Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Why give you one when I can give you entire schools of thought and all of their followers throughout time..across all of human civilization? You seem to be aware that I can do so. You knew better, but you decided to lie anyway.

Enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...e_and_Rome

Now, on to what you find difficult. Who cares? Who cares what you find difficult? Not people with other beliefs who don't find it difficult at all.

-and still..none of this has anything to do with agnosticism. Agnostics are people telling you that they don't know whether or not a god exists. What, exactly, do you think they're lying about?

[Abaddon_ire]

For as long as people have been writing about gods, people have been writing about not believing in them. 

Okay, name a genuine nonbeliever in any god, one, in Muhammad's era. I'll wait.

Just the one? OK. Paramārtha.

One not enough now?

OK

Muhammad al Warraq, Ibn al-Rawandi, Al-Razi, Al-Maʿarri (he was fun)

5 not enough now? Want more?



You are a liar.

---

If you mean by all-benevolent all-loving, then no, this is not one of the attributes all major religions agree on. The three-omni properties generally refer to  : eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Once stuff about love kicks in, which is essentially an attempt to anthropomorphise God, we can come up with all kinds of contradicitions, as is the case with the all-loving Christian God throwing Muslims to hell for eternal damnation. God in Islam is not all-loving, and this is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.

Sure. you can claim the three omnis are eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. It doesn't matter, those three still contradict each other.

Can god commit suicide, terminate his own existence? If yes, then not eternal. If no then not omnipotent.
The objections to omniscience and omnipotence remain the same.

[R00tKiT]

Why give you one when I can give you entire schools of thought and all of their followers throughout time..across all of human civilization?  You seem to be aware that I can do so.   You knew better, but you decided to lie anyway.  

Enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...e_and_Rome

All you had to do was to open your own link and read, which you apparently didn't ;

Quote : "In medieval Islam, Muslim scholars recognized the idea of atheism and frequently attacked unbelievers, although they were unable to name any atheists".

Also, one should be aware of the nuance between the meaning of atheism back then, and the modern definition. The former referred to rejecting any of the core beliefs of Islam, for example not believing in Muhammad being sent from God was atheism.

The same link you provided explains that : "one notable figure being the ninth-century scholar Ibn al-Rawandi, who criticized the notion of religious prophecy, including that of Muhammad,"


Ibn-Rawandi is considered an atheist in Islamic literature, but not in the sense of rejecting any deity.

-and still..none of this has anything to do with agnosticism.   Agnostics are people telling you that they don't know whether or not a god exists.  What, exactly, do you think they're lying about?

It's not that they're lying. They're not doing their homework hard enough.

Okay, name a genuine nonbeliever in any god, one, in Muhammad's era. I'll wait.

Just the one? OK. Paramārtha.

One not enough now?

OK

Muhammad al Warraq, Ibn al-Rawandi, Al-Razi, Al-Maʿarri (he was fun)

5 not enough now? Want more?

I think I explicitly said : in Muhammad's era. None of these guys witnessed Muhammad. In any case, you our al-Warraq /al Rawandi guys rejected the prophecy, not God's existence per se.  Atheism had a different meaning back then, you should look it up [Hint: it didn't mean not believing in God].

Can god commit suicide, terminate his own existence? If yes, then not eternal. If no then not omnipotent.
The objections to omniscience and omnipotence remain the same.

These are not objections. They are newbie logical mistakes. God's very existence entails eternity, saying that God can't stop being eternal, or, equivalently, can't commit suicide is a vacuous sentence.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Abaddon_ire]

Just the one? OK. Paramārtha.

One not enough now?

OK

Muhammad al Warraq, Ibn al-Rawandi, Al-Razi, Al-Maʿarri (he was fun)

5 not enough now? Want more?

I think I explicitly said : in Muhammad's era. None of these guys witnessed Muhammad. In any case, you our al-Warraq /al Rawandi guys rejected the prophecy, not God's existence per se.  Atheism had a different meaning back then, you should look it up [Hint: it didn't mean not believing in God].

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

Can god commit suicide, terminate his own existence? If yes, then not eternal. If no then not omnipotent.
The objections to omniscience and omnipotence remain the same.

These are not objections. They are newbie logical mistakes. God's very existence entails eternity, saying that God can't stop being eternal, or, equivalently, can't commit suicide is a vacuous sentence.

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?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I think that you should probably ask people directly why they reject your religion, their reasons may surprise you, given what you determine to be the common reasons in practice. Had you asked me, for example, I'd have told to that I reject islam for reasons completely unrelated to my old religion..because I don't have one. I don't reject islam because I'm an atheist, either. I couldn't be a muslim even if the moongod were real.

None of this is going to give you a window into the mind of an agnostic, though. I'm not an agnostic.

[GUBU]

Yes there is a fucking burden of disproof. Isn't that your job as atheists to disprove all kinds of claims made by religious people. Just do this one fucking job right.

No there isn't you idiot. And do you know why? Because we are not making the claim here, you are.

But because you know you've no evidence for your claims you are mendaciously trying to shift the burden of proof onto us. I'm sure your god would be very proud of your inept defence of him, if he existed.

---

If you don't blindly jump off this cliff your lazy and dishonest

Now that's going too far, Tiz. I wouldn't let my worst enemy within an asses roar of Moher. Total tourist trap.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

That is stupid. Not knowing is a statement of fact. Nobody proposes wilfully perpetually "not knowing" but you. That is your daft strawman and you bear the burden for the stupid claim you made. Don't like that? Fine, don't make stupid claims.

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.

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.

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.

I think you are dodging the question because you know it exposes the paucity of your faith.

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.

[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.