This OP is made so non-believers can answer their understanding or lack of understanding of what God is in their understanding.
If God does not exist to you, how can you have so strong opinions about something that in you view does not exist?
What strong opinion? The atheist is telling you that his criteria for belief regarding gods has not been met.
I commented yesterday on another thread why I as an atheist don't need a description of gods. I let the theist make his case and describe his god. If his case doesn't adequately support belief, it is rejected. That God is rejected.
Abrahamics: does your god allegedly send revelation to man through prophets and messengers, perform miracles, and answer prayer? Did you fail to support the claim that it exists? That's the god I'm rejecting at that time.
Deists: Did your God create the universe and then disengage from it (a non-interventionalist God)? Is your case as weak as the Abrahamics'? Then I reject that God as well.
Is your God some vague, conscious higher force that you claim to sense directly? What's your evidence? Oh. Well, that's the God being rejected now.
Is your God the laws of physics or the universe itself? OK, I do believe those exist, but I don't call them God, and don't speak in terms of believing in them or not.
I think you can see from this that I don't need a description of gods to say that I have no god belief.
Most people seem to mean a conscious creator of the universe when they use the word God, so that is what I mean when I use the word as in the sentences above, which is why I called the first three examples gods I don't believe in, and called the unconscious laws of physics and the universe itself not gods.
Why is it that certain believers are "attacked" by atheists for their belief in God
It looks like you've returned to characterizing dissent as attack. I'm disagreeing with you now. You think the atheist should have a clear idea of what he is rejecting, and I tried to explain why that wasn't necessary. It's also not helpful were I to come to any theist with an elaborate and detailed description of a God that I reject. Why would he care if that isn't the God he's promoting? Is this an attack on you, too?
I don't know if you've noticed how many times theists have made unflattering comments about the posting behavior of atheists, were asked to provide examples, and not only never did, never responded. I would ask you to provide examples (again) of this belligerent atheistic behavior, but I already know you can't, and probably won't acknowledge that you read this, much less support your derogatory depiction of how you are treated by atheists.
There are probably many reasons for people become non-believers, but how do one lose connection with God?
I've told you my story. I converted from atheism to Christianity while in the military and far from home, and had a euphoric experience in my first congregation that I interpreted as the presence of the Holy Spirit. Upon discharge and return to my home state, I went from congregation to congregation, where that euphoria was never experienced again. I finally realized that I had been experiencing only my own mind in the hands of a charismatic preacher. If it had been God, it should have followed me out to California, but it remained in Maryland. Not a God. So, I returned to atheism and secular humanism. Did I lose connection with God? I don't think so. I was never connected to one.
A couple of people [may] have suggested that mixing faith and logic is a recipe for disaster.
I have suggested that when the two mix, they are faith. Even a little bit of unjustified belief added to sound, evidenced reasoning makes the soundness disappear. I like to use the example of adding a column of numbers, which, when done properly, employs pure reason. 6+7=13 every time. 2+4=6 every time. Stick to these kinds of rules, apply them without mistake, and you will arrive at the correct sum every time.
But add just one faith-based operation, such as 2+2=5, and "soundness" is lost for good. Now, there is no chance of getting the sum correct apart from making another equal and opposite error, such as 2+2=3, which is highly unlikely. If one wants to avoid believing wrong ideas, he avoids departing from fallacy-free reasoning altogether, because even a little unsupported belief mixed into an idea or plan can make the idea or plan unsound. It doesn't have to, but it never helps.
I see adding a little faith to an otherwise valid argument as a form of contamination the way adding a few bacteria to an otherwise sterile vial of vaccine is a form of contamination. Even a just a few bacteria - say five individuals - contaminates the vial. It is no longer sterile. Even if that's not enough bacteria to make the vial harmful, it certainly won't help, and should be avoided in all cases.
So, is mixing a sterile solution and bacteria a recipe for disaster? Is making a mathematical error a recipe for disaster? Not always, but it's never desirable.
If you (or anybody else reading) disagrees, would you kindly identify the specific words you think are incorrect and explain why you think they are correct? Nothing less can have persuasive power. Too often, people simply say they disagree (if even that much), maybe followed by some new claim in support of what has been rebutted. This is what we see when a skeptic cites scripture in support of an argument about what the religion advocates, and the answer doesn't address the scripture, but rather, cites more contradictory scripture. That's also not a rebuttal.
