Agnostics

[wiploc]

Well, one could answer "no" to both "Do you believe the cat is dead?" AND "Do you believe the cat is alive?"

That's right.  And I think some here would do that-- "I have no active belief about either, so no and no."

I don't believe the cat is dead, and I don't believe it is alive.  I don't believe either way.  To say, "I have no belief about it," would stretch the point, for I believe the cat is in the box.  

Or try this on for size: in the case of God, most ask, "Do you believe in God?" anticipating a no answer and saying "You're an atheist."
However, if you ask "Do you believe in not-God ?" things look different.  Would you say anyone who lacks the belief in not-God is a theist?

Theists believe gods exist.  
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way.  

Atheists include both the strong and weak types: anyone who isn't a theist is some kind of atheist.  

So, if you want a comparable category for anyone who isn't a strong atheist, we can make one:  NASAs (not a strong atheist) include everyone who isn't a strong atheist.  Therefore, if the question is, "Do you believe gods do not exist?" then anyone who answers "No" is a NASA.  

 I doubt it.  To me, the tendency to default toward one's own position, and away from its inverse, is simple bias.

Having a word for everyone who isn't a theist isn't bias.  And recognizing that weak atheism (not believing either way) is the default position (the position we all start at, and the position we should remain in until and unless we develop a reasonably well founded justification for taking some other position) is not bias.