I think I've said this earlier in the thread but arguing that babies are atheist is as silly as arguing that sandwiches are atheist. Not because both don't fall under the term as used 'implicit atheism,' it does, but because the motive for the argument is disingenuous. As a tally argument it's a childish argument from popularity (if you could even call it that. Really it's about as impactful as saying there are more not-fans of the Beatles because insects aren't Beatles fans.) I'm not an atheist for the same reason babies and bathtubs are. I don't laud atheism that is simply as a result of lack of conceptual thinking. My atheism is as different from babies and bullfrogs as it is different to theism. And I don't make a naturalistic fallacy which claims atheism is more natural than theism because it ignores that theism arises just as naturally as atheism (albeit for reasons I don't agree with.)
