I see this from atheists all the time "the burden of proof lies on the theist as atheism is the default position." Now while we can get all philosophical here and explain why that's wrong, simple logic refutes this.
The default position is nothing. To be an atheist you must first acquire knowledge of God to either believe or disbelieve. Babies have no knowledge of God therefore they neither believe or disbelieve, they are nothing.
As Voltaire said, when responding to this:
"Bayle says, in his "Thoughts on the Comets," that there are atheist peoples. The Caffres, the Hottentots, the Topinambous, and many other small nations, have no God: they neither deny nor affirm; they have never heard speak of Him; tell them that there is a God: they will believe it easily; tell them that everything happens through the nature of things; they will believe you equally. To claim that they are atheists is to make the same imputation as if one said they are anti-Cartesian; they are neither for nor against Descartes. They are real children; a child is neither atheist nor deist, he is nothing."
Voltaire makes the perfect point. If you tell a young child that there is no god, it will believe you, tell them otherwise and it will believe you also.
If atheism is the default position then it has to defend itself which it cannot do. Atheism simply does not account for anything, its defense is based on attacks against theism, it cannot support itself. The claim that "I can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist" can be applied to the atheist claim of a universe from nothing "we did not see that, therefore it didn't happen."
ここには何もないようです