God is like a butterfly: beautiful, elusive, and will kick your ass if you look at him wrong.
When pondering thes things it is best to have 3-5 beers and read some Blake.
The best inquiry I ever read into the nature of God is as follows:
The Tyger
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright!
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who make the lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
-William Blake
(Notice the intelligent design overtones, and this in 1789)
Alternately:
“And all must love the Human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew.
Where Mercy, Love, & Pity dwell,
There God is dwelling too.”
-William Blake “The Divine Image” (bigoted?)
Or:
“God is a bullet”
-Concrete Blonde
Actually, it was me who coined the term, to describe the God-parody that results from taking at face value some of the more extreme statements of fundamentalism. The Divine Weasel is a trickster God who insists that you believe the world was created in 144 hours 6,003 years ago (this week, as it happens) despite having buried evidence to the contrary. Thanks to Adam and Eve having sinned shortly thereafter, which he knew would happen, he damns all humanity to eternal punishment – but throws in an escape clause that would allow Adolf Hitler to repent at his death and go to heaven while Mohandas Gandhi and Socrates burn. He also insists on “blind faith” and hides from humanity lest someone have evidence of His existence. And he demands unquestioning obedience, not to the Torah or to any moral standard from Jesus’s teachings or Paul’s letters, but to selective laws picked and chosen from these collections to suit the collective worshippers’ tastes.
Having defined him at some length, my own conception is as follows:
God is loving, all powerful and ever near, but respectful of human autonomy and unwilling without invitation to “invade” human hearts and minds. He is quite obvious when “seen” with the eyes of faith, but does not presume to press that obviousness into objective terms, so that people can choose out of love to find him. He’s not out to condemn anyone, although he will sorrowfully let people turn from him to things that start by pleasing them and end up being obsessions and self-destructive impulses, if they insist on doing so. But he’ll keep trying to get through to them until there’s nothing left of them.
Who He is, is most obvious to non-believers in the character of Jesus as depicted in the four Gospels. Whoever has known Jesus through reading them with an eye to seeing what he was like, has known God. And his spirit is ready to help guide that encounter. (That’s the Trinity without philosophy.)
And he does intervene in history and everyday life, but generally through the natural law of the world he made and through people reaching out to people.
According to the comic book “Johnny the Homicidal Maniac” God is a big sleepy baby…but I’m probably the only one in the world (save a few gothic teenagers) who knows what JTHM is
Jeez, even Poly couldn’t hold to his own 25-word limit! 
Anyway, Poly said:
As UncleBeer already noted, there is no one God that I think of when I don’t believe. How could there be? I don’t believe in a kind, loving God. I don’t believe in a nasty, horrible, vengeful tyrant of a God. I don’t believe in an invisible, pink, one-horned God with 4 legs.
When I discuss the existence or non-existence of a God, I deal with whatever the theist is dealing with (sometimes, pointing out such things that the theist doesn’t want to acknowledge, as often happens with that second one I mentioned that I don’t believe in, above).
===
Now, as an aside, I should point out that there is, of course, one God I do believe in: Me. And don’t forget to pay your church dues, Poly. They’re coming up soon!
Yeah, but when you doubt yourself, when something terrible happens and you’re afraid, which God don’t you believe in then?
Which God are you just that teensy bit nervous NOT to beleive in?
Yeah thats the problem I have when I argue with atheists, the atheists purposefully distort facts (or make sweeping generalizations) to argue and I generally argue with what they take as a givein. (such as gods omniscience)Which is basically taken out of thin air and at odds with what ive read in the bible.
So basically to sum it up, he is not what athiests disbelieve in generally and make arguements against. Because of course 90% of athiests arguements on the internet are preaching to the converted and ignoring the rest.
My personal conception of G-d:
G-d is responsible for the existence of this universe and the human race. He is an individual with free will. So are human beings. G-d spent many years slowly learning how to deal with other selfs, not because we are so amazingly special, but because it is cosmicly lonely to be G-d.
Remember that our universe is much older than us. And He is older than our universe. G-d was clumsy with the first human beings. He did things that confounded and confused them using his superior understanding of the universe and his great power. He simplified things for human beings and gave them personal advice, and then saw them codify and canonize the simplification and temporary measures for all time.
While He cannot sin (by definition) He can make mistakes. Sin seperates him from human beings, and so he completed (allowing for human error) the events described in the gospels. He then left, but sent his spirit to help out.
Over the years G-d has learned better how to deal with humans. There are few ‘miracles’ and face-to-face conversations. He is looking for friends among the other selfs. Like all gentlemen, he doesn’t force himself on those who don’t desire his company.
The sin problem is solved, and all men are saved. They choose to be His friend, or not.
–John
In my 25 years of life, I have never encountered the level of paralyzing fear or loss of control neccessary to make me abandon reason.
(And right on 25 words, no less! 
Damn, I impress myself sometimes)
Speaking as an agnostic, I’d have to say He’s really difficult to get to know.
I have to agree totally with Unclebeer (At least on this).
