"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

1# CON begins with stating 'My opponent likens the claim "Babies are born atheist" to the claim "Babies are born Republican," but there is a major difference between the two. ' I wanted to quote his early statement "By the time the child is old enough to be properly tested for a belief, there is no way the child could be considered unaffected by the beliefs of those around him or her" This is stating that children are atheist because they have not communicated differently. Which is really what my statement of "babies are Republican" illustrates. I am not claiming it is a true statement I am pointing out how it is a fallacy known as argument from silence (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies" Generally this fallacy is applied to a line of reasoning from historical documents. 2# CON then refers to the definition of atheist "a lack of belief" as being almost circular to babies. Because CON is under the impression that babies lack belief in all things. This is an assumption. To prove the fallacy here I will use an analogy. Cold = "lack of heat; lack of molecular movement". A car hood can be hot enough to burn. It can be Cold enough to tough. The hood can appear the same in both situations. It appears the same when it is COLD or HOT. The statement "That Car hood is COLD" is unsupported by facts of why it is cold (lack of heat) because if the car had recently been running it COULD BE hot enough to burn someone. This is different than saying "ICE is cold" is it analogous to "Rocks are atheist" The inductive reasoning is that ICE can not be HOT because it would be water. The CAR HOOD on the other hand has the capability of being HOT. If one states the CAR HOOD is COLD (lack of heat) they still have to support the saying with evidence. This is analogous to Saying Babies are Atheist, Babies COULD HAVE a belief. Evidence would have to be shown they are incapable of believing like a ROCK, or that they truly do lack the belief like a CAR HOOD. 3# CON claims "My opponent makes the claim that unverifiable claims are logically fallacious and any reasonable person should cease to use this premise because of that. By that logic, any statement of the existence of any god would fall under that category, as there is no verifiable evidence to prove the existence of any gods. Given that the argument for any god is fallacious by the definition of my opponent, the argument that gods exist must be left out of any argument. I would be willing to concede this debate if my opponent is willing to admit that any argument for the existence of a god is equally fallacious" This is simply not what the fallacy is. YOU, CON stated "Therefore, to state that the claim "Babies are born Atheist" is a fallacious premise would be incorrect, because there is no way to prove it to be false. " There is NO WAY to prove false or true. This by your own words is the definition of Argument from Ignorance (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), as the reference shows Argument from Ignorance, quote, " assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa" This is in direct support of my position in this debate. .. That "Babies are Atheist" is a fallacious argument" It would be off topic for me to address the existence of God or gods. CON you just made so many claims like "there is no evidence for" that it would be an entirely different debate to address them. So as not to go down the rabbit whole on whether God exist or not, I will just direct CON's attention to lines of reasoning such as inductive. 4# No prove to babies lacking belief has been presented. It is entirely possible for Babies to have a belief. because both are possible there is a requirement of proof to discern the correct state. This is analogous to the Car hood example. With out the evidence being possible, as my opponent stated, then the resulting premise with out evidence is a meaningless statement (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), which is a fallacy. My opponent choose to assume babies lack a belief with out evidence, but is just as valid (( or in this case fallacious)) to assume the opposite. In closing:: Fallacious: A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. "Babies are atheist" is a fallacious premise. I've used my opponent's definitions, I used my opponents very own statements and shown them to match the definitions of the fallacies listed here. Because, "the inclusion of a meaningless statement in the premises will undermine the validity of the argument since that premise can neither be true nor false" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), The premise "Babies are Atheist" should not be used in a debate. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this debate.