There's been a tendency among those who do not believe in leprechauns to use a recent definition of the term.
This is presented as a legitimate intellectual position, it is "the absence of a belief in leprechauns".
This is preferred over the more traditional definition "the belief there are no leprechauns" which is the definition you'll find in most historic philosophical books on the subject.
The latter of course cannot be sustained by an evidence based argument (something leprechaun deniers demand from those who believe in leprechauns all the time) so by using the first definition those who do not believe in leprechauns are safe, their position is (apparently) easy to defend "I've seen no evidence".
Their position (which they think requires no evidence) "the absence of a belief in leprechauns" is thus presented as being in no need of proof, or support, it the "default" position they say, and all the pressure can be applied to the believer in leprechauns who must argue and defend their presence of belief, with evidence.
But I put it to the reader that this is just trickery, by replacing the term "believe" (which is a conviction some proposition is true) with the term "absence of belief" it is claimed no evidence is now required, only belief requires evidence, no evidence is required to "not hold a belief" - but is this true?
A predicate like "leprechauns do exist" is binary, it can only have two values - true and false, it certainly cannot be both.
Now just as I cannot say "I believe leprachauns exist and I believe leprechauns do not exist" I surely cannot say "I do not hold a belief that leprechauns exist and I do not hold a belief that leprechauns do not exist"?
How could one adopt such a position? the only way is to rephrase it as "I do not know if leprechauns exist" that is certainly possible.
But many ardent deniers of leprechauns refuse to be described as simply not knowing for sure, not for them the soft position, not for them the admission that leprechauns might, just might exist, oh no that will not do.
So the position they adopt is "I do not hold a belief in leprachauns" but do they not grasp? this is logically indistinguishable from "I do hold a belief that there are no leprechauns".
For if X is true or false then to not assume it is true is the same as to assume it is false!!
(e.g. if I base some outdoor planning decisions on the position I am not going to assume it will rain, then I must, unavoidably base my decisions on the position I am going to assume it will not rain).
It cannot be any other way - to not assume leprechauns do exist is a choice (for it is either true or false) just as much a choice as to not assume leprechauns do not exist.
