Everybody believes in a worldview!

To conclude I will cover Pro's statements then end with the reasons that the Con has proved it possible for one to possess no worldview. When looking to Pro's final rebuttal let us pull apart the fallacies line by line. Pro addresses uneducated children and states they are more religious but that evidence is truly linked to the African tribe arguments I already said I predefined and dropped. If a child never was taught or heard of any religion could he have any belief of religion? Obviously not. The cases I explained where children with zero education, how could they from beliefs on anything? . Now we look to determinism and his only argument is that I suppose no god exist, but why should we suppose a god does? (The answer = our own beliefs, which as I have said does not force the belief formation of others) Link this to my above stated evidence that in uneducated children there would be no religion. Pro key points The abstract mind : the con gave multiple examples that the pro attempted to shoot down but I leave it up to the voter if the infants, uneducated children, or mentally retarded should be involved. Even if it is decided by readers they are not let us look to two examples the Pro never said a thing about thus they stand as examples of people with no beliefs. We look to Alzheimer patients who recognize their existence but can not hold and continuous beliefs. More importantly I cited and example in three rounds which was that of multi-personality persona's who know they exist, ponder their existence but share no personal beliefs. Pro simply ignores these points and claims I have no evidence. The Skeptic and apathy: Here Pro ignores the concept that allows any belief which is at root free will. One could simply never care or think of religion. You can not have a belief in something you have never put any thought toward and the argument Pro places all include the phrase"most likely". Pro is obviously upholding his opinion so why should his belief or opinion of what would most likely occur be accepted as having merit. Similarly does a human not possess the free will to walk between the parallels of the 2 skeptic philosophies? Pro wants me to prove why someone would but that is a misplaced burden. I need only prove as pro even said "Con needs to show how an individual, who can conceive of the concept "I exist" (premise 2), could possibly not have a worldview". Read carefully, how one COULD possibly. Not why one would or what proves one would. Just that it is possible and in my prior rounds and last paragraph I even gave an example (once by name , Sybil's personalities). So let us wrap up this debate by flying by all the key reasons the Con side should be called home. How Con wins:"Con needs to show how an individual, who can conceive of the concept "I exist" (premise 2), could possibly not have a worldview". Examples that Con has presented: 1. Uneducated children: This point proves no beliefs can stem out of a lack of knowledge. 2. Mentally handicapped: this simply called upon the question of marginal humans. Pro demands that only humans thinking abstractly should be counted and I would agree to how he defines abstract except he asks for proof. Proof in his opinion comes from communication but that always leads to what he claims to be a belief. Examples that Pro never addressed: We look to Alzheimer patients who recognize their existence but can not hold and continuous beliefs. More importantly was that of multi-personality persona's who know they exist, ponder their existence but share no personal beliefs. Pro simply ignores these points and ignores the concepts of free will. Simply put, to sum up all the words. We must answer Does everybody have a worldview? If you have read what I typed, if you read the examples,skepticism,determinism,freewill, and more does it not add up to one soul that has no beliefs? It does and must.