it is better 2 call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist (to be sure you could call them both depending on definitions, but this is focusing on having to choose which is better) the commonly accepted approach to atheism and agnosticism, is to say the first is no belief either way, and atheism as a proactive disbelief in God. the oxford disctionary defines agnostic as "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." webster's dictionary defines atheist as "the doctine that there are no deities" as its first definition. its otehr definitinos are pretty much a different way of saying that same thing. even wikipedia defines it as ""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" to be sure, there are different definitions, and parts of definitions one could pick and choose on this subject. but those other definitions have problems. even prominent atheist richard dawkins, and others, draw issue with most ideas of 'soft atheism' or these limited definitions of atheists and such. "Under this positive/negative classification, some agnostics would qualify as negative atheists. The validity of this categorization is disputed, however, and a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it. In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale." you can find some definitions of atheist as 'lack of faith'. or there are commonly called 'soft atheists' with similar definitions. taking those definitional approaches to atheism, though, blurs the line with agnostic though, because those definitions fit agnostic better. and, to be sure, if one used those limited definitions of atheist, they might even decide to say babies are better called as atheist. especially if they pick and choose parts of defintiions or strange definitions of agnostic, such as 'proactive rejection of belief and disbelief in God". the problem with this approach, is that it is just arbitrary because it's so picking and choosing in what definitions are used. but, moreso, it ignores the commonly understood definitions mentioned above. if con wanted to approach it an alternative way than calling them agnostic, he'd have to not pick and choose parts of definitions, and which definitions, but to say babies are both agnostic and atheist. that doesn't do justisce to them being distinct ideas, though, and doesn't do justice to the commonly accepted notions of the words (no belief v active disbelief), but it's the only alternative way to approach it than calling them agnostics. these all square with other commonly thought of ideas. unicorns, leprichans, etc. usually people are soft to light to limited definitional atheist about this stuff, they 'lack belief' in it, or moreso they might have a degree of tending to reject the ideas, given small people like leprichans are counter to our undersatnding of people. same idea with unicorns. some might prefer to say they are agnostic to the ideas, given they just don't have enough information to make a decision. but most are some limited form of atheist.