A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing: The Illogical Atheism of S. E. C

[Shine]

However, one who does not believe in God must necessarily reject this belief as false; if the belief is not rejected as false, then it is accepted as true and believed.

Alternatively, one may say, "I'm unsure to a degree whether God exists or not."

Not that that is what she's doing here, don't take me wrong.

True, but I think that statement would fall more on the spectrum of knowledge with agnostic/gnostic rather than belief with atheism/theism.  But I do think that you are on to something; even Hannity rejected her claim of atheism and pretty much got her to admit that she is more in line with the label "agnostic."

[Shine]

Mmmm.  Closer, I think - my next question would be: does Cupp actually speak with certaintly about this future belief?  Does she, in fact, state that this eternal entity is something in which she will believe, without doubt, at some future time, or was she merely expressing the possibility?  I can't imagine she would be so impolitic and incoherent (and her slippery, evasive, and placating answers in fact show her to be very politic indeed) as to state outright that she would, with certainty, believe something in future that she doesn't now believe.

I think that she treats a belief in God as an inevitability because she speaks of it as something that she does not do yet rather than something that she simply does not do.   I'll concede that this could be considered just an extreme expression of a possibility rather than a certainty.  But she also mentions frequently that she actually aspires to someday believe; in this sense, it seems like a purposeful goal to believe in the eternal entity.  

If one posits doubt about the state of one's future belief, one can cogently argue that it is at least logically possible to believe two different, contradictory things at different points in one's life, and not be hypocritical.  We all do that.  Change our minds as evidence changes.  However, if she has some kind of foreknowledge of what she will come to believe, it would be fairly impossible to maintain that argument without seeming disingenuous. I don't think it would be conclusive, but it would be highly suggestive.

I agree that we all change our minds as new evidence arises, but Cupp is not speaking of new evidence; she aspires to be a "person of faith" someday and therefore is not looking for evidence to alter her conclusions.  Because of her desire for faith alone, I think that she is strictly looking to adopt a belief for the sake of the belief alone.  But I do understand what you are saying about evidence; I think that you are probably accustomed to a bit more intellectual honesty than Cupp happens to possess.  :bananacolor:

And also...Cupp might not believe in premise 1, she might believe that false beliefs benefit just as well as true beliefs.  Remember - you're arguing what "Cupp says," not what you say.

Hmm...I think that this is actually what I might be aiming for.  Ultimately, I wanted to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous it is for her to admire people who derive divine guidance from a divinity which she supposedly does not believe to exist. Her entire platform is that the liberal media distorts the truth and bashes Christianity, a position which is dependent upon the value of truth in adhering to reality.  (I think?  Or maybe I am wrong in that...)  I do not see how she can then logically support the possession of false beliefs if she considers the purported falsities of the media to be such grandiose transgressions.

Thanks for the critique; I really do appreciate it!  

[The Black Jester]

Hmm...I think that this is actually what I might be aiming for. Ultimately, I wanted to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous it is for her to admire people who derive divine guidance from a divinity which she supposedly does not believe to exist. Her entire platform is that the liberal media distorts the truth and bashes Christianity, a position which is dependent upon the value of truth in adhering to reality. (I think? Or maybe I am wrong in that...) I do not see how she can then logically support the possession of false beliefs if she considers the purported falsities of the media to be such grandiose transgressions.

I think you have it here.  It may not be a syllogism, but it's a strong line of argument.  Although, strictly speaking, aspiring to be a person of faith only undermines her credentials as a believer in the scientific method and the value of evidence, not necessarily her current lack of belief in a diety.  One could conceivably be an Athiest and also an extreme epistemological skeptic.  But such a person likely wouldn't trust "faith" either.  

In any case, the more potent argument is that you cannot, on the one hand, dismiss the value of evidence in matters of "faith," where faith contradicts reality as illuminated by the evidence, and on the other hand rely exclusively on such evidence to illuminate the "reality" of a conspiracy theory you are nursing.