@Blogging theology, good evening from London sir!

Allah says in surat al-hujurat, verse 11: ولا تنابزوا بالألقاب and do not use (offensive) nicknames They do not call themselves Wahhabis. That is a name coined in bad faith to discredit the movement. The initial members of that movement called themselves Muwahidun. More recently, some people call themselves Salafi and others choose not to adopt labels. You can critique and engage in dialgue but do so with knowledge and the proper islamic etiquette.

I feel like I've seen this copy/pasted comment before.. Well, what are your thoughts on the main argument in the video?

@rashonmyeed I think the Argument from Contingency an unsound argument arising from unsound premises. So what do you think of my original comment?

This is literally the definition of agnosticism. You don't even know what atheism means.

@@hammadahmad6312 There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists." Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground. And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of any identity associated with such a position. The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The gnostic theist is justified by sufficient knowledge and has good reason to change both default positions. Having sufficient knowledge of a god, he or she can now justly acknowledge such existence. The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending any acknowledgement as to the truth of the theistic claim until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist until sufficient credible evidence convinces the individual to acknowledge such existence. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.

@@theoskeptomai2535 i think your argument is unsound and arising from unsound premises.