Is this the right way to think about Atheism?

[sven]

I might just be confusing myself. But,this is what Atheist means to me.

You can't prove God exist and you cant prove God doesn't exist. But, because of the scientific evidence redefining almost all the stuff that was once thought that a higher deity did it that leads me to the conclusion that God or any deity does not exist.

Is this right? I don't believe God exist but Its hard for me to explain it.

I think that's one way of looking at it.
I myself was born an atheist (I believe all human beings are) and was raised in a completely secular home. None of the people I grew up with really believed in God. I never really thought about it when I was young. When I was first seriously exposed to christian beliefs I thought most of them were plain silly or stupid.
I.e. I don't think you start to believe in the monotheistic god unless someone teaches you to do so.

[Minimalist]

Is this right? I don't believe God exist but Its hard for me to explain it.

Luckily you don't have to explain it. The proponents of whatever invisible sky-daddy is in question have to explain why their boy is right and all the others are wrong.

Most of them fail miserably at the task.

[Rampant.A.I.]

In the absence of evidence, the I log rational conclusion is to withhold judgement.

You can't form reasonable beliefs from a lack of evidence, but you can point out it's more rational to disbelieve a position lacking evidence.

Theists seem to believe their position is true by default, and you are simply denying it. That's not true: they simply don't see there's a claim being made, and you don't think it reasonable to accept claims lacking evidence.

[Doggey75]

Alright. I understand now. What I wrote is the reason why I'm Atheist. But, you can't explain Atheism in general that way. Correct?

Sorry, if I sound stupid. Im sorta a trainee Atheist xD

[Anomalocaris]

In the absence of evidence, the I log rational conclusion is to withhold judgement.

You can't form reasonable beliefs from a lack of evidence, but you can point out it's more rational to disbelieve a position lacking evidence.

Theists seem to believe their position is true by default, and you are simply denying it. That's not true: they simply don't see there's a claim being made, and you don't think it reasonable to accept claims lacking evidence.

Very seldom is there a complete lack of evidence. For something as overarching a an entity that created everything, literally everything forms part of a milieu of evidence. The question is are the aggregate collection of evidence presently available conclusive? If not, which possible interpretation of their meanings requires on the whole a lesser body of additional assumptions beyond available evidence.

[Minimalist]

Alright. I understand now. What I wrote is the reason why I'm Atheist. But, you can't explain Atheism in general that way. Correct?

Sorry, if I sound stupid. Im sorta a trainee Atheist xD

For the average jesus freak all you need is Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted. There is enough ammo in that one book to sink churchloads full of fundies.

[Mudhammam]

I consider myself an atheist with regards to all "common sense" man-made definitions of deities. That said, if someone wants to call the Universe "God" because it is essentially the closest thing to such a being, I'm quite comfortable with that.

Think that's how Pantheism took shape.

My only problem with it is the baggage that the term "God" carries.