Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Sure, and just as soon as you figure out what those might be I'm all ears.  What I keep telling you..though..is that it isn't on account of any misapprehension that I don't want to join your club.

Close your eyes and imagine a world in which people hear what you and magic book have to say about your religion, and your god...and instead of thinking "god is the greatest"..they think - "nah, count me out".  

Now open your eyes....congratulations, you live in just such a world.

"Joining the club" and believing in God are really two separate endeavours. If you're not going to join any club, you still need to give good objections to what people present as reasons to believe, and so far I don't think you gave any.
And don't worry, I don't have some delusion of being able to convert crowds of people, or even one person, overnight. I just want to present my case genuinely, and hear genuine, thoughtful objections, not just biased repugnance.

Correct.  As soon as child brides come up, I'm out.  You say your boy did it, I accept that you believe this.  There is no misapprehension here.  

I simply don't find relativist excuses compelling, as a moral realist.  The ones you floated are particularly repulsive.

First of all, what you call relativist excuses, are not excuses, nor relativist. No religious person is a relativist, we ascribe to a fixed, unchanging set of commands in scripture. It's your turn to close your eyes and think of other parts in this world when people do things you might hate with every ounce of your soul, but should still hear their reasoning. A vegan shouldn't find meat eaters too repugnant, right?

Back to the thomas jefferson example, let's say you really hate the guy for owning slaves. Does that make his advocacy for democracy, tolerance and individual rights less acceptable? Am I going to count "you out" with regards to his social views ?
And why would you expect a prophet from god to ascribe to your exact personal moral views?

Either god came from something or somewhere or he didn't.  You tell me he didn't, I accept that you believe this.  No misapprehension here.

What kind of pathetic non-answer is that? You either are completely with me on this point, or you're not. Saying "I accept that you believe this" is dodgy really.

There's really no point in arguing a god into existence.  This is irrelevant to me, and to whether or not I would join your club.  I'm struggling to come up with simpler ways to put this, so that you can understand.  Sure..it's true that I don't believe in the fairy tales that you do..but it isn't because I don't believe them that I'm not a muslim.  I wouldn't, and couldn't be a muslim even if I did.  

That your god is fiction is actually one of the redeeming qualities of your religion, in my opinion.  I appreciate that you're having trouble wrapping your head around this - but you're going to have to try if you want to have a conversation with me.  Otherwise, you're just repeating shit you practiced for an argument against an imaginary atheist that only exists between your ears.  I think that it would be imprudent  of you to overlook the opportunity.  

You might have underestimated the task before you when it comes to proving a gods existence - but that can be lain entirely aside with me - and probably with most of the people here.

Anywho, as to wonder and clear answers. I don't know whether a god would have to make it's existence known to all, or known in a specific way...but that's referred to as "the sense of the numinous" - and atheists feel it.  It's a common human experience.  Human perception is generally explained by reference to humans, not gods.  If a god does have to send pages of rigorous proofs, as you put it...then there is either no god, or god is still working on the manuscript.  Not that it matters much since, as above, whether or not gods exist is irrelevant.  

I exist, you're not worshiping me.  You exist, I'm not worshiping you.  It's pretty clear that neither of us base our decision to worship something on it's existence.  Wouldn't you agree?

Okay, to sum it all up:

existence of god/gods ... irrelevant

Whether Muhammad was moral/righteous as a prophet ... irrelevant

Our ovewhelming inkling/tendency to believe ... irrelevant

Something can't come from nothing .... irrelevant

So .. tell me please, what is relevant?

It's clear that you're dismissing good reasons for belief for the sole reason that you're somewhat familiar with them, and certainly not because you have some good rebuttal. You're not impressed by what the other camp has to offer and that's understandable. Now the key thing is to learn to be impressed and think of these issues in a fresh way, and that's not something I, or anyone, can make you do.
Also, seeing both the issues of the existence of gods AND the morality of the prophets as irrelevant is really closing any possible discussion.

Back to the sense of wonder, yeah, it's a common human perception, I know, and that's why it matters. Common human perceptions are much more compelling, engaging and vivacious than any amount of logical proofs, and you know it, so much that you can feel it.