it is better to call newborns agnostic than atheist

it all depends on the definition on what to call a newborn. but if we use common definitions in use, babies are better called agnostic. 

atheist means to reject god. agnostic means to be neutral about god. babies don't reject god, but can be said to be neutral. 

to be sure, there are all kinds of definiitions such that atheists can be just defined as lacking belief and agnostic requires a belief, which babies don't have, and thus called atheist. but in common parlance, as said.... atheist means to reject and agnostic means to be neutral. 

they are both agnostic and atheist. They don't have any reason to believe, and they do not know enough to believe

Atheism is not a neutral position IMO so I would say agnostic if any. While they may not have beliefs or reasons for belief neither do they disbelieve or lack belief in God. However, I don't discount intuition or their previous conscious knowledge/experience. Babies are just souls that have inhabited bodies, for all we know they could have just come from a heavenly realm, the soul of that "baby" may have much knowledge only the soul of the baby is restricted to its own anatomy therefore the soul experiences directly through that so the souls/babies perception is that it experiences anew even though it had foreknowledge and experience. But I don't believe atheism would be neutral grounds TBH, atheism is classified as disbelief and "lack" of belief in God, babies have neither, they neither disbelieve or "lack" belief in God they have not begun to sort anything out yet.

If I go by my own experience there was never a time when I didn't believe in or lack awareness of God so I was never an atheist that had to convert. I was thinking about God as far back as I can recall so I've just expanded on that awareness. But typically babies neither believe or lack belief in God.

Atheist: a person who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheist: a person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Both definitions are used, but among atheists I think the first one is more common. Therefore calling a baby an atheist is appropriate.

The stats.

The stats must be mind-boggling

a Christian father and a Christian mother raerly have a baby Muslim.

I'd say approximately , " approximately "  96 And third point 8 percent of *semi strong religious people.

( * semi-strong = 6.744 and a eighth out of 10 ) that's top of the range. 7 is stong 8.89 and up is , well , couckoo.

Anyway, imagine the amount of Christians that have Christian kids. 

Imagine Muslim mum and Muslim dad having a little baby Christian. 

The stats woukd be up there with the good old being born where your religion is practiced numbers.

I don't know , your a lucky bunch you thiests. 

 An agnostic is someone who simply doesn't know , has no knowledge of etc. A- Gnosis = no  knowledge of spiritual mysteries. Di- agnosis is best educated guess. Gnosis means one does or claims to have, knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Firstly, all -ism words are about beliefs. They denote world views, philosophical systems or idealogies.

Secondly, a- means "not"; it is a negation.

So what both words have in common is that they are a type of belief involving a negation of some kind. What kind?

For atheism, the root here is "theos" meaning "god." Hence: "belief in no god." This can mean an active or passive disbelief, each flavor of which has earned its own labels over time (positive/strong, negative/weak, etc.).

For Agnosticism, the root here is "gnostos" meaning "to be known" leading us to "belief in no knowledge." But, the context in which the term was coined, it is belief in no knowledge specifically of god (and other elements associated with a god).

The terms are related in the sense that they both deal with people's beliefs of god, but they address different aspects of god. Atheism tells you that the person doesn't believe in a god. Agnosticism tells you that the person believes that one cannot attain knowledge about god. There is quite a big difference here. You can believe or disbelieve in a god independent of whether or not you think knowledge can be obtained about god. Here are different ways that can manifest:

Agnostic atheist - No one can ever know whether or not a god actually exists, and I don't believe in one.

Agnostic theist - No one can ever know whether or not a god actually exists, but I believe in one anyway.

"Gnostic" atheist - You can know whether or not a god actually exists, and I don't believe in one.

"Gnostic" theist - You can know whether or not a god actually exists, and I do believe in one.

Ventriloquism. 

Volcanism.

Atheist is one who does not believe in a god. Agnostic is one who has insufficient knowledge to know if a god exists. These terms can overlap.

