Are babies atheists?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mutorc S'yriah's picture
Sammy Shazaam

Sammy Shazaam
I'd say babies are agnostic -

I'd say babies are agnostic - they neither believe, or disbelieve.


But I'd say that most atheists are agnostic. They neither believe nor disbelieve.
Agnostic atheist are in a kind of holding pattern, where they choose not to believe, but that does NOT equate with choosing to disbelieve.

Why do agnostic atheists choose not to believe ? I'd say it's because of a lack of evidence or convincing arguments for any gods.
Since it is well nigh impossible to prove a universal negative, (eg. the absence of ANY gods), we agnostic atheists go into that holding pattern, waiting for good evidence and / or arguments one way or the other.

Ciao, Mu.

nog642's picture
Babies are dumb, and probably

Babies are dumb, and probably don't consider the existence of a god, which would make them atheists. But I imagine some may have some conception that the world they're living in may have been created, or may view someone like their mother as a practical deity.

algebe's picture
I was a theist when I was a

I was a theist when I was a baby. I believed in a god, and god's name was me. The universe was smaller then, but I was the center of it.

Randomhero1982's picture
Would apatheism better suit?

Would apatheism better suit?

Sheldon's picture


Would apatheism better suit?

I simply don't care. ;-)

Cognostic's picture
According to the Church and

According to the Church and the Christian faith, YES! All babies are born in 'SIN,: The original sin is called "SEPARATION FROM GOD." It is not meant to be confused with modern versions of Christian sin, "VIOLATING THE LAWS OF GOD." All babies are born without knowledge of God and with no reference for a God. They are non-believers by default. That makes them Atheist. But they are only atheist to Churches and religions, not to Atheists. Atheists don't label babies.

Sheldon's picture
I can't disagree but a baby

I can't disagree but a baby is atheist only in a technical sense, in the same way a rock or a slug lacks belief. I have no problem with this, as I simply don't see why it matters, as you say what is the point in labelling babies?

Sheldon's picture
Does it believe in a deity or

Does it believe in a deity or deities? I have heard religious apologists argue that theism is innate in us, but I did not find their arguments compelling. Mainly it involved begging the question or argumentum ad ignorantiam, such as why do all humans create religions and deities if the belief is not innate in us.

So yes, I'd say babies are atheists, they could be nothing else.

David Killens's picture
First off, I know of no way

First off, I know of no way to properly test this hypothesis. So even for us atheists, we are speculating based on our personal experiences and beliefs. We must be careful that our personal opinions that are formed with zero hard evidence is not promoted as fact, something theists marinate in every day.

I will not state this as fact, this is only my own opinion with no hard scientific data to back it up. I had to get that disclaimer out of the way.

IMO babies at the moment of birth are a blank slate programmed with very basic life functions. The organs and body functions, and the baby can suckle. That's it, a baby cannot even focus it's eyes.

I am sure many in here have children and know how very young babies are. They take if they can, they have no concept of being nice or fair, all of those qualities are part of the learning process that parenting passes along. And it is at this stage the parent introduces them to the religion concept.

I do not believe in souls or any form of spirituality, so this is just an academic exercise created by theists.

ZeffD's picture
Atheism (like secularism) is

Atheism (like secularism) is a term required only because of organised religion. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in other superstitions like witchcraft or voodoo. They are simply 'non-believers' in those. So a better description of the 'default position' is non-believer as it covers all superstitions, not just belief in a god or deity. It is for theologians to define atheist and so apply that label.

Of course babies know nothing of religion/atheism and care even less! Equally obviously, I do not have a 'belief system'. To perceive me as having such is to totally misunderstand who I am, how I think and my entire approach to any question. If theologians label me atheist, I am an atheist. I couldn't care less as theology for me is simply a mythology taken too seriously.

Sheldon's picture
"We don't have a word for

"We don't have a word for people who don't believe in other superstitions like witchcraft or voodoo."

