Atheism is the default position

Thanks to my opponent for their kind words. I will start by making note of a few points of departure between my opponent and myself: Firstly, Pro has claimed that "according to the agreed upon definition of Atheism, inanimate objects can be atheists". But do babies and inanimate objects "lack" belief in God? I don't think so. The term lack describes a "deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary" .(http://dictionary.reference.com...=/) Belief in God for inanimate objects and newborns is not needed, desirable or customary. For exactly the same reason, it would be ludicrous for me to claim that my motor vehicle "lacks" a basement. However, even if we were to concede that objects and infants could be "atheists" this does not justify the proposition That Atheism is the Default Position. I have pointed out (and this has not been challenged by my opponent) that a position of any sort implies an opinion, a stance or a point of view. My opponent echoes Dawkins and others in claiming that babies are born atheists, but clearly they are not born with opinions regarding the existence or otherwise of God(s). And tortoises and arc welders don't form points of view on the subject either. So it is not their "default position". What my opponent has done is to create a false dichotomy - the only two possible positions are to believe in a God or gods, or not to believe. What is left out is the third group - "belief or otherwise is not applicable". The "default position" only applies to those capable of adopting one. Which basically leaves us with cognizant human beings as potential atheists. My point about people throughout history having, in the main, formed the opinion that one or more gods exist is not, as my opponent claims, an ad populem fallacy. I did not make any claim that because most people believe this to be true, it is in fact true. Pro has suggested that it is necessary to assume (until proven otherwise) that something (in this case God) doesn't exist because proving "nothing" is impossible. I find this terminology confusing. It sounds very similar to the often made claim that it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course, if that is what my opponent is claiming, then the irony is that if they can supply proof of this claim, they will have succeeded in proving them self wrong. There are also very few philosophers who would agree that it is impossible to prove a negative. Getting back to the question of existence - is it true that we can't prove that the dragon in my garage really exists? Well, the fact that neither I nor anyone else can see, hear or feel it may be a reasonable indication that it's not there. The fact that the temperature in the garage remains relatively constant and doesn't experience sudden rapid increases might be another. But no doubt however much trouble I go to, someone will find some explanation for every piece of evidence presented. What it boils down to is that I may be able to prove the nonexistence of a dragon in my garage (or the Loch Ness monster, or flying spaghetti monsters, or God) beyond any reasonable degree of doubt, such that any normal person would be convinced; but I certainly cannot prove it beyond any possibility of doubt. The crucial point as far as "default positions" go is that this doesn't only apply to negatives. There is no no way to prove beyond any possibility of contradiction that the pink unicorn does exist. Supposing I actually capture one. I conduct DNA tests and various examinations to determine that it's not a horse with a cone glued on its nose. Finally, there is no question - this is an animal that has never been discovered before. But how do I know that the entire process is not a dream that I'm having, and the pink wonder is no more than random electric signals in my sleeping brain? Can it be proved that dinosaurs once walked the earth? What if all of the fossils ever found are fakes planted there by alien pranksters eons ago? In summary: Atheism can be regarded as a "lack of belief in a God or gods". However, this definition only makes sense when applied to cognizant beings. It does not make sense to say (as my opponent does) that it applies to babies and inanimate objects. These examples are therefore invalid. Neither theism nor atheism can be positively proved beyond any possibility of a doubt. However, it should be possible for either to be proved beyond any reasonable question given appropriate evidence and correct presentation of the arguments. It does not seem appropriate therefore, to claim that one position or the other is naturally the "default position". The bottom line - if you claim God exists - prove it. If you claim that God does not exist - prove it. Neither side can legitimately claim a head start. The onus is not always on the affirmative to prove their case because proving a negative is too difficult. Otherwise, there would be far more Con winners than Pro right here in DDO. I would again like to thank my opponent for their invitation to debate this topic, and congratulate them on the way in which they have presented their case. It has been an enjoyable debate for me as well. Thanks also to those who have taken the time to read our arguments.