I have some questions for the posters here.

[Belacqua]

I do not do “believing.” If I make a guess, I call it a guess; if I make an estimate, I call it an estimate; of I offer an opinion, I call it an opinion.
 
Lots of people make guesses. People who call themselves theists guess that there is a god; people who call themselves atheists often guess there are no gods. They tend to call those things “beliefs.” I call them guesses.

On forums like this one, the word "believe" sometimes gets filled up with nuances that aren't necessarily required.

Normally in philosophy, "I believe it" just means "I hold it to be true." So anything I hold to be true is my belief -- and you're right, the belief can come about through guessing, estimating, opinion, etc. But if you hold it, it's a belief. 

I think there is room for agnosticism, in that there are things that might be possible which we can't decide about -- life on other planets, for example.

Some people want to define "belief" as "something people hold to be true without any evidence." This carves out an epistemological category that is seen as inferior. Then they can say that "The things I hold to be true are knowledge, because they are based on evidence i accept, while the things you hold to be true are just belief, because they are based on evidence I don't accept." It's begging the question a bit. 

Since Plato, the standard definition is that knowledge is justified true belief. That is, something you hold to be true, which is also justified, and also happens to be true. So belief and knowledge aren't as incompatible as some people here want them to be. 

RESPONSE:  I appreciate your position and I thank you for sharing it. However, I will stick with I said. When I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY." Some people may be unwilling to have discussions with me because of this...and I will lives with that.

This is sometimes a problem on this forum. When someone mentions the word "God," a lot of people automatically define it to mean the worst, most angry Old Testament-type. Your definition -- that which creates the universe -- is perfectly fine. The God of the philosophers (e.g. Spinoza) or the God of the theologians (e.g. Martin Buber) is not the one who asks us to throw people into volcanoes. So if the angry tribal God is the only one people are willing to talk about, they're shutting down most of the conversation.

As you can see, most people on this forum have had the same conversation a thousand times. If someone comes along who doesn't understand them immediately they switch immediately to personal insults. That's just the kind of forum it is. Personal insults are the norm.