@shadowy Said A newly born baby would believe that no god exists because the idea that god exists has not been introduced to it. People who have never heard of god don't believe in god, they are not indifferent as this would require that they have knowledge of the thing they are indifferent to.
Atheism is the lack of theism, you do not have to believe for certain that god does not exist. There are two main types of athiest, you can be a weak or strong athiest. Weak atheists is the version i described above.
I would prefer to reserve my right to self-definition and not be told what i do or do not believe. I would also prefer not to be told i require faith by someone who has obviously not looked very far into atheism and the different types. Your idea of needing faith makes it much easier for theists to claim falsely that atheism is no more scientific in nature than sacrificing goats.
Your first point is completely absurd. Being certain that God does not exist, as in atheism, categorically requires knowledge of what defines God. Being indifferent, on the other hand, requires no knowledge at all. If someone has no knowledge of what constitutes God, which is the case for newly conscious babies, then they must be neutral and apathetic in their religious stance; they would clearly have no certainty on the topic of theism.
True, atheism is a lack of theism, but so is agnosticism. Theism is being certain of God's existence, usually from a religious point of view, and atheism is being certain of God's absence. Agnosticism is to be uncertain of God's existence or absence, and is the most logical viewpoint considering there is no proof either way. If this is the same as 'weak' atheism, then this argument is simply a matter of terminology.
I will reassert my point: atheism requires faith. There is no proof that God does not exist, therefore believing with certainty that God does not exist is illogical and
is unscientific. The most scientifically substantiated viewpoint is agnosticism, by default, since the two scale-end stances are unsubstantiated and agnosticism fills the neutral ground between the two. While I agree with the atheist stance that no religious belief system formulated by any society is correct, I would not rule out the possible existence of a supernatural creator (but I would confine such an idea only to metaphysics).