So a general rule for a definition of gods is allways about automated thinking and feeling, "operant conditioning".

That´s why it´s so hard to understand the refusal of rational arguments by religious people.

Miro, this thread isn't about religion, please take you conversation to someone who gives a shit.

It´s about gods and how to define them, that´s what they have done.
I your feelings are so hurtable please don´t read this thread, there will be more religion and gods.

Miro, I give a shit. Feel free to stay here.

Thanks Stukus :-)
I have a scientific view on religion and gods, so i gave a scientific definition of gods.
That´s the way i define them, because i am a rationalist and don´t believe in such thing does not mean i am blind and can´t see how religion works. And if you think of gods without religion orathaic, guess were your thoughts are coming from...

No, again like previously in this thread you gave a definition of WHY you believe what you do about 'God' NOT WHAT you believe, the evidence for why humans came to this cientific-rational idea which you hold God to be, and perhaps it goes some way to explaining what you think, but you're busy talking about religion and people.

Your definition of 'God' could be as long and detailed as Nola's but it wouldn't make for an interesting conversation, it has been had before and no-one is going to change their mind. Those who already agree with you will continue to, those who hold different beliefs will do that. I'm trying here to look at many different prespectives.

So you've said a lot about man, and not much about God. You didn't share your opinion, there was no 'God is...' statement. I want to talk about WHAT God is, not WHY you think God is a... oh you didn't put in a word there as far as i can see.

Trust me, it would as uninteresting as talking about WHY the scriptures are the source of truth... (and talking about the source of truth is a conversation which has and is being had in other palces)

And Miro i can think about maths without thinking about the real world uses(ie shopping market trading, physics, and risk analysis :P) for them... that doesn't mean thinking about maths on it's own isn't worth doing sometimes.

My whole statement was about "god"! It explains its creation, its function and its practicle impact on the world.
God is a "operant condition" as i said.

Ignosticism asks "atheist" for defining god, too. So what do you expect from a rational person, but my definition?

+1 to Chrispminis for his post about his disregard for the supernatural and a-elfism. Well said.

My response to the original question - what immediately comes to mind is discussing the various properties of the emperor's clothes... which, at best, are invisible and unknowable... and at worst completely imaginary and non-existent. Alas, I must give credit where credit is due:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

The Hindu idea of God varies widely between people.
Some will believe that the gods one hears about and sees in temples (e.g. Ganesh, Vishnu, etc) exist in some place in the sky. It was they that created the universe, etc.
Some believe that there is an all-Mighty being (formless), that created everything, including the aforementioned gods/goddesses.
Another belief (this will be in marginally more detail because was explained to me a few days ago) is that before creation (and therefore time) there was pure existence, which is called God, and it was he that created the universe, the earth etc. Now as time is measured by the movement of matter, there was no time before creation, as pure existence was sentient, but formless. Then he created the aforementioned god/goddesses, which we can't prove or disprove because they could be in another dimension, or elsewhere (this wasn't fully explained). It was this 'God' that created all the laws of the universe, because they have the signs of intelligent creation (please note that this isn't my view at all, this is just what was explained to me). Now, as there was no time before creation, during pure existence, this pure existence needs to cause.

To me this sounds a lot like ID, and makes a lot of assumptions, for one: why should this 'God' be exempt from a cause? I also don't like the definition of time given, bit I couldn't think of one myself to counter with.

I was raised in India. The (various) Hindu idea(s) of God are fascinating, but spirituality in India is eclipsed by the religious machinery used to execute it. Children are raised to perform dogmatic traditions in what is clearly a system of control. The concepts of family, community, and oneness with the environment/nature/one's surroundings are ignored. This percolates down to every aspect of everyday life. A lot of sensible people run away from it (yours truly included).

Run away from India or from the religion? I did the latter, my parents did the former (as would I).
And I would say the opposite, the concepts of family and community are extremely stressed, to an almost fascist sense. One of the main ideas of the place my family frequents is: as good child is an obedient child (not in those exact words. This isn't anywhere near fascism, but I can't fully remember other stuff).

I think I did both.

But as far as the family and community parts go, expat parents appear to have learned their childraising lessons. But they're still way too harsh. Whatever.

Apologies - I gave a poor response to the OP.

Let's try again. The OP asks: " in what God(s) do you (dis)believe?"

I disbelieve all of them.

There is no God - by any definition. As Chrisp said, any definition of god must be based on some form of belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in the supernatural in any form, thus I cannot believe in any form of god.

