(September 14, 2026 at 7:46 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 6:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a child's understanding of religion as distinct from any other.

Would you say there is anything in the Chandogya Upanishad which would be difficult for a child to understand, because it requires study and the understanding of various concepts which are not self-evident?

Could someone who has studied it seriously for a long time understand it better than an 8-year-old who had heard about it from someone else?

3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:3-4

(September 14, 2026 at 7:46 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 6:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a child's understanding of religion as distinct from any other.

Would you say there is anything in the Chandogya Upanishad which would be difficult for a child to understand, because it requires study and the understanding of various concepts which are not self-evident?

Could someone who has studied it seriously for a long time understand it better than an 8-year-old who had heard about it from someone else?

Usually, kids are exposed to the religion of one or both parents, as well as other family.  

At what age is it that you think a child (for that matter, a person of any age) can form an opinion based on what they know?

(September 14, 2026 at 4:48 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 3:55 am)Sheldon Wrote: Atheism no more requires any explanation for anything, than not believing in mermaids does

You say this, but then you go on to give an explanation.

Quote:Sheldon: You are ignoring the context of course, and just because I chose to explain why I disbelieve the claim, doesn't mean it is a requirement.   

Quote:there is no objective evidence they exist, and the claim they do has no explanatory whatsoever.

This is a perfectly good reason to not believe that unicorns exist. 

Quote:Sheldon: The important thing is that it is applied to all claims, so the accusation of bias from the thread author, is unfunded, disbelief and an open mind are not incompatible. 

The epistemological basis is that we should only believe in things for which we have certain kinds of evidence -- objective evidence. This is the reason that most atheists on the Internet have for not believing in God. It is a good reason, but it is a reason, and shows that atheism is not simply a lack, but rests on epistemological claims.

You are making a very common error, one theists often make as well, atheist and atheism are not the same, and I never said atheists don't offer explanations for why they are atheists, only that atheism or any disbelief need explain nothing. It is an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam argument to make a claim,  then defend it as the thread author did, by implying the lack of that belief can't explain anything / something.

Babies are all born atheists, since atheism does not need any beliefs be formed about the world, only the lack of one particular belief.

(September 14, 2026 at 2:15 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: While many may embrace such a standard, it is not a pre-condition for disbelief, and thus it is an error to say atheism rests upon it.

You have made the classic mistake of assuming that a feature incidental to some atheists is an essential property of all atheists.

You're right, many embrace such a standard, but it is not a pre-condition for disbelief. That's why I said "most atheists on the Internet." But it would have been more accurate for me to say "most atheists I have encountered on the Internet." 

I am sure there are atheists who lack belief for other reasons. For example, the nuns were mean to them when they were children. Or they just don't care enough to think about the issue at all. My guess is that these people are less likely to be posting on Internet atheist sites. 

Assuming it's true that there is no objective evidence for a god, is this something that makes you think a lack of belief is reasonable? Or does the fact that there is no evidence for a god not factor into your decision? 

As you point out, atheists may have different kinds of reasons, and I was clear that, in my opinion, the lack of objective evidence is a good reason. If someone had a bad reason, or no reason at all, that's something they could talk about.

The point you're missing, is that atheist and atheism are not the same thing. 

Not the only point of course, since having an explanation or reason for disbelief, is also not the same as demanding that disbelief explain anything. 

If a deity doesn't exist then explain why....etc etc etc, not only do such arguments not evidence any deity, it is argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning. Like much religious apologetics it is also circular reasoning that seems to get a pass we wouldn't accept for other claims. 

We don't demand that not believing in mermaids must explain anything. More evidence of bias, and therefore a closed minded approach, that the thread author was projecting onto others, just for not sharing his belief, and saying so.

(September 14, 2026 at 2:15 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: While many may embrace such a standard, it is not a pre-condition for disbelief, and thus it is an error to say atheism rests upon it.

You have made the classic mistake of assuming that a feature incidental to some atheists is an essential property of all atheists.

If someone had a bad reason, or no reason at all, that's something they could talk about.

