I was reading a few websites and I've encountered various theists using the Ontological Argument as evidence of God. This argument was so absurd that I couldn't even comprehend how a sane person could even agree with it. Do any of you adhere to this? 

Whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant. I just want to know if you think the argument is coherent...

For a brief overview of the Ontological Argument, here's a paragraph from a site which supports the existence of a God....

If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine.

If we think of God as being perfect—and perfection, remember, is part of the concept of God—then we must therefore think of God as a being that cannot be imagined to be better than he is. As St Anselm, the inventor of the ontological argument, put it, God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.”

It is therefore impossible to conceive either of there being anything greater than God or of it being possible to imagine God being better than he already is.

If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is; we would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that doesn’t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn’t exist could be better than he is.

The idea of an imperfect God, though, we have already said, is just as absurd as the idea of a four-sided triangle; “perfect” is part of what “God” means, just as “three-sided” is part of what “triangle” means. As the idea that God doesn’t exist implies his imperfection, therefore, the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd, just as obviously false, as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. God’s non-existence is therefore impossible.

- Source


So, does anyone agree with this?

I fail to see how God is proven in that statement. It just says "If you think God is perfect, that means nothing can be better." So what?

IMO, It says more about the limits of human imagination than anything else.

What Salnax said.
It's an opinion on viewing God as a perfect being... I'm not sure how that's absurd.

That's just a small snippet of the entire argument. The entire argument does use that basis to prove the existence of God (or at least it tries to).

Sorry, I forgot the two most important paragraphs. It's tries to prove the existence of God by using the definition of a God. Basically, it says "the definition of a God requires a God must exist; therefore, God exists".

Elaborate. 

Looking it over, this says more about human stupidity than God.

What!?!

What it reqires to be the sort of God that creates the universe and sets the conditions for the laws of physics that lead to the evolution of life is as about as comprehensible to us mere mortals as it is for an ant to understand the mind of Lionardo Davinci when he was painting the Mona Lisa.

Therefore whatever we think of as perfection in relation to a deity is so far away from what perfection really is that it's a pointless exercise and is totally baseless as an axiomatic argument for the existence of God.

Actually the line of argument in the OP looks more like an atheist piss take of an imagined argument for the existence of God than a geniune theistic person's reasoning for believing in God.

What I can see the perfection concept being used for is of a more relativistic nature, that beaing: Assuming God exists then...by a series of arguments and axiomatic assumptions...God must be a) single (i.e. no such thing as polytheisms) and b) perfect at least insofar as his relationship to the universe and human spirituality is concerned.

But you can't use the concept of perfection as a basis for demonstrating that God exists.

I second this statement.