Atheism vs. God's Existence

[wiploc]

But you are born a atheist since you don't know anything about a god.
...

Yes and no. Technically, I'd say no. Because the baby's brain isn't evolved enough to comprehend the concept or the question.

An atheist is a person who is not a theist.  Babies qualify. 

If you want a more restrictive definition (and some definitions in some dictionaries will support you on this) then you can say that an atheist is a person who (1) is not a theist, and (2) has a brain developed enough to comprehend the idea of gods. 

If we use that more-restricted definition, it doesn't change the fact that theists were atheists first.  The only (statistically nonexistent) exception would be if somebody gave a child a religious sales pitch at the exact moment at which the child became able to comprehend the idea of gods.  And even then that child would have to not merely hear the sales pitch but be persuaded by it at that key moment. 

That notion doesn't really flow off the tongue, so I'm willing to abbreviate it, to say it this way: "We are all born atheist."



New point:  If we require atheists to have brains evolved enough to comprehend the concept or the question of gods, then there may be some question as to whether I qualify.  And so many theists have contradictory ideas on the subject that they may not qualify either. 

You wind up thinking there should be some middle ground between A and not-A, as in, "She's not a theist, but she also isn't a non-theist." 

Ignostic?

I get in trouble talking to ignostics.  I mis-guess their stance, and have to look it up again to see that I misrepresented them.  

So I'm pretty sure you can't be an ignostic if you are too young to understand the idea of gods.  

The easiest neatest way to classify babies is to call them "implicit atheists."  Explicit atheists have considered the idea of gods without being persuaded.  Implicit atheists haven't even thought about it.  Babies are the perfect example, plus boys who were raised by wolves.  

That's like saying we're all born stupid because we don't know what 1+1 is? It's a non sequitur.

I like that example, but I'll change it a little:  For "stupid," substitute "non-mathematician."  

We are all born non-mathematicians.  Some of us change to become mathematicians, and some of us don't. 

Even those of us who are too young and undeveloped to be able to understand numbers are non-mathematicians.  And even those of us who are too young and undeveloped to be theists are non-theists, also known as atheists.