Well... yes, it is. I do not know of any theistic infants. Actually, I'm not aware that infants have any beliefs as such.

Infants without beliefs do not last long. They get beliefs eventually. Trying to argue this point just pushes the relevant stuff up the tree and makes the argument about semantics that are not particularly useful for the topic at hand.

And... are you saying that the null hypothesis is whatever an infant believes? How is that useful? I think it degrades definitions of things like "atheism" by saying that if you make no choice it is the same as making the correct choice. Coming to the correct conclusion for the wrong reason is the wrong solution.

Young children seem predisposed to attribute things to powerful but non-present entities, but I'm fairly certain there are logical fallacies involved.

The null hypothesis could be wrong. Logical fallacies are irrelevant.

The fact that many people accept certain concepts as given without questioning them thoroughly - or at all - does not constitute a justification for believing those things. I have often heard the claim that philosophy does not attempt to examine premises but only to project and study the consequences of the premises people bring to it; I consider that to be one of the reasons why 'philosophy' is without merit.

This is irrelevant to the topic. So, at the end, I spent my time telling you your comment was mostly irrelevant. I should just downvote and bury it like I did the other one.