@Nola: you wanted a more exact definition of God, so please try this:

"A supernatural being, common in religious belief systems, believed to have extraordinary powers."

I have tried to make this value-free realise that this may not be exact enough for you. Note that it allows for systems with one or many gods and for "good" and "bad" gods.

Personally, I do not believe in any god primarily because there is no evidence that such a being exists. Nor is there any evidence of the opposite. Strictly speaking that makes me agnostic but my instinct is towards atheism. I do profess to be a pastafarian mainly because it appeals to my sense of humour and it sticks up a couple of fingers to religious intolerants.

To be clear, I respect people's religious beliefs and practices and many religious organisations. Generally, I think religions have been and are a force for good in society. However, I strongly object to use of religion to place limits on the behaviour of others and for violent or political ends.

This is a difficult one. In order to procede I'm going to have to define two distinct types of Gods. I will call the first type gods (lower case g) and define them in the style of old Greek or Norse gods, i.e superior beings with powers I cannot explain who have some powers of creation within the boundaries of the Universe. I will call the second type God and define it in a Christian style, being an all powerful creater of the universe who knows all and exists everywhere at once.

The first type, gods, I firmly believe in. As an astrophysicist I know the odds of other intelligent life not evolving somewhere else in the universe is minute, and I must conclude that much of this life would fit my definition of gods. I do not believe they are anywhere near Earth, and if they were I would no worship them. (There is a good chance I would have, however, if I'd been brought up on a planet ruled by them and they demanded such obedience).

The second type, God, I do not know whether He exists or not. If He does exist He does little to show His presence, and I have lived my life not worshipping Him and been none the worse off for it. I am a firm believer, however, that the religions that have dedicated themselves to worshipping this God and claim to have Holy books full of His words and deeds are completely wrong on that point.

@ Octavious: "superior beings with powers I cannot explain who have some powers of creation within the boundaries of the Universe."

What do you mean by "powers of creation" in this context?

@Diplomat61 - "To be clear, I respect people's religious beliefs and practices and many religious organisations. Generally, I think religions have been and are a force for good in society. However, I strongly object to use of religion to place limits on the behaviour of others and for violent or political ends. "

I applaud your open, honest, and non-condemning post, Diplomat. I'm a Christian (Lutheran) and firmly believe in the writings of the New Testament as well as the morality tales of the Old Testament, but agree with you completely with regards to religion when it is misused.

@JamieK: you said 'There is no God - by any definition.' - by the previous definitions as a mythical construct, i tries to prove that this idea, by definition, doesn't exist.

However i am forced to conclude that, like calculus, this 'God' does exist. It is a mental construct, one which is used for various mental tasks. Calculus can be used to work out newtonian gravity, you can explain to others how to use Calculus, you can demonstrate it on paper. Follow the logical steps through.

The same can be said of 'God' only replacing 'newtonian gravity' by some moral question.

Now i assume you don't for a second deny the existance of mental constructs.

@ Jamiet99uk

Various things, really. At the forefront of my mind is the ability to create new life, by either modifying existing life (as humans have taken steps to doing) or building entirely new forms of life from scratch. Indeed, if we had a suitably evil government on Earth it's not beyond the realms of possibility that even us humans could, via selective breeding and/or GM, create a new species of sub human or intelligent ape to act as labourers. But thinking bigger creating new life bearing worlds is also possible, as are a whole host of things beyond my imagination on a dull Thursday afternoon.

Hmmm... Shades of Planet of the Apes and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in that last post, Oct. :-)

@Draugnar: thanks

'create a new species of sub human or intelligent ape to act as labourers.' robots are likely more useful and easier to produce at present, and when building up from he bottom it is easier to see them as slaves without intelligence... actually i don't see much difference in what could be done between that and sub-humans bio-slaves...

Who "wrote" the urban dictionary? Sicarius?

AGNOSTIC - one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. .

ignostic - one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is an Iggy Pop.

in fairness urban dictionary is not the most academic of sourses, it was written by whoever felt like writing it, and competing definitions determined by popular votes...

@orathaic - but we alresady know the future. The servants will be the apes and they will rise up and take over our society (although how that fits into "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!" I will never know.)

So, with this in mind, why bother citing it? A fondness for baseless debate?

NOBODY picked up on the fact that the TITLE of this thread is not even a legitimate WORD?

Literacy is dead.......

Many of us did, but it to google something only recently became a legit word/phrase (google as a verb is now in one the Oxford dictionary, IIRC), yet google has been used as a verb for years.