It's very simple. Babies, especially newborns, have brains which aren't developed enough to even entertain the idea of beliefs. They have no concept of gods because their brains aren't capable of processing that information. Since this is the case, all babies are atheists, until their brains develop enough to understand language and process god concepts and until that information is actually given to them.

The confusion here is twofold:

1) The "popular" definition of atheist is incorrect, philosophically speaking.  The feeling that people get when they think of calling a baby an atheist is misplaced.  The baby is an atheist, but the person with the objection misunderstands what atheism is.

2) Adult atheists are a different kind of atheist than a baby, but they still are atheists, just as much as the baby.  Adults have been introduced to the concept, and don't believe in it.

So, there is a valid point to be made:  A baby's atheism is different than an adult's atheism.  Nevertheless, both are atheists.

 As a side note, the fact that children need to be taught about god is still more evidence that god is not, as many theists claim, self evident in the universe.

If you admit that untaught children are atheists, the damage to that particular theist position is almost irreparable.

(Of course, like all theist positions, the admission, or lack thereof, doesn't change the reality of the situation.  Untaught children are atheists, as are babies.)

All babies are natural atheists. They are born without a belief in God(s).  They have no knwlodge of God(s) therefore, they are also Agnostic. I was born an atheist, was influnced by my parents to become a theist but I figured it out and reclaimed my former natural state. I am a born again atheist. Praise Reason!

It depends what you mean by 'atheist'.  If you mean someone who has taken a rational decision to choose not to believe in God or gods then, no, quite clearly they're not.  If you mean that they are atheist because they have no beliefs at all then, yes: they are.

Why should a baby wear a label? Why not let the child be a child until old enough to decide?

No atheist babies, no christian babies, no hindu babies.... etc.

Just Babies!

Like Nero said, edible and easy to catch (especially good with hot sauce).

I'd wonder when it would be needed to label them.

Honeslty I'd want label them agnostic simply because they don't know about it. However atheist in lack of belief still holds true. 

As Brad stated earlier, use of a better word might help clear up this confusion on what to label babies. I vote theignorant (ignorant about theism)

I am not sure which I find more offensive. The fact this question was asked, when the answer is so obvious, or people responded? I am under the opinion trite drivel always need be ignored but:

Common sense establishes atheism is a person without a belief in god. Other posters have clearly demonstrated arguing for Brad’s position is a poor use of time….

Not only are babies atheists but toddlers are too. I'd say repeating what mommy/daddy or a person in positions of authority says does not "qualify" you as a theist. I feel someone who wishes to be viewed as intelligent and wishes their thoughts or actions be perceived by other as coming from “dis or dat” school of thought must actually have an idea what they are talking about. If I am correct this means toddlers are atheists too. I think this logic would be true when considering children 5-9? I am not sure where to draw the line – late teens? Early adulthood? 18-24(college bound).

I will not address posts directed towards me that suggest babies are anything but atheists. However, I will discuss my position that toddlers are atheists and quite possibly children too. They are simply repeating words that have been pounded into their heads not grasping concepts.

PS

God is incomprehensible …. Anything above nature is. I suppose if you disagree with that you disagree with me…

Y halo thar Captain Intolerant!

Of course you did completely miss the point that we all agree babies are implicitly atheist however they aren't making a concious choice to be atheist, it's just that as they have no ability to make rational decisions on abstract matters.

In other words, they're atheist by default, not by choice.

Just so you know.

Yes, I agree. I wonder if daddydoesit notes the irony in the certainty of his comments, when juxtaposed with your final point?

It's not alright to shove religious belief down other people's throats but I can shove my belief down new-born babies' throats for all I am worth.

I look at that like todangst was mentioning about implicit/explicit.

An implicit atheist is someone that never was taught or knew anything about religion.

An explicit atheist was someone like me that was taught religion and rejected it later on in life.

Right on...

I just don't think we should be crystal clear with what we're talking about. If we categorically place anything that does not have belief in a god in the atheist category, then rocks are atheist too...

I'm quite sure that rocks are creationists simply because their IQ is equated.  I'm sure that labels such as atheist, theist, humanist have no meaning outside of human beings.  Is a rock a vegetarian then because it eats no meat?

When I say that, Sapient, I am referring to the adults' view that new-born babies are atheists before they have either heard or uttered a word of the language they have been born into. I see that as me making a decision for them. It's like I'm assuming without their input. I don't accept that being an atheist is a pasive thing so therefore, in order for it to be valid, there has to be some sort of active voice present. The term 'non-theist' is much more accurate, in my view.

