Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Huh?
Yeah you don't need objections, you just need to keep shouting.  Matter of fact, you did waste your time, a lot, repeating that my "god is silly", that he '"isn't real" when, instead of repeating it, you could've just given the damn objections.

Those aren't objections, they're statements of simple facts.  You worship a silly god dreamt up by a 7th century society headed by child raping warlords.

My objection, is that your religion is moral detritus on account of this.

No, pal. I am referring to these two to fit your moral relativism. As to why you are a moral relativist, whether you like it, admit it or not, it's because no moral statement you made so far differs from the present legal system of your local area. 

You should just save yourself the trouble and look these terms up.

Muslims on the other hand still see, rightfully so, that fixing an age for marriage doesn't make sense, that lending money with interest is condemnable usury, that men riding men is an unnatural act, and countless, unchanging radical statements that aren't practically applied anywhere, despite the rest of the world being against them. That's moral absolutism, and we're proud of it, and we don't care if someone think we belong to the middle ages.

Moral absolutism is not equivalent to moral realism.  I accept that you believe what you do about child brides.  Since you do believe this thing about child brides, and since I have an objection to child brides - there's no misapprehension here.

It is because of this..not because I'm unclear on this, that I cannot join your club.  

I'd rather state it this way: your founding fathers practiced stuff that isn't practiced anymore, the same thing goes with the "cult founder". I would've gone with your assessment if we were talking about senseless murder or money laundering, but not with something that was as widespread as slavery, which didn't actually disappear, but only replaced with more subtle forms of subjugation.

Jesus christ..... spare me, the boards, and yourself any urge you feel to engage in slavery apologism.  

Here again I see that this is something that you believe, and because of this....not because I'm unclear on this, I cannot join your club.

Not many things simultaneously exist and have the three omni properties. Are you really going to consider the god concept and anything else .. the same?
As of the moral status, let's state it in the simplest way : He's God, you're not. 

Your silly god could have eleventy-two omni properties or none.  No number of omni properties is a problem for me.  Yes, if there were a god..it would be a god, and I would not be a god.  That's not an issue of disagreement.  So what if it's a god?  The god your magic book describes is an evil god.  

I have no interest in worshiping an evil god.  Do you?

As I said repeatedly : the sense of wonder is not an argument, it's merely a good reason to believe. Now, being wired to believe is actually supported by recent research you easily find on the web. If believing is a basic built-in need in creatures, doesn't it warrant, at least, a good explanation for why it's there at all?

A good reason to believe in what...nutter?  It's a good reason to believe that people have common experiences.  Beyond that, have fun....but it's not like it's going to matter to me.....

You can't really say for something you experience everyday that it's irrelevant. A supposed deity made sure we get impressed by the sunset, by the subtle movements we can make with our hands, by the diversity of animals, etc. That's a faster way to believe in the deity. Not logically rigorous? I don't need to check my stomach with sophisticated toolkit when I'm hungry, I simply go with that feeling without some deeper investigation. Similarly, the layman - and it's the layman that actually matters - needs a faster way to believe in a deity, and proving the kalam version of the cosmological argument with regards to some particular personal god with specific properties will take him forever to even get the terminology straight. One is entitled to require absolute, stone cold, line by line rigor when it comes to figuring out empirical phenomena. In any case, if the layman sincerely worships the wrong kind of deity, no just deity will punish him anywhere, and certainly not the Islamic one.

If you say so.  I guess people get to tell god what to do nowadays.  :  shrugs  :

Metaphysical absolutes are by definition subject to endless doubt, even if not justified, in the end Muslims do take refuge in revelation; our theology at its best gets to good reasons for belief, and a first cause with omni- properties. That's why prophets matter to us, that's why they should exist as corollary to a just deity. You were saying that yourself : even with assuming god, a lot of work is still ahead. A prophet, if exists, was sent to complete this work.

-and yet it remains incomplete.  Tell me more about the incompetence of the "prophet". 

As someone brought up in an Islamic country, being familiar with Islamic literature from a very early age, and more importantly, a native Arabic speaker, I can safely assert that none of you, actually, are anywhere near being informed about Islam.

For a start, you can't possibly know why two billion people are impressed by the Qur'an, or why they regard its language as miraculous , or why they wholeheartedly accept Muhammad as their leader, or why sophisticated businessmen like Abu Bakr' or Uthman believed Muhammad's extraordinary claims when he merely recited words.

Existence of God assumed, the main argument for Islamic belief is , actually, linguistic. That's something very few people in the west, and a lot of Muslims too, simply don't know. More importantly, it's something you should look up.

Why do you think it would matter to me how many people believed in your fairy tales?  

Really work that out.

You're still trying to argue with me about whether or not god exists. Why? Have I been unclear?