Are babies atheists?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture


mickron88's picture
see how babies are capable of

see how babies are capable of..
don't let them fool you...

cup of tea's picture
Yes i was actually given

Yes i was actually given something like Chloral hydrate mixed with other ingredients to give the effect of Rophynol (roofies).

I do not know eXactly what it was but in the drug world it had the eXact effects of Rophynol (roofies)

Many drugs that had the effects of Rophynol (roofies) eXisted when I was 10 years old and I was given this drug.
I choose to label it as Rophynol (roofies) as a label class to make it understandable.

I was giving general details of my eXperience saying that about after 60 years I no longer was able to have seX a drive - Which is where I am today.

My story was told to eXplain what happened - not to give a perfect grammar and eXact details and numbers of my age and the eXact date it occurred. I am glad it worked. Thanks for pointing out more truth, - That is all the INFO I have for You.

Dave Matson's picture
It all depends on how you

It all depends on how you define "atheist." When I use the word "atheist" I'm talking about people who reject theism, be it for a lack of evidence, on the basis of arguments, or for no reason at all. Thus, I would not call a baby an atheist. I would say that a baby is "without opinion."

There is no legitimate debate here. It all depends on the definition you use for "atheist." Someone with a different definition for "atheist" might say that babies are atheists, but there is no disagreement since different meanings are used. We could simply say that babies are unaware of theism and, with that translation, both sides would be in full agreement.

If we are actually arguing over adopting a definition for everyone who calls themselves "atheist," then there is no way to settle the matter on an objective basis.

wgusapukc's picture
Interesting question and one

Interesting question and one the church attacked whenever a child is still born or dies prior to baptism. What the bible was taught to say was that you don't get the bath you are doomed. This changed to if you are a baby and didn't have the the dunk you go to heaven in gods mercy.
They didn't see them as atheists but instead unable to be shown/know gods love. An atheist is more one that has seen gods love and doesn't possess the faith needed to keep the monsters away with that love.
So babies are not bad but were only called to serve god before being bathed in HIS love.

Sheldon's picture
"An atheist is more one that

"An atheist is more one that has seen gods love and doesn't possess the faith needed to keep the monsters away with that love."

No it isn't, and it is axiomatic that an atheist cannot have "seen God's love", whatever the hell that means. Why do theist keep trying to redefine atheism and atheist?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity or deities. Do babies in your opinion believe in deities?

The motivation behind atheism is irrelevant to the definition of it.

"So babies are not bad but were only called to serve god before being bathed in HIS love."

That's pure nonsense sorry, babies can't and therefore don't believe in deities. This by definition makes them atheists. I also disagree that this is an interesting question. It seems rather pointless to me.

Jeff Munroe1's picture
Babies just don't know. I'd

Babies just don't know. I'd say 'Agnostic', but only by virtue of lacking information, not as a choice. They are like a blank computer with an OS and human feelings/instincts. They don't know about cars, they don't know about gods, they don't know about anything. However, if they were given all the information with the corresponding data and proof, they could form their own opinion. As such, since ALL religion and their tenets or actions lack any reasonable or measurable proof that any gods are real (such as the effectiveness of prayer apart from some placebo/self-help psychological benefits one can get with Cognitive Therapy without imaginary friends), but cars DO exist, the world does exist, and the scientific community's version of the Universe and the theories that support it are more consistent with proven Physics and/or data discovered in meteors/comets/space exploration than anything in the Bible. The Bible describes the entire Universe as a 'flat/roundish' bit of land under a firm bubble . . . Sun, Moon, stars coming in and out through small holes in the Firmament and travel along its' inner surface like props in a gigantic 'stage', as does the rain come in through similar holes. (Many later translations mistakenly claim the 'Firmament' was just the Bible's word for 'atmosphere'. No, the Hebrew language is clear they meant a 'solid object', using words that indicated a 'hammered substance' like gold or metal. In other words, any baby that grows up to be a teen/adult can see they were 'making it up as they went along'. And, as science evolves, the 'gaps' where any gods fit are getting smaller. This is how we raised our kids. They're both Atheists now.

Sapporo's picture
Agnosticism requires a

Agnosticism requires a conscious choice or belief; atheism does not - at its most basic, it represents the absence of a belief in the existence of god/s.

Dave Matson's picture


Atheism, as you define it, does not require a conscious choice. Atheism, as I apply the word, requires a conscious rejection of theism. Burden of proof doesn't necessarily attach itself since an atheist (my definition) might simply reject theism for a lack of evidence or for no particular reason. Neither reason constitutes a claim that gods don't exist and, therefore, does not carry the burden of proof.

It strikes me as rather awkward that a theist might get bashed in the head and suddenly turn into an atheist! I think of atheists as people who have distinguished themselves by making a choice. Thus, I don't include newborn babies under that label.

Sapporo's picture
The baby would be an implicit

The baby would be an implicit atheist. That is just a statement of fact.


Attach Image/Video?: 

mickron88's picture
somethings missing...

somethings missing...

oh about the Omnist?
they should be in the center...sapporo

Dave Matson's picture


The fact follows from a particular definition of "atheist." The other common usage of that word entails a conscious choice. Nice diagram!


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.