babies are born agonistic, not atheist

Pro lacks a general understanding of the words atheist and agnostic. She contests my definitions and proposes her own. "websters dictionary says "the doctine that there is no God". This doesn't support my opponent's side at all. No atheist believes in god, but for different reasons. Positive atheists make the affirmitive statement that god does not exist. Negative atheists lack the belief in god. Babies would fall under the category of negative atheist. "if we follow the definitions that con gave us, the babies would fit both the definition of agnostic and the definition of atheist. the only way to be consistent is to note that the atheist definition shows 'disbelieves' a proactive disbelief. babies don't do that. "Nowhere in either definition does it say that babies proactively disbelieve. Both definitions state that atheism is the position that there is no god, and again there is a difference between positive and negative atheists. Babies are negative atheists. Agnosticism however, requires that someone proactively believe that knowledge cannot be gained about the existence of gods. Pro's arguments are false and self-defeating, since agnosticism requires that the holder of the belief proactively believe in something very complex. "con is misinformed about atheists. they do more than lack faith in God, they think that God does not exist. there are varying degrees of disbeief, as con noted psotive and negative athists, or i better term them soft and hard. but they are forms of disbelief. 'lack of faith' is misleading, as that more properly fits agnostic. "Both negative and positive atheism are forms of atheism, and agnosticism requires that the person actively believe that nothing can be known about the supernatural. Babies are negative atheists, not agnostics. and "does not believe in the existence of deities" to make any sense must mean they have disbelief, they have some sort of proactive disbelief. they might not say God does nt exist, but they have no reason to think he does. i do not believe believe in unicorns. i can't say they don't exist, but i've seen no evidence for them. when i say 'i do not believe', i am implying i have a proactive rejection, i dont believe it until i see it. that isn't to say i'm a hard unicorn deniers. i don't think it' absotuey true they don't exist. "This is completely false. People don't believe in unicorns because of a lack of evidence, not evidence contradicting their existence. People take the position of negative atheist when it comes to unicorns. Not believing in something does not mean you make the affirmative statement, that something doesn't exist. People are negative atheists when it comes to unicorns, leprechauns, and Russel's Teapot. Babies are negative atheists. Pro is misinterpreting the position of not believing in god with making the affirmitive statement that god doesn't exist. In reality I take the position god does not exist because their is a lack of evidence. The definitions are incredibly clear here. Pro then says that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing which is false, but either way loses her the argument. Pro is affirming the resolution "babies are born agonistic, not atheist". That means if babies are born agnostic, and atheist, Pro has not fulfilled her BoP and I will win. Babies are clearly atheists out of a lack of belief, and are not agnostics. A simple look at the definitions confirms this.