Rational? ;-)

fishy1's picture
Yep ! They sure are ! Those

Yep ! They sure are ! Those little freakin' heathens ! Just throw those little bastards in the oven ! :) Lol

Randomhero1982's picture
Jelly babies believe in the

Jelly babies believe in the one true God.... IMHOTEP!!!!!!

algebe's picture
Babies are full of religion.

Babies are full of religion. That's why they need diapers.

LogicFTW's picture


Dude, you just won the internet today. That got real laugh out loud from me. Not just a chuckle.

Sheldon's picture
Now that made me larf,

Now that made me larf, eyefangew.

fishy1's picture
Ha ! :) lol Now that was

Ha ! :) lol Now that was funny ! :) lol

LogicFTW's picture
@orignal 5 years old post.

@orignal 5 years old post.

Wonder if a baby is atheist or not, is like wondering if a common house pet is atheist or not. Or the animal meat you ate most recently was an atheist or not.

Yes, babies are precious, amazing and have huge potential, but typically take 15-24 months from birth to pass the "rouge test" of self awareness. There is no way a baby could even begin to understand the concept of atheist/theist. I would argue lots of adults do not even truly understand the concept of theist/atheist.

Cognostic's picture

Agree. Atheism in an atheist's sense of the word. and the reason we don't label babies. is the non-belief in God claims. To the modern atheist the Religious have not met their burden of proof/ To be an atheist in the modern sense of the word we must reject God claims. The answer to the question - "Do you believe in God" is "NO." and not "Huh?" Babies do not have "non-belief." They have no comprehension or understanding at all. Still this is enough for the Church to call them evil, separate from God and wallowing in Original Sin. Unbaptized babies burn in hell and it does not matter how you twist the bible the result is the same.

Babies are unable to follow the the dictates of John 3:16. God so loved the world that..... whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.. How will an infant do this? John goes on to say "John 3:5: "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water", which clearly means: all who die without baptism are damned."

But always remember --- "Jesus loves the little children, All the burning babies sent to hell.
Red and yellow in his sight, Burning hot and burning bright. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

CyberLN's picture
I asked my brand new

I asked my brand new granddaughter if she believes in any gods. She looked at me like I was insane and then changed the subject.

Tin-Man's picture


Babies are so much smarter than most adults sometimes. LOL

mykcob4's picture
This thread is 5 years old.

This thread is 5 years old.
All babies ARE atheists because you have to be indoctrinated to believe in a god.

mickron88's picture
"This thread is 5 years old."

"This thread is 5 years old."

yeah and that 5 year old kid goes to christian pre-school now..


Tin-Man's picture
Re: "yeah and that 5 year old

Re: "yeah and that 5 year old kid goes to christian pre-school now."

Aw, shit. Good one, Q. LOL

MCDennis's picture
of course babies are atheists

of course babies are atheists

mykcob4's picture
Where the hell have you been

Where the hell have you been MCD. I really missed you!

scolding_hottie's picture
Arent babies born with no

babies born with no concept of Gay, Straight, Athiest or Believer.

Could not this analogy, thought or idea be the projected desires of the one who ask the question concerning the baby ?

In other words, a Straight person would see the baby through the eyes of a HetroseXual and an Athiest would see an Athiest baby.
- and so on... I would hope that someone would not project their seXual desires or seXuality upon a baby.

A baby has no idea or concept of what seXuality is and have no understanding of what it means to have a seXual preference.
They love mommy and daddy each in their own special way and it has nothing to do with making an assessment of a seXual judgment. The baby can not be hetroseXual or straight or anything it is not an individual that has knowledge of such things.

The Confusion of a child does not mean that the child is gay. A gay or straight man or woman who takes advantage of a child is simply dealing with the confusion and innocence of the child. When i was 10 years old I had absolutely no concept of anything to do with seX. I was taken to a field and drugged with meth and rohypnols and seXually abused horribly for two days.

this was back in the late forties when no one would even imagine a gay man someone doing this to a child. After I was raped i still could not understand completely what these people were doing to me.. I did not get it.

