Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

If they're not lying, then their agnosticism is in no way dishonest.  They do not know, and they are accurately relating to you the fact that they do not know.

As I've suggested multiple times.  You just think they're wrong.  Just like you know there have always been atheists..you just think they're wrong.  We can crack that silly nut next, if you'd like.  Atheists, likewise, are honestly relaying a fact to you...about them.  Not about the existence of god.  About the existence of any belief in god in them.  You may disagree with them about the existence of god..but the subject of atheism isn't actually the existence of god - it is the presence or absence of a belief in god in an individual.

I am fine with them not knowing as long as there is sincere pursuit of truth. What is dishonest is to accept not knowing as a permanent state of facts, or dismissing entire religions outright because they must be wrong just like their former religion etc. which is what often happens in practice.

They all are Mo's era. If you are simply going to flat out lie, no further discourse is in any way useful. You are simply going to lie

Are you a troll or what? Ibn al Rawandi was born in 827 CE, that is, after almost 200 years of Muhammad's death.

Then you have sunk your own battleship. If your god is incapable of stopping from being eternal, the he/she/it/housecat is clearly not omnipotent.

Furthermore, you claim to know something that he/she/it/housecat is prohibited from doing. How do you know that? And why is an omnipotent being unable to do anything at all?

I think you should take some time contemplating the sentence : "All powerful god can't be less powerful" to grasp the silliness of your logical mistake.