Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
That's not true 100% of the time; if the being proposed is a logical impossibility, it isn't a faith-based position to say "That can't exist because - as proposed - the being's inherent properties contradict each other".
|
That's true, though I find it becoming increasingly common for the religious to shift the topic of discussion to broader terms and invoke a far more "general" definition of God than that defined in their own scripture. It's almost impossible to successfully defend the claims of the Bible/Koran in the modern day, so the focus has become defending
any possible conception of the supernatural, so as to make the atheist appear closed-off and dismissive of all possibilities. The figurative gymnastics employed by priests/rabbis in religious debates is mind-boggling, in this regard.
So I guess it's acceptable to be a "gnostic atheist" in regards to certain conceptions of God, but I still find it to be dicey territory. I mean, it's hugely unlikely that any of the organized religions have it right in regards who created the universe and how, and
impossible that more than one have it right, but maybe, just maybe, one does? I don't think I lose any traction in an argument to concede this, because the onus of proof still isn't on me, and there still isn't any substantial proof for any of it.