is the rejection of a specific class of truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity for which there is precisely zero
evidence.
4. It is only irrational to accept such a truth claim.
5. Since even if it is true it cannot be demonstrated to be so".
To Me,
First half of the first sentence is not precise at all.
"Atheists" and "theists" are not actual real things. There are, however, human beings who are real things and who see things in a certain way. "atheist" and "theist" are just labels given to people with certain views.
'All human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent' is pretty precise though.
Second sentence is not precise either.
"Atheism" and "theism" can neither be rational nor irrational. Only human beings can be either rational or irrational. "Atheism" and "theism" are both sets of views formed by human beings, of which both sets are equally irrational. If there is no conclusive evidence for some thing, then there is no use nor purpose in believing either way for that thing. To believe or disbelieve some thing is true or not without any evidence IS irrational. If evidence, however, is said to have already been obtained but that person is unable to or unwilling to share that evidence, or remain open to the fact that what they have may not actually be evidence, when and if they do share it, then that also IS just as irrational. In fact any time a person is not truly open, then they are being irrational.
Believing "atheism" is not irrational unlike "theism" is, based solely on the beliefs that person maintains IS irrational.
Third sentence also not precise.
The "it" word is not specifically in relation to one thing, so "it" could be misconstrued.
Wholeheartedly rejecting some thing just because that person has not, yet, experienced any evidence for that thing IS irrational.
There is NO evidence that there is precisely zero evidence.
Either believing or disbelieving (in) some thing, (other than believing in One's ability to do, make, or create some thing), IS by its very nature irrational. For example, believing that there is precisely zero evidence, because they themselves believe there is no evidence, as above, IS irrational.
Fourth sentence is not precise.
Believing it is only irrational to accept such a truth claim because a person believes the truth claim is NOT true IS irrational.
If the actual Truth of the truth claim has not yet been presented, then to either accept or reject the truth claim prior to gaining and having this knowledge IS irrational.
Fifth sentence also not precise.
To believe that evidence can not be demonstrated of some thing that IS true IS very irrational.
The "it" word again in the fourth and fifth sentence also leave things open to being misconstrued somewhat.
If, as you suggest, that the purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible, then you should be as precise as possible.
To make your statements more precise we could try;
1."Both the human beings who believe that God does not exist and those who believe that God does exist are irrational since all human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent.
2. Both the human beings who create atheism and theism are irrational.
3. To accept or reject a specific class of truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity for which no evidence has been given successfully either way is irrational.
5. The evidence for such a thing existing or not has not been demonstrated YET".