Well, the thing is, he didn't even say that babies are atheist. Presumably because, as someone who is quite careful with language he knows that for a lot of people the meaning of atheism is less an absence of belief and more an active disbelief. What he actually said was that babies have no religion. The author of that column took his tweet that babies have no religion, suggested that this was implying that babies have a default theological position of atheism and then argued against that 'implied' meaning, rather than the actual thing that Dawkins said.
|