I'll clarify because I see that it didn't make much sense.

I feel the presence of God when I pray. He tells me things through his word and through a divine connection between Him and my mind. "God is either real and present, or a manufactured product of my cerebrum."

I answered "why" as more of a continuation of diplomat's post, which was the last I read, than as a response to your original question.

I know what you're saying, and I'm saying that atheism as a term in the colloquial sense is very much defined by the concept of God. When I say I'm atheist, it is usually in response to contextual concept of God, which is typically the Judeo-Christian God. Atheism as a practical term is only a response to Theism. However, my atheism/agnosticism, at it's philosophical basis, is not based on any specific context of God, but rather an overriding disregard for the supernatural.

I am also an a-elfist, but you do not ask me whether I mean I am a-elfist toward Santa's elves or Tolkien's elves. If there were a legitimate population of Tolkien elfists who would impose their morality on others then perhaps I would label myself a-elfist in specific opposition to them so as to conveniently and quickly delineate my attitude toward them, but my fundamental a-elfism is not based on any specific type of elf.

@Nola: "diplomat's definition is not really useful because it is far too ambiguous to mean anything at all." Clearly it means something otherwise you would not have tried to dissect it.

Achilles is a "mythical construct" = yes
and he could be used to influence people to do things, = perhaps
but I don't think anyone thinks Achilles is God. = he is a god in the Greek pantheon

You seem to have excluded my definition because it does not give the answer you want.

"His definition is more or less his opinion about God." It is hard to imagine that you object to my definition for any other reason than it does not accord with yours (that you copied from someone else).

Diplomat - Actually, Achilles was not a god in Greek mythology, he was a man, though a very powerful one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles). To stay in the same vein, the Trojan Horse is a mythical construct (in the even quite literal sense) and it can be used to influence people to do things (by referring to things as a "Trojan Horse" we can quickly identify them as something that appears good but is bad), but nobody believes that it was a god in any capacity since it was just a wooden horse that people could hide in.

The reason I object to your definition is that it lacks clarity and encompasses all sorts of things that nobody (I am guessing you included) think is God or a god. Rather, it demonstrates your opinion of what other people believe God to be, but it does not provide a clear definition of God.

Ok. I'm not sure how you guys got sidetracked on the whole mythical construct thing like you did.

diplomat, I'm surprised you continued on with it for so long. =P

nola, you've forced it into an absurd argument. His statement was that God is a mythical construct used to influence people... not that mythical constructs used to influence people are Gods. You've read it logically backwards. My pet dog is a ten year old female German Shepherd, but not all ten year old female German Shepherds are my pet dog.

Chrispminis - To state that God is a mythical construct used to influence people is to give your opinion about God, not to define who/what God is. Essentially, you assume some other definition (whatever that may be) and then call that definition a mythical construct. Yes, your pet dog is a German Shepherd, but if I wanted to give a "definition" of your pet dog, I would say the German Shepherd that lives at your house, and then I would not leave any ambiguity.

@Nola: fair point, Achilles was indeed a man. My mistake.

I checked a definition of the word definition "an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something" [Apple dictionary].

On the basis of thsi I accept that my definition includes a large set of objects (including men) and therefore could be tighter, I will give some thought to providing something less ambiguous. Perhaps, you would do all of us the honour of providing a definition that you find acceptable rather than just copying large tracts of material that cannot be considered a definition in even the loosest sense.

Also, to give the definition of something is to give its logical equivalence. In other words, if "a" is "b" (because "b" is the definiton of "a"), then a=b so that anything that is "a" is also "b" and anything that is "b" is also "a". Thus, if you say that the definition of God is a mythical construct that can be used to influence people, then you are stating that anything that is a mythical construct that can be used to influence people is God (or a god).

Diplomat - My last post landed before I saw yours, but I see we are pretty much on the same page on that point right now. However, as I stated before, I can not give a succinct definition of God that is in any way even close to complete. Maybe something along the lines of God is the creator of all that exists (though He Himself exists without having been created), is three persons with one nature, is infinite, etc. However, as I stated a little while back, I can not with finite terms describe the infinite (nor can much longer essays, though they are more complete), so I don't really want to type pages of information about this so it is easier to reference external sources.

@Nola: and, whilst you may consider my definition influenced by my beliefs, remember that Orathaic also asked "in what God(s) do you (dis)believe?". I think I provided both in one succinct sentence. Can you? You require others to provide a very exact definition but have not even attempted to do so yourself.

@ChrisP: thank you for your eloquent support.

"I humbly propose that perhaps explaining one's belief in a way that is readily understandable to someone with a radically different viewpoint may require a bit of 'why' in order to flesh out some of the concepts."

In a sense 'why' somone beliefs in something written in the scriptures isn't of interest to me in this thread. Thus also why you consider God to be a construct used to understand and explain the natural world - a construct which humans developed for various well understood and understandable reasons, isn't the point.

