There's a bunch of you that are so boring and toxic ....just 1 reason I left

@AJAY

They have used so many fallacies to run your OP amok. They have purposely strayed from your topic to find fault in you and insult you in any way possible.

What god is he talking about the fools ask. The answer is in the definition of Atheist or Atheism and you know it you manipulative peddlers.

ATHEIST: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

@ the manipulative peddlars

If an atheist claims he does not know what god Ajay is referring to then I can easily state that these self proclaimed atheists have no fucken clue what an atheist is. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DISBELIEVE OR LACK A BELIEF IN? Motorcycles? Oh no wait...the word god is in YOUR ATHEIST DEFINITION. What a mind blowing illumination.. Who would have thought that atheists would know what god meant? How can you claim to be atheist and demand a definition of god. Define that god in your definition and wait...could it be...you could have easily gotten on track with AJAY's OP?

Always steering away from the debate. What's new. Theist and atheist are so much alike but they both think they are superior.

What a waste of time it is here. Ajay you're in the wrong place. There are some who can have a civil discussion/debate but you will notice who derails it all the time. Steer clear and neglect those ones. Stay on topic and answer only to what is relevant. Learn you fallacies and stay on top of the game. The game is all it is in this website. Find another website AJAY...this one is toxic and not worth it.

I'm late to this party, but I'll add my contribution in the interests of discoursive rigour ...

Question for the atheists and/or agnostics. Is there anything that would genuinely make you believe in "god", and if so what?

The short answer to your question is "no". But that's because your question is fatally flawed, as I shall now explain.

First of all, belief, certainly as practised by mythology fanboys, who have provided observational data to this effect in quantity, consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. It is therefore null and void as a choice of cognitive process, for anyone interested in evidentially supported postulates.

Second, if a god type entity in the most general sense actually exists, then at some point, reliable data informing us of this will emerge. At which point, the existence of said entity will be an evidentially supported postulate, and belief will be superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. At that point, I will accept the postulate that said entity exists, precisely because that postulate has become evidentially supported in the circumstances just described.

As a corollary of the above, what you should have asked, is "what evidence will lead you to accept that a god type entity exists?" At the moment, I don't possess sufficient knowledge of the subject to specify the evidence in question, and will have to defer to more knowledgeable individuals for the time being. But I do know enough about the subject, to realise that [1] the moment genuine evidence emerges, that evidence will almost surely tell us that the entity in question is radically different from all past human experience, and as a corollary, the cartoon magic men of pre-scientific mythologies will be tossed into the bin immediately by said evidence; [2] the evidence in question will immediately guarantee the award of a Nobel Prize for whoever alights upon it, and the world's scientific journals will be engaged in a headlong rush to be the first to publish said evidence; and [3] the resulting publication of said evidence will be headline news around the world for months, if not years, to come, eclipsing every other news item.

That none of the above three steps have yet occurred, should be telling you that for the moment, we can treat the existence of such an entity as an unanswered question, and assertions to the effect that such an entity exists are, until those steps occur, safely discardable. Better still, the above also tells us that smug assertions by mythology fanboys, to the effect that the pre-scientific nomads who scribbled their mythologies somehow magically alighted upon the keys to the cosmos, can be safely discarded on a permanent basis, for the reason I provided in [1] above.

Given that, for example, the individuals responsible for the Old Testament, were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, asserted within their scribblings that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks (an assertion tossed into the bin by a 19th century monk and his diligent experiments with peaflowers), underestimated the size of the observable universe by fully nine orders of magnitude, and underestimated the age thereof by at least seven orders of magnitude, we can treat the requisite offerings with the combination of amusement and disdain that they deserve.

Similar remarks apply to other mythologies, particularly the later parts of the Abrahamic mythos. Indeed, that massive and sorry underestimate of the scale of the universe is particularly pertinent here, and points to the probability that similar underestimates of scale lurk within the assertions about a cartoon magic man by the same authors, who, according to the data they provide in those assertions, constructed their magic man to be a particularly odious cosmic Donald Trump, one with a limited, parochial and frequently sociopathic mindset. Parallel remarks can be aimed at other species of cartoon magic men asserted to exist in other mythologies, though in the case of the Greeks, they appear to have applied considerably more sophistication to their myths, including an understanding of the fourth wall and the breaking thereof that is completely absent in the lurid offerings from the Middle East.

Even so, [1] above allows us to dismiss them all safely, because the idea that any real god type entity bears any relation to these cartoon characters is frankly laughable. Just as the universe has been discovered to be far grander and far more majestic in scale than the feeble imaginings of the authors of pre-scientific mythologies, as was presciently noted by Carl Sagan, so any genuinely existing god type entity will again be far more majestic in scale than the cartoon offerings of mythologies, and if that entity happens to be sentient, it will almost certainly possess a mindset that is far superior to that of the same cartoon offerings. For one, said entity will, if sentient, almost certainly possess a mindset that is massively superior to the primitive, "kill all that is inconvenient" mindset of the Old Testament's homicidal narcissist in the sky.

Yes, that's right. I'm arguing that mythology fanboys have not only got it wrong, but have provided us with pathetic, incompetent caricatures of any real god type entity that genuinely exists. Their offerings are little gods for little universes populated by little minds, bearing no relation to reality, and the assertion that these caricature little gods possess even a speck of the magnificence of any real god type entity, is not merely laughable, but, from the standpoint of that entity, if it exists, defamatory.

Of course, we have to alight upon the evidence first, before regarding the question as settled, but it's an indication of how little genuine thought mythology fanboys have devoted to the matter, that none of them have alighted upon the above prior to my posting the requisite exposition here.