Well there you go, atheism requires no explanation, and as I originally said, and you misrepresented, atheism need offer no explanation for anything, anymore than disbelieving mermaids exist, mean one would need to explain any part of how or why objective reality exists without them.

Having an explanation for why one disbelieves in mermaids, does not mean disbelieving in them should provide any explanations for anything.

(September 14, 2026 at 7:46 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 6:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a child's understanding of religion as distinct from any other.

Would you say there is anything in the Chandogya Upanishad which would be difficult for a child to understand, because it requires study and the understanding of various concepts which are not self-evident?

Could someone who has studied it seriously for a long time understand it better than an 8-year-old who had heard about it from someone else?

One more time then, I asserted that atheism need explain nothing, not that atheists had no explanation of why they disbelieve, you misunderstood my claim, and have run with that error. 

Let's try an abstract example, I assume you don't believe mermaids exist? If so I would assume that you have a reason for withholding credulity, but implying they exist unless you can explain any aspects of objective reality without the existence of mermaids, would be both nonsensical and irrational. Yet religious apologists do this all the time, as did the thread author.

(September 15, 2026 at 3:51 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 14, 2026 at 4:48 am)Belacqua Wrote: You say this, but then you go on to give an explanation.



This is a perfectly good reason to not believe that unicorns exist. 


The epistemological basis is that we should only believe in things for which we have certain kinds of evidence -- objective evidence. This is the reason that most atheists on the Internet have for not believing in God. It is a good reason, but it is a reason, and shows that atheism is not simply a lack, but rests on epistemological claims.

You are making a very common error, one theists often make as well, atheist and atheism are not the same, and I never said atheists don't offer explanations for why they are atheists, only that atheism or any disbelief need explain nothing. It is an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam argument to make a claim,  then defend it as the thread author did, by implying the lack of that belief can't explain anything / something.

Babies are all born atheists, since atheism does not need any beliefs be formed about the world, only the lack of one particular belief.

Thank you for clarifying your position. 

Your earlier post said "there is no objective evidence [mermaids] exist, and the claim they do has no explanatory whatsoever."

This was unclear. "Explanatory" is an adjective, but there was no noun. So I wondered "has no explanatory what?" It sounded as though you were saying that the claim that mermaids exist explains nothing. 

Now I guess you are saying that if a person doesn't believe in mermaids, this person is under no obligation to explain anything else about the world, based on this lack of belief. 

If one person believed in mermaids and another didn't, the first might inquire as to why so many sailors in the past claimed to have seen mermaids. Then the non-believer, if he were interested in good-faith conversation, could offer explanations as to why people think they have seen them when they haven't. But you're right he would be under no legal or moral obligation.

(September 15, 2026 at 3:51 am)Sheldon Wrote: Babies are all born atheists, since atheism does not need any beliefs be formed about the world, only the lack of one particular belief.

You are not a baby.

You are an adult, who can use language, who was raised in a society, who has heard and rejected the claims made by religious people. Have you rejected these claims for good reasons? If so, then these reasons are your beliefs. 

Atheism requires one necessary belief: that the claims made by religious people are unpersuasive. Why one finds those claims unpersuasive may be different from person to person.

(September 15, 2026 at 5:19 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 3:51 am)Sheldon Wrote: Babies are all born atheists, since atheism does not need any beliefs be formed about the world, only the lack of one particular belief.

You are not a baby.

You are an adult, who can use language, who was raised in a society, who has heard and rejected the claims made by religious people. Have you rejected these claims for good reasons? If so, then these reasons are your beliefs. 

Atheism requires one necessary belief: that the claims made by religious people are unpersuasive. Why one finds those claims unpersuasive may be different from person to person.

(Bold mine)

If that were true, then it would require a person and hear and reject the claims by religious people before concluding that atheist was the way to go. I find it perfectly plausible that one can be an atheist without considering any claims made by religious people.

As a check, why would religious people need to find the claims made by atheists unpersuasive to remain (or become) religious people?

Boru

Yeah, some atheists do find claims of theists persuasive—like GrandizerII. I remember asking him how he can be both an atheist and find theist arguments persuasive, and his answer was that I was committing the ad hominem fallacy on him.