In the category of an explicit Atheist like myself, the answer would be yes. It is a position that one has adopted via the rejection of a belief in a deity.

In the category of an implicit Atheist, it is one that has never been taught of the belief of a god and therefore lacks a belief in god because they have never been exposed to it.

If you have to assign any title to infants, I would agree that the term non-theistic would probably be better.

However, why do we necessarily need to assign any title to any newborn infant anyway ?

We do not classify infants as non-Republican or non-Democrat because they have not understood those terms yet. At least, I do not know of anyone that does that.

One of the things that always irked me about growing up within the Catholic faith. Mention what school you attend and someone was likely to say "That is where all of the Catholic children go," mention another school and "That is where all of the Jewish children go". 

Do we call children, Democrat kids ? Republican kids ? Socialist kids ? Libertarian kids ? Do we often ask parents if they will give their children the option to choose other political paths ? Usually not that I am aware of .

I don't really see religion and god belief as too much different than any other aspect of culture.

I wouldn't think that a baby with musician parents should be referred to as a non-musician.

BUT, in regards to the original post, I think that all babies are indeed Atheists. The factors of where they are born and the types of parents that they have might indicate what their life choices will be but little else.

Look at me, my entire family is deeply religious and the neighborhood that I grew up in was predominantly Catholic. But, here I am, a hardcore positive Atheist about the god of the Abrahamic religions and any other likened deity.

Is there, though, any other state, condition. person or situation where the word 'explicit' can be applied but where the word 'implicit' really does not apply in any way, shape or form? 

Butterbattle says that the word 'atheist is only used because theism is so popoular.'

Em, first I've heard of it. Sounds to me like God's come to visit planet Earth.

Atheist and non-theist are synonyms but that neither means they are the same nor exactly inter-changeable terms. They exist to express differences and nuances and subtleties of meaning, as do all synonyms.

My response does nothing of the sort, thank you very much, and I wasn't aware that you had elected yourself in charge of setting down the goalposts. In my opinion, calling a baby at birth an atheist does imply that they are not innocent - any chance of letting me know how they came about their awareness of language in the womb - and calling babies 'non-theist' does hint at the insanity of religion.

What makes you think your assertions do more than express an opinion? Have trouble finding a hat to fit that ego, do you?

Your saying 'Atheist is a word. It means what humans decide it means', reminds me of Basil Fawlty's comment about Sybil and Mastermind: 'Special Subject: The Bleeding Obvious.' And since you finish with another banality, what words do you suggest instead of 'implicit'?

'Babies are merely ignorant. That's what we mean regardless of the labels.' Speak for yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

In the first place, to actively believe or not believe in an entity, one must first have a concept of the entity. Then, for there to be a term describing that belief or non-belief in our language, it must have some importance i.e. be discussed to some extent in societies with that language. It would be quite impractical to popularize a term for labeling every possible belief or the lack thereof. So, specific entities of little interest do not have terms describing our belief in them; for example, there are no leprechaunists or aleprechaunists because philosophers don't seriously debate with each other over the existence of leprechauns.

God is one of only a few, if not the only supernatural thing, that is so prevalent that it is considered the default position and non-belief is what is generally unorthodox. That is why we are given a label.

I do think atheist and non-theist are exactly interchangeable terms. That is how I define them. The prefix "a" in atheist denotes "not" or "without." Theism is belief in God. Ergo, atheism is "not God" or "without God." Also, 

Ktulu: Theos and a-theos the a in Greek being the equivalent of 'non' or 'un' in English."  

That suggests that all synonyms are words that have nearly the same meaning, which is not correct. Synonyms are words that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonyms

Arguably, the distinction you've made between atheist and non-theist hardly makes them synonyms anyways.

I did not elect myself in charge of setting down the goalposts. The second sentence of my previous response began, "If we define an atheist as someone that doesn't believe in God..." I did not assert that there was an objectively correct way of defining the word; this is merely how I define it. If it seems like I implied that somewhere, it was not intended. Once again, I define an atheist as a person that doesn't believe in God - nothing more, nothing less.

This discussion is entirely semantics. I define these words in one way; you define them a different way. The only point of confusion is where you continually commit basic question begging by smuggling your definitions onto the word, such that you eventually imply that they are somehow inherent to the word itself, then attempt to use that as an actual argument against the use of the word. I uttered the "bleeding obvious" because, from what you wrote in your previous posts, the "bleeding obvious" did not seem obvious to you at all. Calling a baby at birth an atheist only implies that they are not innocent if that is what is meant by the person who called the baby an atheist. Calling a baby a non-theist only hints at the insanity of religion if you have already defined the term in such a way that it hints at the insanity of religion. Words don't have meaning by themselves. For you to object to a person calling a baby an atheist because you've defined the term atheist in such a way that it does not accurately describe babies is ludicrous; once you realize this is what you're doing, this discussion will be over, as there will be nothing left to argue about.

