That seems like a reasonable assumption. You can always ask for clarification, if need be.Sure, but the problem is, if people like me evaluate atheism with respect to our god-concept, it has some very... uh... absurd implications that are doubtless not intentional on the part of the atheist. This conundrum is why I find the term atheist/theist broadly useless unless you interpret it from within a specific cultural context.
If someone says to me "I don't believe in God," I assume they are such with respect to classical monotheism, since that is what dominates in my culture. Likewise, if someone says to me "I believe in God," I assume they mean classical monotheism. When a strong majority of theists in my country are classical monotheists, this starting assumption is usually a safe one (pfft, the poll in this thread has a monotheistic bias!). I maintain these assumptions until I am given reason to suspect otherwise.
Personally, I define a god as something with supernatural powers over some natural process. I think this is a pretty reasonable, normal, widespread understanding of what the word "god" means; and I don't think people necessarily only think of monotheism when they hear the word "god"-- we are acquainted with the concept of Roman/Greek/Norse gods, after all, and most have a rudimentary understanding of animism.
In addition, I include panentheism (everything with consciousness) in my understanding of the word "god", but not pantheism (everything), since I think we already have a word for that: the Universe. Though, this is probably because I think about these things, and I agree it's likely that panentheism isn't in most peoples' concept of what the word "god" means.
I wasn't quite sure what Peng was getting at in his post, so I'm gonna wait to clarify other things after he replies, cuz I think I may have missed his point.