Well strictly speaking a baby is both but I wanted to make sure before we go any further that  you understand that being agnostic does not necessarily mean that you do not believe in any god(s).

I agree, a baby is both

I think apatheist would be closer to the truth.

Actually the baby tends to believe the mother is God and the father is the Prophet.

How have you determined that this is the case?

Lol... i think he's trolling. 

I also believe they are both. With that said, as soon as this baby is old enough to think... i believe they become spiritual. Believing in something beyond this reality i think is the default position. We either grow out of it or become more inquisitive and curious about it as we grow.  

Babies have no beliefs ergo they are best labeled as ignoramus.  What do label people who want to label them some other way regarding  belief in God or anything.

Such a cute little ignoramus. Does it bite?

Only if you stick your nipple in its mouth.

Look there is spiral of hair on its head. Is that normal?

Babies, as all humans are inherently spiritual.

Babies social smile is recognition of your spirit.

Babies ego begins when they learn they can manipulate your spirit.

Babies are not a human individual until they have had their first INspiratio of air/oxygen and the umbiliical chord.

Until that time they an organism of the mother ergo the mother rules supreme { god } as to what happens to the baby/fetus.

All others should keep their nose/business out of the mothers body/business unless they have her consent to stick their nose/business into her bodily business. This is the only moral conclusion humans can rationally logical common sense mentally moral humans can arrive at with integrity, fairness and justice.

I can't believe the nonsense I'm reading here. Does anyone actually realize that newborns know practically nothing? Religions are complex ideologies that even many adults don't understand. It's a non-sequitur, you don't call newborns anything other than newborns, they aren't theists, atheists, agnostics or anything else. That's just absurd.

Try using a dictionary before making a fool of yourself, ebuc.

Agnosticism is applied to people who at least have some knowledge to judge. Babies have nothing of that. It's like trying to determine if a dog is either atheist or agnostic.

I guess i was thinking if i had to pick, but since both need some sort of thought process to come to a conclusion... i agree with you... and the last guy correlating to a dog... 

It was Richard Dawkins who point that out after he observed the parents of young children dressing them up in religious garb and calling them Christian, Muslim, etc. The poor kids had no clue what was going on.

I'm glad my parents didn't do that... i would have felt violated. My grandma was religious however, but she never preached it to anyone else. She would just do her thing and pray, and in that scenario, sometimes i would go pray next to her bc i thought it was fun and a game. No one ever told me i had to or "consequences" if i didn't... it was always up to me. I'm thankful my family was like that. 

I remember a kid in the 4th or 5th grade really liking this girl and then finding out she was Jewish. He was muslim or something that goes against her belief. I remember right when he found out he started crying and cussing "no i can't be with her" "i can't ask her out anymore" ... I remember thinking you're a fool... F* your religion. I think that was the first time i noticed religion's bs. 

BTW in my answer, I was using "agnostic" as a neutral position not one that was chosen..... duh.

Agnostic-

"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Babies ARE NOT atheists, that is a chosen proposition. But how can you possibly know the intuition of any given child or baby? intuition does not need to be expounded on or reflected it on, it just understands. 

"the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

The word "intuition" is often misunderstood or misused to mean instinct, truth, belief, meaning but rather realms of greater knowledge and other subjects, whereas others contend that faculties such as instinct, belief and intuition are factually related.

Newborns have none of this as their minds have no knowledge or belief of anything.

Ignoramus is best answer in this thread.  Such a cute little ignoramus.

Lets have more of them?

Intuition-

the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

I think it's misleading that the first assumption unquestioned is if Children, newborns have religious beliefs after all.

Every culture in human History has developed religious thought and practices. I think it's easy to establish that religious thought is a part of human nature. And ergo present in newborn babies as well.

Children as young as 2 who can speak on their behalf have alluded to such thought patterns being innate to human physiology.

Good to see you in this forum.