A Civil Religious Debate

At the very least as an idea, god exists. Then of course there is my somewhat famous "ontological argument from worship" that has yet to be seriously refuted.

You're playing with words.

Guilty as charged

"Is what people say about God true?" is the same question as "Does God exist?".

This is not true. There is not a universally accepted definition of god. To illustrate this, I'd pose the question to you: Does god exist as described by pantheists?

When people ask that question they're not talking about whether God exists as a concept.

This is because we can all agree that "god exists, at least as a concept". Accepting this premise is necessary to any logical discussion about god. The other premise that must be accepted is that "truths can be known about god". Without acceptance of these two premises, the term god can only be used in an illogical manner.

They're talking about whether he exists as a God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

I'm not viewing god in a manner orthodox enough for you eh?

The question of whether or not god exists is equally important as it directly effects the importance of understanding god better.

If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.

If god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't really matter, as god could be anything you want it to be, being a concept and all.

Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.

What exactly do you mean here? I agree with that statement but for different reasons.

That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons. I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.

Nobody is really arguing god doesn't exist as much as they are arguing that there is no reason to think so.

If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.

If we are talking about reason to think something exists, it makes significantly more sense to argue against the idea of a god but not the universe.

really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?

There is significantly more reason to acknowledge the universe exists then god.'

Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?

A better question is..."Is what people say about god true?". Because of course god exists, at the very least conceptually. Another better question is..."Is god a matter of serious concern to us?" to which any honest thinking person who wasn't raised to be ignorant of history must answer yes. Attempting to argue that god does not exist is as pointless as arguing about whether or not there is a universe. The question is not "does the universe exist?", it is "how can we improve our understanding of the universe?"

God may or may not be bullshit, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this debate's opening statement is true or false.

X) An individual's or group's absolutist attitudes

(Inspired by a post from Thewayitis)

X) the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

X) Habitually and articulately expressed values and beliefs applied as a comprehensive philosophy or way of life.

X) An individual or groups particular brand of intolerance.

I like that one. But it's not worded like a definition. Will you do that, or would you like me to?