Every child is an atheist

Thank you for the clarification. I must say before I start with addressing the debate that this is a very good topic and a fun debate! Moving on, you mention the idea of a child suffering from PTSD after the mother has experienced an accident. I agree that this may sound ridiculous, but child might respond to the accident in a form other than PTSD. It could be that the child is born with symptoms that are as a result of the accident. For example, an accident would cause a high level of stress being experienced by the pregnant woman. This would lead to an increase in levels of cortisol, a hormone, to deal with the accident; the cortisol can make its way through the placenta to the fetus. For an unborn baby, increased quantities of cortisol can have negative effects on the fetus such as less cognitive reasoning ability and higher amounts of LDL (bad cholesterol). Although this can be considered a digression, my point here is that an unborn child can respond to stimuli around us. Despite this scenario proving a physical response, a mental response can also be theoretically be proven because the feelings the mother feels about topics such as atheism and such affect the nervous, cardiovascular, and other body systems of the mother that can be transmitted to the child. Essentially, the fetus, after prolonged exposure to the belief in God, can establish its own belief system; therefore, the baby might not be born an atheist. You make some excellent arguments when you ask, "If every child is born a "believer", how do you explain the continued civilizations of non-religious countries? Wouldn't the birth rates demonstrate a forward movement TOWARDS religious affiliation, rather than AWAY from it?" I do not surmise that every child is born a believer, but I do believe that not every child is born an atheist. Furthermore, I cannot think of any non-religious countries. If you are referring to countries that claim to have secular political institutions (like America for example), then I argue that despite having a secular government, the citizens of those particular countries can still follow a religion and at the very least, possess religious bias. If you would be so kind as to state a country whose inhabitants do not follow a religion(s), I will most likely invalidate my argument. As for why there is not a forward movement towards religious affiliation: just as much as people should be exposed to God to believe in him/her if they haven't already, so too should people who already believe in God be exposed to the concept of atheism to be an atheist. Those born as believers could become atheist as time moves on if atheism appeals to them better than a belief in God. As I have mentioned before, children are more likely to believe in the mysticism associated with God, but as they become more pragmatic, some might want to rationally prove the mysticism associated with God while others would let go of their belief in God altogether. This explains why there is not a forward movement towards religious affiliation. I hope you keep in mind that my thesis is not every child is a believer but that every child is not an atheist. Once again, thank you for the wonderful debate! I am not exactly sure if this is professional or not to say thanks but it is one of my first debates ever so I hope you pardon any mistakes I have made.