But eating is something ALL people do and, more importantly, NEED to do. A better analogy is this: Let's say we have a box in a room whose contests are a mystery to us. The box is about cubic 1ft. Then the following exchange occurs:
You: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box?"
Me: "No. I haven't any reason to think there's a watch ."
You: "Ah! So you think there is no watch."
Me: "No. I don't know that there isn't a watch either."
Ah, I see you are still using the refuted philosophy of Positivism. The second line is Positivism. Let's redo the conversation and see what you fill in for the last line:
Me: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box."
You:. "No, I haven't any reason to believe there's a watch."
Me: "Do you believe there is not a watch in that box?"
You: " No. I don't believe that, either."
Me: "So you don't know whether there is a watch or not."
You:
Everyone is born NOT believing in the watch in the box.
Here's the semantics. "not believing" in this context is "believing there is no watch in the box". You don't know what people are born like because babies can't talk and tell you. It's possible that babies are born agnostic about watches in boxes. Or it's possible that they are scientists and accept the hypothesis is true in order to test it. However, I sincerely doubt that all babies are born Positivists.
This is the default AND correct idea unless you have reason to believe otherwise, regardless of the belief of the majority.
No, it's not "correct". "not believing" in this circumstance has no more epistemological value than believing. There has been no testing, so "not believing" has no more reason to think it is correct than "believing". And this is the root of the problem: you are trying to give "not believing" or "believing there is not" a higher epistemological value than it has. You see, even by your standard of Positivism, you have no reason to "not believe"! You have no more evidence to back that position than to back the position of believing!
That is what most atheists I know think, regarding a generic deity.
Let's put this quote out there again. What is the position, do you think, of most atheists:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is
stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.
What do most atheists you know think about the idea that what is natural requires and presupposes a generic deity in order for what is natural to work?