What do you mean by, "- any chance of letting me know how they came about their awareness of language in the womb -."? If you're implying that atheism requires awareness of language, then you are again projecting your own definition onto me as a strawman.

I don't know. You can call them non-theists if you want. Negative atheists. Weak atheists. Agnostics.

Oh, well, can't win them all.

Is that right? So we assign qualities and characteristics to a something before establishing whether it actually exists or not? Sounds like insanity to me.

Why not? How is the postulation of a leprechaun any different inheretly from postulating God?

But that doesn't make it any more valid than postulating anything else. Its prevalence is irrelevant and its being labelled so generally can just as well prove how even crazier it is.

Course they are, at times, though without the 'exactly', but that still doesn't mean they mean the same.

Sorry, but there is no way that any synonym means exactly the same, never. It wouldn't exist, if it did. Context governs their use and need. And what's Webster got to do with it?

So if you didn't set down the goalposts, why the use of the pronoun 'we' ? I agree completely with your final sentence above and that is also why it can't be applied to a new-born baby. You've said it yourself.

Anyway any discussion can't be or isn't?

I'm not sure what that farrago is all about. I'd argue definitions of words are inherent to the word itself, wouldn't you? Can they exist independently of each other? And as for your comments about babies and atheism, it is the title of this thread I'm responding to, I didn't pluck it out of the air. You even imply this with your final sentence. On that basis, each post in reply to this thread should either have been 'Yes' or 'No', which nicely shows the utter banality of either/or.

Have you read your last sentence here? You raise the strawman argument, straw being the operative word, but it rests, according to you, on my 'implying' something. How absurd is that? You're not only putting words into my mouth, you're shovelling ideas into it as well. And what does 'atheism requires awareness of language' actually mean?

Butterbattle, my calling them 'non-theists' is only as a direct response to this thread, and the term 'atheist' being applied to babies was first suggested a couple of centuries ago, or so.

A new born baby is not an implicit atheist, and nor a 'Negative atheist' and/or 'weak atheist', whatever those terms are supposed to mean. And nor are babies agnostic.

As an atheist, the last thing we need to do is make ourselves sound like first-class dorks by predicating onto newly born babies our beliefs. The irony is that it's one of atheists' greatest criticisms of religious indoctrination and upbringing.

 can a mod fix clifyboy's post, it's difficult to read.

I'm working on a machine that harnesses the wasted energy in threads like this, and turns it into a death ray.

Two more posts about this and my battle station will be fully armed and operational.

Can you give chapter and verse on this one?

I would qualify my assertion with the word 'usually' but would still like details of an 'implicit contract.'

lol, I was going to go with the proverbial jesus horse, being beaten to death, being beaten while dead and then resurrected and beaten some more

To maroon a whole stack of babies on an island and surround them with cameras (within reason) and see what happens.

Would they develop a theology or just do their own thing? I think over time they'd probably anthropomorphise their environment, reify the sun, big pelagics, the fertility of women, springtime and whatever else there was that lay beyond simple explanation.

Personally, I think what could be called 'religion' is the mind's first port of call during its development. Think of the essentialism children show to all things. Teddy Bears, toy cars, cartoon trains, dolls. They are all sentient 'human' beings to children.

I think you could say that human thought ensures we inevitably bring everything that can be perceived by our primary sense data down to our own level. Anthropomorphism is a truism of all human thought. When this natural anthro tendency is applied to non human things as our sense of awe develops then reification of inanimate objects and concepts is virtually inevitable.

To escape this flawed thinking we need to do away with cognitive generalisations and insist on limiting (yes, I know it's impossible) faith-based belief systems, of which we all have many. I think atheism is a higher state of being than theism. You move through theism to disbelief (Yes, I'm projecting my own experience here).

In defense of this point, I think it's true that monotheism involves holding hands with a powerful, engaged anthro god, while atheism means standing alone. And clearly, not everyone can handle living with the incomprehensible.

When you say P1 do you mean person 1, peon 1? because if you imply the term peon, it has a definite derogatory connotation.  I will argue that two peons having this conversation will conclude that the baby is not an atheist.

Though you probably mean premise.... I'm just going to let this go and never open this thread again... maybe.