Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Why would I need objections?  I'm not wasting my time trying to convince you that your silly god isn't real.

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.

You referred to

1. that only people of his time could judge him 
and
2.  That maybe the little girl liked it.

These are two explicitly relativist and subjectivist excuses.   Fixing your moral system to a magic book does not make you something other than a relativist - it's the actual definition of moral relativism. 

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. 

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.

I could save you the time with this fishing expedition into americana.  It's an argument from hypocrisy.  "Your founding fathers did bad shit too" only works when you acknowledge that your cult founder did bad shit. 

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.

Correct.  Plenty of things exist.  I don't worship the vast majority of those things, and their moral status isn't addressed by their existence.

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. 

I'm not feeling overwhelmed.  : shrugs :

This is an argument from popularity in and of itself.

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?

As far as common human perceptions..it's a common human perception to see faces on the moon, a related phenomena to god beliefs.  You can see how this is just as irrelevant as anything that preceded it, since the problem with your religion, to me anyway..isn't whether or not your god exists.  It's all you want to bicker about - but it doesn't matter, and you've given no indication that you're up to the task of proving any deities existence, anyway.  I just thought you might be interested to know that this feeling you have, the sense of the numinous, isn't actually a batphone to god.

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.

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.

I don't actually expect you to agree with my moral assessment, and it's unimportant to me that you won't.  It's not even all that important to hash out our differences.  I'm trying to help you understand something that you've misjudged.  We get people here all the time who imagine that the board is full of people who just haven't heard the right gods mouth piece say the right things.  People who imagine that they could be that person.  You are not that person, and that's not actually how any of this works.  At some point, you'll have to make peace with living in a world full of people who do not reject your religion because they are confused about some particular item, but because they have been very well informed, by people like yourself and by your magic book - andon the basis of that accurate understanding, say no thx.

Think about why you aren't a christian or a hindu.  It's obviously not on account of how you don't believe in gods.  It's obviously not on account of how you don't find arguments for the existence of gods compelling.

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.