A rather non-religious man at my work told me yesterday that he believed in god. I surprised him by asking which one. He told me the biblical god. Then I asked him why he left all the other gods out when he made that choice. He really did not know, so I told him maybe this was the god his parents had. Then I bid him good day and left because I had already clocked out.

I do not deal with functions or attributes but this is how I deal with people who claim they are believers. I want to cause others to think.

Whats the point. Who cares. Waste of time. etc, etc, etc.

Not our problem. You define whatever it is you want to call god and we'll tell you if it makes sense.

There is no evidence, facts or data to support the claim of any god(s) existence. Let it go.

All of them. Anything which includes any element of the supernatural.

The way I see it is that there are two kinds of Atheists/Agnostics: Free thinkers who speculate with open minds and then Recovering Christians or any religion that has placed a grip on them so that now they are simply rebelling, angry over the damage religion has done to them. Religion does something else when you are been indoctrinated at such a young age. It commands you to follow their dictates and the crowd. "Thou shall not think for yourself. We will tell you what to think. We will punish you if you stray." So while there is rebellion against the institution the process remains. Maybe there are a few steps to achieve freedom from religion; the goal being free thought without anger so that one can get to know his own true identity and truly live. So as not to generalize I must recognize the people I know who are of a religion and still have open minds and are compassionate and good people. One size doesn't fit all.

I don't identify as atheist or agnostic or theist because the god those terms are generally understood to refer to is a fundamentalist god, and I am no flavor of fundamentalist.
I figure the likes of Einstein and Spinoza and Sagan might not be the worst company to keep, so I have no hesitation in embracing their non-fundamentalist understanding of God. Sagan describes it well in his quote below:

"The word “god” is used to cover a vast multitude of mutually exclusive ideas. And the distinctions are, I believe in some cases, intentionally fuzzed so that no one will be offended that people are not talking about their god.

But let me give a sense of two poles of the definition of God. One is the view of, say, Spinoza or Einstein, which is more or less God as the sum total of the laws of physics. Now, it would be foolish to deny that there are laws of physics. If that’s what we mean by God, then surely God exists. All we have to do is watch the apples drop.

Newtonian gravitation works throughout the entire universe. We could have imagined a universe in which the laws of nature were restricted to only a small portion of space or time. That does not seem to be the case. … So that is itself a deep and extraordinary fact: that the laws of nature exist and that they are the same everywhere. So if that is what you mean by God, then I would say that we already have excellent evidence that God exists.

But now take the opposite pole: the concept of God as an outsize male with a long white beard, sitting in a throne in the sky and tallying the fall of every sparrow. Now, for that kind of god I maintain there is no evidence. And while I’m open to suggestions of evidence for that kind of god, I personally am dubious that there will be powerful evidence for such a god not only in the near future but even in the distant future. And the two examples I’ve given you are hardly the full range of ideas that people mean when they use the word “god.”

I once heard someone say, "You already don't believe in thousands of gods, I just don't believe in one more." How many definitions are you ready to entertain?

How about Crappus Maximus Extremis for a name?
Function - totally useless to rational and logical people but a crutch to the insecure, etc, etc.
Attributes- ( biblically speaking), a vicious, demanding, genocidal, psychopathic, sociopathic, ego-centric, Homophobic, Misogynistic, Dictatorial, Tyrant of the utmost order.

Let's give a non-existent thing a name? How about Noopis. It has no functions because it does nothing because it doesn't exist. Similarly, it's attributes, like it, are non-existent.

Since it doesn't exist, it can't be defined. Try defining a unicorn

As for me only: I don’t believe in a 3-headed lobster god who speaks Tagalog and has the power to perfectly manicure its lawn using its claws. Is that specific enough for you?

What? I would not know where to begin answering that. There are too many definitions and I don’t subscribe to any of them.

nah. too many of them. i don't disbelieve in one god or a dozen gods. you now how many gods there aren't? i don't feel like explaining who each god isn't. that's what wikipedia is for. but i can say none of them will have a real attribute or function since not one of them exists.

g

There's a bunch of so-called Gods I don't believe in. Ill call one Cthulu..

myth

I never think about this stuff and haven't for decades until I joined this site. I still don't think about it, but the discussions here can be interesting.

Others posit their definition. We accept (believe) or reject (disbelieve) that definition. Just like belief in any other thing.

Part of the reason I don't believe in a good is because there is no clear definition

All proposed divinities, why do you think YHWH (yep, that is the name of the jewish-christian-islamic god) and his spin-offs have a special place in my atheism?