That actually helps illustrate my point. No one believes language is tangible either, yet if one were to seriously say "I don't believe language really exists", wouldn't that be a hoot?

Yes but it is clear when we use the term 'language' that we refer to it in its intangible form: it is an abstract concept. If we talk about something that is generally regarding as a physical being, such as God, it is acceptable to say that we don't agree in the existence of God and for it to be understood as the existence of the physical being.

If we want to talk intelligently about something not existing, we need to say where it does not exist as.

I think it is usually implied in the context.

I'm not sure I agree with your approach to this. It is interesting in what form God exists in society and what its purpose, if any, is. I'd like to debate topics on that. However, I think it is sufficient for an atheist to say that they don't believe in the existence of a tangible God, without further justification. The study of the way God exists would seem superfluous for many atheists because it doesn't effect their lives. I don't feel they need to understand how God effects society and how he exists in fiction etc etc in order to justify that they are an atheist. To me, it is like saying that an atheist who doesn't believe in vampires is naive in not investigating the history of how vampires have come to exist in popular culture.

I can prove you wrong about that. Make a statement about something that you and practically everyone else on earth would agree doesn't exist.

Child: "There is a monster in my wardrobe"

Father: "No, monsters don't exist"

Student: "'I'm going to get an A++ in my exam!"

Teacher: "No, you're not. The highest grade is A+. A++ doesn't exist"

Do you agree that for a term to have legitimate meaning, that there must be something either tangible (like an object) or intangible (like an abstract concept or ideal) that the term refers to?

I agree. The term “god” would require a point of reference in order to have a legitimate meaning.

When asked “do you believe in god?”

The proper response should be “what do you mean by “god?””

Thus far no such definition of the term that I’m aware of has been provided which would warrant belief in a god’s or gods’ existence apart from a concept in a mind.

Not precisely. The concept of god I started with was itself hypothetical. That hypothesis would be created by humans, in the same way that hypotheses regarding, say, the big bang are created by humans. If the big bang did occur, it was not created/caused by humans. Same deal with god; if a god or gods do exist, s/he or they were not created by humans. The hypotheses regarding both, however, are human constructs.

Put more simply:

god (hypothesis) - created by man

big bang (hypothesis) - created by man

big bang (event) - if true, not created/caused by man, merely described

god (entity) - if true, not created by man, merely described

Well, it's important to state ones position clearly, and doing so generally requires careful crafting. I've had a lot of issues in the past here with being misunderstood or misinterpreted due to my wording, and I like to think I've improved in that regard :)

As far as benefits to entertaining such a hypothesis- religion seems to be a deeply seated issue for many, including many who identify as atheist. This hypothesis has spurned scientific research both by those attempting to confirm creationism and those attempting to refute it. Those examples of research that were performed correctly have assisted us in uncovering new information and insights, and I don't believe that anybody can deny that.

The best thing about the scientific method, in my opinion, is that new perspectives, new angles on investigation, and just having more minds scrutinizing a given subject are all beneficial in their own way. That aside, one must also note that the majority of the worlds population is a member of one religion or another; even if we are individually adamantly opposed to adopting such a hypothesis, there is certainly something to be said for entertaining it just for the sake of the masses, all other benefits aside.

That, and I believe that the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily adopting it is in and of itself beneficial to our ability to think critically.

Are you okay with theists and deists joining in the conversation?

Um... I guess I believe god is man-made.

Even if the believer understands god as a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, in spite of the logical impossibility of such a being in light of the existence of evil?

Yes. God is only demonstrable as an idea. I see no reason to exclude any one definition in preference of another since each is as unfounded as the next.

Do you agree that for a term (like "god" for example) to have valid meaning, that there must be something either tangible (like an object) or intangible (like an abstract concept or ideal) that the term refers to?

That depends entirely upon what you construe "valid" to mean. I think that the term should reference something, obviously, but specifically what I am less particular on so long as it is at least loosely referential to the common understanding of the term.

I think that, because there are so many ideas of what a god is, there are different types and descriptions of gods. So there cannot be one description of the word, but many. It would probably take a lot of study and commitment to accurately lay out most of these definitions. As religion is a very personal subject, everyone sees the divine in a different light. My own opinion on the subject is a mish-mash mess of constantly colliding opinions, ideas, research and the like. I think there could be some true definitions, but I can't say for sure although I don't want to give up completely and say that an answer can't be found.

Things to swear at: using a tiny smartphone and alliteration.d be some true

My position on the true nature of "God" is that it is a name for a feature of human consciousness which is usually projected outward onto mythology. Specifically, it is a construct representing the highest part of our being, that becomes manifest when a person becomes psychologically whole. It is a metaphorical, psychological reality which has often been mistaken for an ontological reality. Therefore I am an atheist in the literal sense, but I think the concept of God arises inevitably in the human mind and serves an adaptive function.

Yes! As soon as one utters that word today, the character that comes to mind is a condescending, sneering, pretentious, and fragile being who puts down thesists as a way of feeling better about him/herself. The internet is replete with these types, specifically because anonymity affords one the freedom to be vile and cruel. Even worse, these folks usually lack basic thinking skills. Rather than defeating their opponents on rational grounds, they usually rely on the same appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks typical theists use when they discuss religion. Their poster-boy is the late Christopher Hitchens, whose demeaning tone they adopt while abandoning his redeeming wit and brilliance. My biggest problem with "New Atheists" of his ilk, by the way, is their tendency to attack religion only on literalist grounds, ignoring any social, psychological or spiritual value of religion that might be retained or even improved upon. This video is a great example where Hitchens and Harris go up against some actually sophisticated religious thinkers. Rabbi Bradley Artson Shavit states several times that he agrees with every attack Harris and Hitchens make, but presents some interesting and unconventional counterpoints. Predictably, his perspective is drowned in vicious point-scoring rhetoric.

Actually no. Those ARE commonly included in the package and I find numerous issues with them when presented. But I would not actually consider them requisite.

Omnipotence is impossible in the materiel realm. But one can conceive of an 'almighty" being simply being the most powerful being as opposed to ALL-Powerful.

Same could be said for omniscience.

Omnibenevolence is a) something CLEARLY not supported by scripture and b) kind of a screwy-ass concept when you get right down to it. I'm not sure that is a trait desirable in a deity, honestly.

So, I CAN accept a god that does not have these traits, although a proposed deity would still likely be extremely powerful and intelligent.

I cannot, however, separate God from some sort of persona and will to action. To me, this might be the only thing missing from energy (or, alternately, the universe/reality) that keeps it from fulfilling the criteria of Godhood. But that missing element has deeply important ramifications to the conversation, so it cannot be overlooked, in my opinion.

what is a naive atheist then?

No, I was using "worshiped" in a broader sense.