Yes, the majority position and the default position are two different things.

This would hold true for all popular examples of the new atheists: there is almost certainly no teapot around Mars because teapots are the product of intelligent human beings and no man has been ever there, a Spaguetti monster could not exist because Spaguettis are a recent human (delecious) invention, they are an inert stuff which could not possibly have the properties we associate we life.
If unicorns existed on the earth, after all the knowledge we have accumulated over the centuries, they should have let evidences like bone remains.

Now, they are many things about which we have no evidence at all that could well exist: unicorns on an other planet somewhere in our vast universe, intelligent beings looking like lizards, a paralell universe with laws radically differing from our owns and I could imagine lots of further examples.

Certainly, everyone claiming we can be pretty sure none of these things exists would look completely silly, at least to my mind.

Defined as an intelligence at the origin of all things, God is not improbable as the three popular icons of atheism: his existence would be compatible with all our knowledge, and many very clever folks like Albert Einstein would be led to believe that there is an intelligence being the universe transcending our universe.

In fact, the three most virulent horsemen of theism, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchen, each recognize that it is very likely there exists a whole reality beyond our understanding conditioned by a biological evolution only caring for useful beliefs.

Nevertheless, they would go on to argue that the primitive, anthropomorphic of God given by the Coran and Bible is entirely at odd with the wonderful things we may observe in the cosmos.

There is one very important thing to remember; knowledge and facts only take you so far–they only lead you to the edge of the cliff. When you look straight ahead, you see a new way of life (the other side).

You then have a choice; stay on the edge of the cliff or take the “leap of faith” to the other side.

Remember Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail?

The ONLY way to make it to the other side is if you take the jump…

Hmmm…

You know, in my opinion, there is one specific problem with atheism; and that problem is that there IS really no…creed or belief that they can agree on as a group.

For so long, I used to think that atheists didn’t believe in the existence of God; however, in recent years, I have begun to ask myself this question–was that idea of atheism really true?

See, let me explain; SOME atheists DO believe that the very CONCEPT OF GOD does not exist! Others disagree, saying that the MONOTHEISTIC’S DEFINITION of God is not true however there is an impersonal force existent and that there are other “gods” in the world that one could worship as God–but not in the Christian sense (see American Atheists). Then, there are the scientific naturalitsts which, if I’m not mistaken, don’t believe in any kind of “god” or “force”; they only believe what they can test scientifically.

Therefore; in my opinion, I’d say that it depends on the atheist and what he/she believes AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

In conclusion…

While on the surface it seems that they don’t have a common goal, there really is one; and in my opinion, it can be found in the Greek story of Pegasus. There was a man with an injured foot that was trying to get it healed from the gods. Taking the horse Pegasus, he rode to the top; frightened, I think, by lightning, the horse reared and threw him off, running away. The man had to climb his way to the top of Mt. Olympus, and when the gods saw him, they made him a deity too.

Since morals and ethics, in those times, were quite often taught through stories, if a lesson were to be learnt from this story, it is this one; man, by himself, is greater than any god in heaven or earth with unlimited potential to change himself, his imperfections, and his own destiny.

This idea therefore, in my opinion, is what unites the atheists and other world religions together as a whole–the belief in the power of man ALONE to change things!

–JFB

Could you explain how these differ?

It very much depends on how you define atheism. That is just a very small part of the definition, and based on my experiences, adhered to only by a fairly small minority of atheists. Most atheists, in my experiences and discussions, do not run around adamantly claiming god(s) do not and/or cannot exist..they merely lack belief in such god(s).

Most of them would also adhere to, if prompted, being an agnostic athiest…one who maintains that mankind does not have the capability to prove/disprove the existence/nonexistence of god(s), but personally does not hold such a belief in whatever god(s).

So the idea that an atheist is inherently someone who claims god(s) do not exist isn’t necessarily true. We can see this simply by breaking the word down:

Theism: Holding belief in god(s)

Add the a- prefix, which in English holds the meaning of “without, lacking, non-, etc.”

Atheism: Without belief in god(s), lacking belief in god(s), and so on.

The words “belief in” do not by default mean lack of belief IN THE EXISTENCE of god(s), they merely mean the lack of belief in god(s)…the same way every person in this world lacks belief in many gods of the past or present.

Depending on how you define it, atheism claims that God does not exist. It thus cannot be the default position, for the claim that God does not exist requires just as much evidence as the claim that God does exist.

If by “default” we mean the position we should hold in the absence of evidence for two competing hypothesis, then atheism certainly isn’t the default position, nor does theism seem to be it either. Rather, it would be agonsticism.

If by “default” you mean something akin to the credulity principle, then it does seem that theism would be the default position. Our religious experiences and innate inclinations toward the divine are properly basic beliefs. That is, they are prima facie (innocent until guilty) justified.

Should a belief be regarded as a default position when the majority believe the opposite?

If we mean by “default” the default REASONABLE position, then sure. Why not? Human beings are not necessarily terribly prone toward reasonableness so the fact that one position is in the majority may have little bearing on which is the most reasonable position.

However, if by “default” we mean what’s natural to humans then clearly supernaturalism of some variety (not necessarily theism) seems to be the default position.

Perhaps default is just not the best word to describe what we’re talking about.