Babies are atheist

Ignorance My opponent Emilrose, hasn’t refuted my claims, rather, has tried to argue that even under my own definition for atheism I must lose, its just the opposite. Emilrose has given us a response that simply isn’t sufficient. Emilrose’s main argument is that in order for a person to be an atheist they must know about the concept of god, which then allows them to determine if they disbelieve or believe in this god. However this notion clearly doesn’t take my definition into account, althout Emilrose has repeatedly said this argument is a refutation of mine it simply is not. My argument specifically defines lack of belief to be either a disbelief or a straight up lack of belief meaning you simply have no belief about the subject. If we dive deeper into this (0)belief we can see that there are multiple possibilities of people who have it. One type knows about god, yet they simply haven’t decided to which they believe thus they have no belief, another, as I have clearly defined it last round, is completely ignorant of the topic thus they must have no belief. In any case, there are multiple ways a person can have a (0)belief in god but my main argument is that because babies are completely ignorant of the concept of god, they must have a zero belief in him. So the most common way babies are atheist is that they are ignorant. My opponent has made several statements about lack of belief which are simply incorrect, you can easily tell by changing the phrase “lack of belief” to “ignorance” and the statements become nonsensical: “[Ignorance of god] would require that the individual has prior knowledge of what they're *not* believing in, while babies simply do not have that. ” “Alluding again to my first contention, a baby is born into this world with a completely fresh mind--upon being born it knows nothing of religion, God, or [ignorance] of God. These concepts can only be learned when its mind begins to form and when it has the mental capacity to become more aware of its surroundings, and the fact is that this occurs after it is no longer a baby. “a human life under 18 months cannot not be an atheist, largely due it not *knowing* about God's (potential) existence or (potential) non-existence. [A baby] cannot believe or not believe, or have [ignorance of] God for this very reason. ” “Pro outlines in round one that 'the question at hand is, what does it mean to be an atheist', simply put it means: -You're aware of the concept of God. [(this directly contradicts the notion of ignorance)] -You're aware of teachings relating to God. [(why the teachings? )] -You have made the conscious choice to either not [dis]believe there is a God, or have [ignorance of] God. ” “Pro has evidently failed to recognize that the 'lack of belief' definitions he's based his position on *still* suit my case, because that [ignorance of god] would require some awareness and knowledge of the subject matter. ” – It literally requires the opposite of knowledge as ignorance is lack of knowledge and thus belief. “A baby cannot mentally *think* that it has a [ignorance] in God and is therefore an atheist” None of these remarks even remotely make sense. Ignorance is very clearly the lack of knowledge, in this case about god, thus the lack of belief in him, which proves my point. Thus I extend my logical proof as fully accurate. Atheism as a self-described term Emilrose argues that the only way we can actually determine if a person is athiest is if they tell us. I can’t believe this to be true, and neither should the judges. Emilrose has simply asserted this without rhyme or reason, meaning this isn’t even an argument. While it is true that technically we can’t know if a baby is athiest, without the hard evidence the emilrose must provide in order to substantiate this claim, we can soundly assume that because babies most likely only learn things as their brains develop, that they are ignorant of god and thus are atheists. Again, it is fully possible that babies have some divine insight at birth which they lose and forget as they get older however it is also possible that the universe came into existence ten minutes ago and all of our memories are false. Until such a claim is proven, assume that babies are ignorant at birth. Thus disregard the arguments on when babies can form words. BOP shifting I was hoping I wouldn’t have to argue semantics about what baby means. Even dead babies lack belief The formal definition of “atheist” as defined on google is “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. ” Therefore, even if Emilrose tries to make a shifty argument that not all babies are atheists disregard this. Unless she can prove that it is possible that babies can have a (+)belief in god we can soundly assume all babies are atheists, its her job to prove this as it would be her claim. Furthermore technically, according to this definition, even a dead baby is atheist because a dead baby still lacks a (+)belief in a god or gods, its has no belief because it would be impossible for it to have any beliefs about anything. This is not the core of my argument however if Emilrose goes for more semantical arguments, I still win on this. The res. simply means multiple babies, with a trend leaning towards most being atheist The resolution never clearly says that all babies are atheists, in fact a strict interpretation of the resolution shows that it only means that multiple babies are atheist, which can be soundly assumed given the logical proof, at least two babies are athiest. But also, in normal conversation it might mean that most babies are atheist which must be true. Semantics The first round limits semantics, if any overtly semantical and perhaps overly specific arguments are made by my opponent about the definition of baby I encourage the voters to stick to their intuitional understanding of the resolution and not entertain these arguments, as they are simply a way to disregard my main logical proof. P1) All people who have a (0)belief in god are atheists P3) All babies are ignorant of god C1) Thus all babies have a (0)belief in god C2) Thus all or at least multiple babies are atheists. C3) Thus the resolution is affirmed.