babies are born agonistic, not atheist

con is mostly engaging in semantics, because he is picking and choosing which definitions he wants to use. and hten acting like just because he cited the dictionary he should automatically win. i did and will find more definitions that fit me. and it is common knolwege that there are usually more than one defiition to words. in this case, agnostic was shown to mean nt having faith or disbelief in God. accordin to that definition, htey are agnostic. do notice the play on words here. agnostic says 'doesn't disbelief' and the definition of atheist is 'disbelieves'. 'disbelives' is vague enough to mean no belief, but it could also mean rejection depending on context. to make the concepts different, agnosticism and atheism, atheism must involve some form of rejection, as i cite a dictionary later that says this. if we follow the definitions that con gave us, the babies would fit both the definition of agnostic and the definition of atheist. the only way to be consistent is to note that the atheist definition shows 'disbelieves' a proactive disbelief. babies don't do that. this all square with teh common sense definitions i gave at the begining of the debate. agnostic means no belief, atheist means proactive disbelief. and you can find definitions to support my atheist point. websters dictionary says "the doctine that there is no God" as its first definition. its otehr definitinos are pretty much a different way of saying that same thing. con is misinformed about atheists. they do more than lack faith in God, they think that God does not exist. there are varying degrees of disbeief, as con noted psotive and negative athists, or i better term them soft and hard. but they are forms of disbelief. 'lack of faith' is misleading, as that more properly fits agnostic. and "does not believe in the existence of deities" to make any sense must mean they have disbelief, they have some sort of proactive disbelief. they might not say God does nt exist, but they have no reason to think he does. i do not believe believe in unicorns. i can't say they don't exist, but i've seen no evidence for them. when i say 'i do not believe', i am implying i have a proactive rejection, i dont believe it until i see it. that isn't to say i'm a hard unicorn deniers. i don't think it' absotuey true they don't exist. as wikipedia said elsewhere "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" the only way for con's psotion to make sense would be to make agnosticism and atheism be the same thing. he's picking and choosing parts of definitions, and definitions in general, that make the distinctions between the two concepts pointless. con also resorts to these semantical quibbles about agnostic too. his own definitions showed in the first definition that they have no belief OR believe that nothing can be known. that means the first one is possible too. plus he just ignores tha the second definitino fits me better. no faith no disbelief in God is agnostiism. i can find definitions for agnostic in dictioaries that better fit my view on this too. it's a sad state of affairs that con wanted to make this into a circus game of semantics and defintions, especially when his goes against common sense and common understanding.