Babies are born Atheist

I urge that my opponents personal experience be deemed irrelevant and not part of the debate. There is no way I can question any of the statements in that paragraph. How do I prove he doesn't have a brother? Personal revelation is not evidence or good reasoning. I agree with the definitions set forth by my opponent. Case 1 for capability to believeAnother factor in this debate is if babies have the capability of believing. If they lack the capability to belief, they can not have belief and automatically would lack a belief and be atheist. This is akin to saying, "Rocks are atheist" it is meaningless and absurd but valid because rocks lack the capability to belief. My opponent demonstrates through his own words he agrees that babies have a capability to belief. 'Children have a natural predisposition to believe, but that is Not Belief. ''So We are born with a natural ability to believe in the supernatural. .. ' 'We are definitely born open to belief. .. 'Case 2 for a fallacy (false dichotomy)It appears that babies born godless and babies being born god believing are mutually exclusive. This is actually a false dichotomy. [1] I merely have to demonstrate a reasonable third option to show the fallacy exists. P1: Some features are shared by all babies; inability to speak language, little to no bowel controlP2: Some features are shared by sub sets of babies; brown eyes, blue eyes, deformityP3: Some babies exhibit individual personality traits; [2] heritable personality from genesP4: Adults, cultures around the world and through out history have differing beliefs in god or godsC1: Babies can be different. Beliefs in god or gods can be different. Therefore babies can have different beliefs in gods or gods or be godless. Conclusion clearly assets third and more options are possible. Case 3 for fallacy (argument from ignorance)The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. This is a a logical assertion. It is what makes the argument from ignorance a fallacy. [3] Or also written as "there is no evidence for p, therefore p; or there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p"Example 1: Dead is defined as lacking life. [4] Alive is defined as having life. [5]I send you a cat in the mail. When it reaches your doorstep, with out performing any testing, can you assert whether the cat is alive or dead? No you can not. Example 2:If there is a stove burner you have to touch blind folded. Can you make a validly truthful assertion that it is off? Can you make a truthful assertion it is hot? Are you willing to touch the burner? No you can make no validly truthful assertion without evidence to the state of the burner. I certainly would not risk touching it blind folded, especially without any evidence to it's state of temperature or lack of temperature. Example 3: If behind a wall I have a glass. Can you make a validly truthful assertion that the glass is full of water, half full of water, or empty? No you can not. One has with out evidence is forced to admit "I don't know"All the examples express a difference in two states. One of the states being relative to the other in that it is lacking the measurable attribute (example 1: life, example 2: temperature, example 3: water). My opponent concedes that babies have the capability to belief. So what is in question is the amount of belief in a deity. Without evidence from a reliable scientific test or a reasonable deduction, the resolution then follows to be fallacious by argument from ignorance. My opponent commits this fallacy when they claim, 'To Believe that Children actually are born with any Beliefs is without any evidence base' and then assert with out reasonable induction or reason 'We are definitely born open to belief, but essentially Godless or Atheist! '. So your saying there is no evidence, therefore godless is true. Exactly "there is no evidence for p, therefore p; or there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p". ConclusionMy opponent has not met the burden of proof that babies lack a belief in god. In fact, my opponent has committed a fallacy as I have demonstrated. Babies are born theist, atheist, monotheistic, polytheistic, Hellenistic are all fallacious. The only proper resolution in regards to belief is "babies are "I don't know what they are". Being intellectually honest means that is okay. [1]. http://mind.ucsd.edu...[2]http://www.alltreatment.com...[3]http://www.google.com...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...