Athiest, non-athiest, it's OK with me. Just curious. Athiests, would you define the God in which you don't believe?

Religious folk would call me atheist but I'd say I was gnostic (not agnostic) I believe when I get to the door marked GOD, I knock on the door, no answer, I then open the door and stick my head in and it's a full office. Then I go to the office manager and tell him he should prop the door open, as folks are wandering off down the road to number 666. ... :)

God is a word and words can change meanings. I don't believe in any of the deities humans have imagined as cosmological sources, whether it's a totem-animal, a grandfather, or a goddess.
I am dubious of the very idea of one single entity as the origin of everything as it still begs the question of what came before 'one' and monotheisms in general sound like solipsisms.
So the term is quite useless to me. I'm not a narrow-minded materialist, I think life is a mystery and this in itself is beautiful. I also believe in moral endeavours to improve this life although it often feels like a lost battle , the rules on earth (competition for survival) are inherently leading to injustice and suffering. I found no road to happiness or to the truth in any spiritual tradition.

Idiocy multiplied by gullibility, times the number of adherents, squared.

I agree with the point that one cannot be an atheist if one cannot articulate a concept of God in the first place. For that reason I view nonbelievers as agnostics and not as atheists. I can easily understand the agnostic position as the product of a person's desire to remain intellectually honest. Where we differ on that aspect of the thought process is that in my view, a thought process structured on scientific method exclusively - that is, "if I don't see empirical proof I cannot believe it exists" - is by design extremely limited in scope. We learn things every day that were not previously amenable to proof; therefore, we must accept that the lack of proof is irrelevant to whether something does or does not exist. In my perspective there is room for faith, and it serves for me a necessary purpose. The next guy may feel differently and I can understand that he might.

But I really cannot understand what most people seem to mean when they claim to be an athiest. It may be my trouble with the concept itself, or it may be I'm picking up on the other person's largely emotional rejection of organized religion. But in my mind, atheism itself is very much a religion, and one possessed of extreme religious doctrine. That is, the atheist does in fact embrace a faith and a belief system; an athiest approach to the existence (or lack thereof) of God cannot remain uncommitted.

The active belief of the atheist is that there is in fact no God, which suggests a claim to awareness of the absolute. As my personal thought process relies on an assumption that we cannot know of absolutes, I interpret this idea as showing a rigidity of thought. For instance, logical consistency suggests to me that an athiest must also feel compelled to believe that nothing else in the universe may exist which has not been proven to exist. If I am incorrect, then I am left with an unexplained logical disconnect. If my supposition is accurate, then what may be said of the history of scientific discovery in general? There was a time when people rejected the germ theory of disease. Matter used to be thought of as distinct from energy, and so on. So I guess I really don't understand atheism, except insofar as it represents a true religion.

I dont believe in an all powerful omnipitant being who created everything, I believe that our feeble brains concocted the whole lot as we couldent believe anything else, and the further we get from the so called "dark ages" the less relavence religion has on our lives