It seems to me a bit ironic that an atheist would join a religious forum because they are not interested in God concepts or what they entail and just don't care about the subject
I'm here to study human nature, among other things. I have access to information and experiences here that I can get nowhere else. I see a large assortment of various kinds of theists and atheists, and receive benefit considering it all collectively. It illustrates, for example, how faith affects thought. It shows me the the kinds of people each of these produces. Jehovah's Witnesses vary, but on the average, are very different from Catholics and Baha'i. How do I know? I've had years-long discussions with many of these people, discussions just not possible elsewhere. I would never have these discussions with friends, family, coworkers, or anybody else that I know, because when is this going to happen - over forty dinners? - and how long would it take for the relationship to be harmed? One dinner? Two?
I've learned a lot here. Here is where I came to understand that very few theists listen to what atheists tell them about themselves, and very few can paraphrase what they've been told, or can understand the difference between not accepting a claim and calling it false. I would never have guessed that this was the case.
Here is where I finally realized that there are people that aren't merely unskilled at critical thinking, but that most such people don't know what it is or what it can do. These are the people who believe that all opinions are equal, because they're all just guesses. These are the people that are angry at Fauci, for example. Who does this guy think he is, they think. Who is he to be giving advice about vaccines? They just don't know what he knows or can know, so why should his opinion carry more weight than Trump's for them?
This is where I've realized that there is no burden of proof with faith-based thinkers, because there is never a burden of proof with somebody that can't make or understand a sound argument and isn't cooperating in the process, but rather, resisting an idea that they prefer to consider wrong. I also leaned that when such people demand proof, they're not really interested in seeing anything, won't even click on a link, and are just trying to represent themselves as being evidenced-based thinkers, and their collocutor having none if they remain unconvinced. So, I don't do that any more. I just make claims to them. If I flesh them out with evidence and argument, it is for the benefit of other kinds of readers who actually do evaluate arguments impartially and competently. Where else would I have discovered that?
I've also gotten to see the antipathy for atheists more or less across the theist board. Not in every individual, but in every category of theist. I see how theists like to depict atheists in the most unflattering was, generally in terms of some sort of character defect, such as atheists liking to participate in religious forums just to troll, or to attack theists, or some other straw man that comports with the idea that people who believe in gods are better people than those who don't.
Did you really believe what you wrote above? Do you really think what you wrote above, or was that you denigrating all atheists on RF by describing what we do here as you did? Did you really not understand why we're here, or did you want to imply that we could have no good reason to participate in such discussions, something you find ironic?
I am considering joining an NFL forum, know any good ones? I don't understand the game, and have no real interest in it, but I thought I'd tell them that nothing they do makes any sense to me. I'm sure when I tell them how logic and reason dictate that football is played with the feet, they'll see the error of their ways. The ball isn't even ball shaped, might as well call the game unicorn horn as football.
And here it is again. Why would you post this if not to demean atheists and attempt to invalidate their presence here? Do you really believe this? Does this describe what I just wrote about why I am here, or is it ridiculous and insincere mischaracterization meant to ridicule? Rhetorical question. You know that that is not an apt description of atheists on RF, but you posted it anyway.
Where does all of this antipathy for atheists come from? Our rejecting theism for ourselves? Do theists routinely see that as an attack on them and their choices? Rejecting theistic ethics? Do you see that as immoral? Rejecting faith as a path to truth? Finding fallacies in theists' arguments? I don't think so. Those aren't reasons to treat people as theists do atheists. It goes deeper.
I suspect that it begins with the depiction of atheists in the Christian Bible (and probably the Quran as well) in bigoted hate speech, a depiction that preachers find convenient to marginalize and demonize those who disagree with them, and which is absorbed by osmosis by those marinating in such ideas every Sunday morning. Bad atheist! Rebellious atheist! God-hating atheist! Immoral atheist! They are all corrupt and none do good. It's right there in the book. Where else am I going to learn such things about believers if I can't see comments like these last two? The people I meet won't show or tell me them.
Anyway, venues like RF is where I see these things in panorama and for extended periods, and come to broad conclusions about what theism is and does. I'll let you guess what I've concluded about the net effect of theism on people by comparing their intellectual and moral comportment on these threads to my control group, the secular humanists.