Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Objectivist]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

Agreed till then all his proclamations are  pointless

---

I am curious to know how you became convinced that there is no god. There are very few atheists who make such a claim, not even the most hardcore skeptic can claim to have an argument against any possible deity.


There is no way for me or anyone to check that you're truly honest. We should either just take your word for it, or ask you to clarify your reasons for asserting that there is no god.

I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist and 1:  I'm under no obligation to disprove every deity that mystics dream up, that would be a never-ending job,  2:  I'm not asking you to agree with me,  it's enough that I know, and 3:  If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.  

No, there's no way for you to know if I'm being honest.  No more can you know that all those who claim to be agnostic are being dishonest.    Errors of knowledge are not necessarily dishonest.  Dishonesty is a breach of morality, errors of knowledge are not.  Errors of knowledge can be corrected.  Evasion, and willfully faking reality are deliberate acts which are chosen.  

If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.

Indeed one has no obligation to prove any possible god false .

---

25 pages in and all we gotten from this clown is

1. Strawmen  and ironically stereotypes of unbelievers 

2. Awful defenses of Islam

3. Tired worn out apologist arguments. Then awful defenses of said arguments

4. Assertion and assertions atop those assertions     

All in all a typical theist thread 
[/quote]

I've found that for most people, something is considered possible if they can imagine it.  They usually will say something like "well it's not logically impossible".  While that may be true of many things that one can imagine, it definitely is not the case when we're talking about a supposed god, at least if we're talking about the god of the Abrahamic religions or one that is essentially similar.  

On my view, something can only be considered possible if there is at least some evidence for it and none that contradicts it.  The god of Islam fails on both counts.  So when someone says that "You can not make an argument against all possible gods, I wonder how "God" became a legitimate possibility.  What they mean is that if I disprove one god, they can just make up another one that attempts to weasel around my criticisms.  But they've got it backward.  One does not achieve knowledge by dreaming up some conception, defining it and then going out to look for evidence of it.  One starts by perceiving and then identifying what one perceives in conceptual form, then defining it objectively in terms of essential characteristics.  Of course, without a theory of concepts and a commitment to metaphysical subjectivism, it's not surprising to find this reversal taking place in the minds of mystics.  

You're so right!  It is always the same, isn't it?  If there were internet forums a hundred years ago, we'd find the same tired old worn-out arguments and unargued assertions, wouldn't we, minus appeals to quantum physics and the double-slit experiment.