"You wouldn't call someone who doesn't believe in astrology a non-astrologer. " - no and you wouldn't call someone an Atheist unless you understood that there was a concept of God to not believe in. So i admit those Atheists may not have a well-defined concept of God, they simultaneously don't believe in a wide-range of definitions of God.

They can still say this wide range of definitions is what they mean when they use the word God (or just default to the cultural norm of 'judeo-christian God')

@Chrispminis - 'but my fundamental a-elfism is not based on any specific type of elf. ' - ok, and i think you have defined well what constitutes are range of 'God' definitions which you don't believe in. So thanks after-all for your WHY...

@Nola, sorry, you're right i misinterpreted you.

in my mind
'God is Being' is equivalent to 'God = Being' which implies 'Being = God' which implies 'Beings are God' (though not individually only the collective infinte sum of all being)

You have defined God more as 'Being but not a being' - the source of all created beings - thus not implicitly something which exists, because we don't know that everything has a source...

eh, nola, what did you say about equivalence? cause.... God = Being..
oh never-mind

ok, more definitions less argueing that other people have opinions...

i think i concede that Atheists can have a much looser definition of 'God' which they widely don't believe in... alas we have no Deists...

Orathaic - Being itself means that God's existence is not contigent, he exists (period). As beings, our existence is contingent upon our creation (or at least the creation of matter), and as I would define it, God's continued interest in our existence (so if God decided that he did not want creation to exist, then it would cease).

@Nola, more posts crossing in the ether.

You (& others) cannot define the infinite using finite terms. Essays are not sufficient to express it completely. Perhaps you can stop squirming and give us a definition.

I believe in the Big Spaghettimonster! It´s invisible and orbits the earth!

@Miro - it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). If you were a true believer, you would know all about his Noodliness.

RAmen.

@Miro: ramen

@ draugnar
"If you were a true believer, you would know all about his Noodliness."

I hate institutions of religion! I have my own faith, why should a Spagetthimonster fly in outer space there is no air!!! You dogmatics destroy all spirtuality :-(

Chrisp makes a wonderfully eloquent argument. I like the example of a-elfism.

Chrisp +1

In terms of the OP question " in what God(s) do you (dis)believe?" my answer would be:

All of them.

God is that He is. God=that He is. God is pure existence - some would phrase it pure potentiality. He is the unmoved mover that moves all that is moved.

He is: "ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever existing yet ever the same," to quote the Church's Byzantine Rite liturgy.

Unfortunately, discussion between theists and atheists tends to be completely fruitless - presuming both truly believe what they claim to believe - because both are using completely different perspectives on existence to formulate their thoughts, they define the universe in which they exist in such different ways that they're basically talking apples and oranges.

@Miro: what if the earth orbits The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Monster's glory is so bright we mistake it for a star and call it the Sun?

@original topic:

My definition of "god" is whatever one ascribes as the final source of comfort and trust. For instance, I might put my faith in money and make it my god. No matter what happens, if I have money, everything will turn out all right. No medical condition can't be solved by paying the doctors! All I need, my clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and home, etc. is given and sustained by my money.

So, everyone has a god by that definition. Many nowadays would put all their respect, love, and trust into Reason: at the end of the day, we can figure truth out on our own and solve all the world's problems--all we have to do is think for ourselves and not let the religions/ideologies do it for us.

Now, the entity to whom I (at least in theory, often times it's easy to get distracted) ascribe all my respect, love, and trust is Jesus Christ. He is my "god".

You could define god as a high-in-the-sky ephereal spirit thingy, but if you did, you would be describing something that I don't believe in either. My god is a human.

(I could get a lot more technical, but this is a forum post, so that's the essance of it)

@steve
I think you shoul say theists believe, atheist are knowing, better call them rationalists.

@baumhaeuer

"I might put my faith in money and make it my god"

I think you are about fetish not god, that are diferent thinks

Diplomat - I linked all of the websites on purpose. If you want my definition of God, feel free to read those as I see no reason to type pages upon pages of text here. I am not "squirming" as you indicate, but indicating that I don't want to waste my time typing 20+ pages of text. There is no reason that the definition of God has to be short. SteevoKun, in his first two paragraphs gave a defintion with which I would also agree, but even that definition is incomplete.

@nola. You complained that my definition was not exact but frankly, Steve's definition is gibberish. Mind you, it would be tricky to define something which is "incomprehensible". If you are not squirming you should be. How bloody convenient that it is hard to jnderstand, that one must have "faith". No wonder people are led astray by others claiming to act for "god". I am reminded of estate agents or ponzi scheme organisers.

Religion is a concept that is indoctrinated into the mind of children by its follower.
As an evolutionary advantage, children at that age believe everything they were told by their parents and others. Now to believe in religion becomes a natural believe like "don´t touch fire or stay with mum the big bad wolves are out there".
People often suffer their whole life from this, because it´s so accepted doubts and ratinality often even have no chance.

*rationality

If the relgion was indoctrinated well, people often get driven more and more into it if the church is accompanying them through youth and adulthood, so more complex definitions of god were formed.