Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Not knowing may end up being a permanent fact of their existence.  It's not as if plenty of people haven't gone to their deaths uncertain of what, if any, future awaited them. 

This is true of course. But one's state of mind should always be to keep looking. Probably no religion - and certainly not Islam - condemns a sincere atheist/agnostic who died not knowing .

I don't reject islam because I'm an atheist, either.  I couldn't be a muslim even if the moongod were real. 

So what reasons made you so hostile to this religion anyway ?

More dishonesty. You asked for the same era and you got the same era. When you didn't like it, you redifined "era" to be a stupidly narrow. You have now descended to demanding that we show you the writings of Little Mo's fucking neighbour.

If Muhammad is dead, there is no longer a Muhammad's era, idiot. I suggest you keep looking for better examples than Ibn Rawandi. This name won't pass muster.
And I didn't even ask for writings, only one name of someone who rejected all deities. Good luck.

You thought that by redifining the three omnis, you could avoid the logical contradictions. And you failed. You cannot rehabilitate that argument . It remains logically incoherent as does your god.

Grow up dude. "Why God can't commit suicide" is an invalid question because it already contains a contradiction. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, which requires the contradiction to arise in the conclusion, not the premises.