If we focused on the natural world I think the entire planet would clearly be better off.

A world without the concept of a deity would likely be one where people focus intensely on the natural world, seeking explanations for phenomena through science and empirical observation, with ethics and morality primarily derived from societal norms and personal values, rather than divine pronouncements; essentially, a world where the idea of a "higher power" or supernatural being is completely absent from cultural understanding and daily life.

I like to call myself an Apathetic Agnostic, I don't know and I don't care.

More likely, it’s just mass and energy constantly in flux, and somehow through eons, single celled organisms got woke, and here we are to contemplate it all.

I also keep in mind that deities are what the human race cling to when faced with phenomena they can’t understand or explain. The original storytellers of the Christian Bible were trying to figure out where the sun goes at night and where rain comes from. The first, primitive scientific explanations of these things were considered heresy, until the evidence became so overwhelming that even the zealots couldn’t deny it. That cycle continued throughout recorded history and to this day. Lather, rinse, repeat:

Our position in the solar system
The stars as other suns
The creation and age of the Earth
The origins of our species
Evolution
Heterosexuality being one area on a larger spectrum

Also, humans have worshipped countless deities throughout known history. Are we certain that ours is the real one? If you believe in eternal reward and punishment, your odds are better buying a lottery ticket.

Again, a divine being is within the realm of possibility. Do we have sound reason to believe in one, or are we still just grasping to understand the yet inexplicable?

What boggles my mind, though, is how many people can accept that everything needs a creator except the creator. I have lots of other issues with religion too, but that one tops the list.

I do not believe any invisible, eternal, all-knowing beings with magical powers exist. I have no problem with other people believing they do exist, but I think those beliefs should not mix with government or public education. There are plenty of churches, temples, mosques, covens, etc. in most cities. If you want your kids to have religious instruction, pick one and take them. And government is for all of the people, not just those in whatever religion is currently in the majority.

I can't for one second say I'm just not sure.

Personally, I had to make a choice in order to move on with my life. I chose atheism as the rational path.

who stress humanity, empathy, rationality, logic, and social justice.

Such as Humanists and The Ethical Culture Society.

I'd have included Unitarians but they still lean on the God idea.

But I tend to use the strict, literal definition of the word;

A = Without

Theos = God.

I am without a god or gods because I have no need for them.

Now having said that, if Jesus Christ were to appear before me out of thin air and be in a solid human form, I would believe he existed, but I still would have no need for him. Of course that is as likely as the existence of Bertrand Russel's Teapot, which is exactly the same way I view the likelihood of the existence of any other mythical figures, be they Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, Zeus, Apollo, Thor or Sasquatch.

I reject the primary root of Christianity; That humans are born "sinners" or somehow flawed and as a result, we need to be "saved" from this flaw. I say bullshit. We aren't born flawed, we are born human.

So I don't buy the idea of The Fall From Grace and as such I don't need a redeemer.

I like to think I have a scientifically leaning mind, and therefore I can not rule out the possible existence of some sort of life form or entity that can do what we would think of as "God-Like" things, and if one appeared before me I would be amazed, but that still wouldn't make me any less of an Atheist. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” .

I'm an Atheist. I don't have any gods because I don't need them.

Oh, you mean the one in the allegory.....

.....never mind.....

It only means priests, pastors, bibles, holy books and religious people worldwide and through time have failed.

They have failed to provide real, verifiable evidence for the existence of any gods.

If my neighbor says she believes gnomes visit her at night, I would say provide me with real verifiable evidence of this. Until the evidence is provided, I don't believe in her visiting gnomes.

Until evidence is provided of gods, of any kind, I remain unbelieving. I do Not believe there are No gods. As I can't definitively prove my neighbor did Not see visiting gnomes, so I can't definitively prove there are no gods.

Give me good reproducible solid evidence and I will believe there are gods or gnomes. I may not worship those gods or gnomes of your's or my neighbors' but with solid evidence I will believe they exist.

so I'm not sure how you see atheists. You obviously see it as more than the rejection of a personification of some supernatural deity, since that's your own position.

What do you see as the "opposite" of a supernatural deity, but which you also reject?

I'm not sure what your final question is useful for. We do have a world in which many people have the concept of deities. Imagining a world that has never had that involves going back 50,000 years or more, when we basically know nothing about the "culture" they had. This is good for imaginative fiction, but not much help to anyone for what we should think in the real world we live in.

Is the fact that you can't define atheism if there is no belief in a diety by someone. Atheism as a concept only exists because there is a belief in a diety in the first place. I do not like the dependent nature of the relationship where atheism is just a reaction to a set of mythical beliefs. I believe that this dynamic keeps atheism as subordinate alternative to the belief systems that simply tell a better fictional story.

Nor, for that matter, what is "better" about the fiction. Yes, you can't define atheism without someone believing in a deity; but since some people do believe in deities, that's not a problem. We happen to not have words defined as "not believing in ghosts", or "not believing in horoscopes", but that's perhaps because those beliefs are not such an organising system.

Are you just saying you wish atheism was a bit more powerful?