It is usually the theist that describes the attributes of the God of their belief.
I am sure most non-believers have thought about this question at some time, but it is not as of as great importance in their lives as it is to a believer.
I feel my time spent on matters philosphical, is better used in considering the implications of the latest scientific discoveries. Discoveries are being made, at a huge rate, in all science streams from physics to biology. Many have impact on our understanding of the universe and our place in it. Attempting to keep up with these discoveries and understanding their implications on the big picture is enough to keep this athiests head occupied.
Mind you I do quite enjoy a bit of friendly banter with “God-botherers” occasionally, just to stay in practice.
Scylla said:
I still don’t believe in any.
None. If I were afraid to disbelieve, then I would have to be afraid of something. Since I don’t believe there is anything to be afraid of…
Asmodean said:
Hmmm. Sweeping generalizations? You mean, like the one you just made?
You had to know that, around here, you would be called on such a thing. So please back up your claim.
Oh, you mean he was being serious. I thought that Asmodean was doing some sort of wry commentary on the way fundamentalist christian posters tend to act. I mean, read it again:
DavidB:
I think the basic idea is to post what your personal image of God is like were he/she to exist. In no way can it be construed as a belief, just an idea.
For example, if I say “Easter Bunny,” an idea pops into your head. If you say “Long pink ears, fluffy tail, and basket of chocolate marshmallow eggs,” nobody is going to say “AHA! We knew you beleived in the Easter Bunny. You haven’t fooled anybody!”
What is your preferred archetype/image? Surely you must have one.
Atheists tend to assume the omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence of God because that’s what the Christian Church has been proclaiming for most of the last couple of millennia. By “the Christian Church” I mean the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran churches, the Calvinist churches (Presbyterian, Reformed, and Congregationalist), the Anglican churches, the Baptist churches (although Baptists can be all over the map, theologically speaking), the Methodist churches, the self-identified Fundamentalist churches, the more theologically conservative Pentecostal churches, and most non-denominational evangelical churches. Naturally, it would be fairly stupid to argue with a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon by pointing out the problems in the orthodox conception of the Trinity. Also, with some of the more new-fangled modern 20th Century theologians (particularly though not exclusively among Protestants) all bets are off. But this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
To contribute to the original thread topic:
I’d have to echo several earlier posters and say that I can’t very well come up with a single description of all the gods in which I have no belief. (Except “they don’t exist” of course…) I would say that the God(s) whose lack of my belief in I have thought the most about are the Biblical God and the God of Christian Theology (related but somewhat distinct entities, perhaps). The Biblical God is the scary, vengeful one whose revelations are all self-contradictory and who was a mass murderer until he started claiming to be all nice, except for tossing people into the lake of fire for all eternity. The God of Christian Theology (the Omni[sup]3[/sup] Multiple-Personality Transformer Deity, batteries not included) has all sorts of insoluble logical contradictions. I think the G.o.C.T. corresponds reasonably well with the Islamic deity as far as the Omni[sup]3[/sup] part goes, but I haven’t made any really careful study of the subject. There’s also the Philosopher’s God, i.e. the Creator or First Cause. I don’t see any compelling reason to accept that deity’s existence, which is a more or less academic question anyway; one major problem I have with the Ph.G. is people’s tendency to conflate (without any good reason) him/her/it/they with the B.G./G.o.C.T. I really haven’t thought that much about why I don’t believe in Zeus or Thor or Quetzalcoatl, which I suppose is prejudiced of me. There’s also the Pantheist God, but I’m with Lincoln on that one–calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. And as I already alluded to, the God of Modern Theologians gives me a headache. (What does “the ground of all being” mean anyway?)
(Oh, that was more than 25 words, wasn’t it? Well, Gosh Golly Gee Whiz Jeepers Creepers, what do you expect on a topic like that?)
I’d also like to comment that with respect to the original post, the Western world did seem to have a defined common ground for talking about God for a long time. The definitions may not have made any sense, and I suppose many ordinary Christians probably held all sorts of wildly “heretical” notions without even realizing it, but there was an Official Christian God who had certain defined characteristics and parameters. Used to be, Christians couldn’t pull these little stunts like saying in the middle of a debate “Well, maybe God doesn’t know the future” or “Maybe Jesus didn’t actually become God until he was baptized” or “Well, the Bible doesn’t actually use the word Trinity, so I ain’t buying it.” If they did say stuff like that, they were liable to get burned at the stake. (There was of course an earlier period when anything went, but then things stabilized for a good millennium-and-a-half.) I’m not really pining for the Good Old Days of heresy trials, but it does make things tough on us atheists–it’s like debating a fog.
Explain what is god like in 25 letters or less
Two will suffice: George Burns.
In 25 words or less:
You say “I am me” (singular self), accurately.
Sometimes you say “we”. SDMB regulars? Family? You & lover? Plural self, accurately.
God metaplural allinclusive self.
“God is a concept by which we measure our pain.”
—John Lennon
That settles it.
God is cold, favors the aggressor, and dislikes me personally.