It was not only until i turned 13 years old that I realized what they were doing although the nightmare was always with me since i was 10. As I matured the nightmare and horror and sickening feeling of such a soul ripping eXperience progressed with my growing puberty.

I was angry, hurt and had severe problems with everything around me and very emotionally attached to the woman figure and could never get enough affection from them. Today 60 years later i have no seX drive but i have eXperience only hetroseXuality with my own free will and choice and although i can not have seX anymore because I am too old and tired but I now know what homoseXual seX is and I know that I could never be a gay man.

A baby however has no idea and is only a victim of others projections.

mykcob4's picture
@Scoldin whoever

@Scoldin whoever
No, you are dead wrong. You don't need to be indoctrinated to be atheists. You have to be taught, brainwashed to be a believer. Imagine a baby grows up to be 29 and is never exposed to any christian brainwashing. He starts talking to a stranger that is public praying.
What are you doing?
I'm praying to god?
What's a god?
Now let's reverse the situation.
A child that has been brainwashed to be a christian from birth happens along and meets someone that has never known a god.
What are you doing says the christian.
Nothing says the atheist.
It stops right there.
Christianity is learned not inherent!
Atheism is nature or inherent!
Now YOU may say well I know people that have become atheists. That is true nearly all atheists become atheist, but that is because they have to UNLEARN FUCKING CHRISTIANITY!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


errmmm you said you were 9 years old and at a Catholic picnic last time you described this here. Also your experience as terrible as it is, and you have my compassion, has nothing to do with the OP.

I suggest you find an LGBTI forum or a Catholic forum to vent your feelings, it would be more effective for your recovery.


LogicFTW's picture
What is with the capitalized

@Scolding Hottie
What is with the capitalized "X" ?

Late 40's you were 10. Okay let us say it was 1948, Meaning you were born in 1938, It is 2018 now. Making you roughly 80. You then state you are 70. What is with the discrepancies? One would think one would know how old they are at least to the nearest decade. And stick to that age from 1 paragraph to another?

How are you aware you were drugged specifically with methamphetamine and rohypnols? (The date rape drug.)

Rohypnol, also known as Flunitrazepam was not discovered until 1960's and not readily available until 1970's.

Let me get this straight. You were taken to a field, doped with what you were able to figure out (somehow,) to be meth at 10, and Rohypnol (that was not even discovered yet.) A person or a group of people intent on raping a 10 year old, actually got the dosage on these powerful drugs right and forced you to take the drugs, (meth was mostly used as a water soluble back then), but were careful enough and measured it so a 10 year old does not OD? Then brutally rape you in a field for 2 days, what, did the person(s) just leave you there when he/they took breaks? Why Rohypnol? The person(s) raping you for 2 days needed you to be even less resistant than a 10 year old on meth for the first time? How did you survive being in a field on the ground for 2 nights? (Are you aware that even in warmer climates sleeping on the ground can cause hypothermia as the cool ground leeches body heat from you?)

A 10 year old, dosed with meth and Rohypnol raped repeatedly over 2 nights, were they "nice" enough to give you water too? Why would they work so hard to insure you survive their crime? They had you hidden away from authority for 2 days in the middle of a field.

If somehow this story was true, you would be the first brutal child rape victim that openly shares a story like this to complete strangers in order to help "prove a point" you were trying to make at 70, or is 80? Years old on the internet.

Normally I give posters the benefit of the doubt, especially with such an awful story of rape such as this. I would feel completely horrible if I was wrong and that, this did somehow actually happen to you, despite all the huge flaws in your 19 word, 1 sentence story.

This time, no. No benefit of the doubt. I find it abhorrent you would make up a story like this to try and make/support a point. Unfortunately stuff like this has/does happen, for you make up a story about it damages and belittles real cases of this happening to children that all to often hide such an event or is not believed when they share it.

I actually held back a few other logical/consistency/reasoning flaws in your story. So you cannot simply make corrections and continue to share this lie.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.