Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Abaddon_ire]

You do need a stronger case when you call someone whose even sleep position is imitated by millions of people, a child molester. But you didn't go further than simple name calling when asked about a justification.

I really don't....but that's a wonderfully strange detail to add.  So what if millions of people wanna sleep like Mo?  I don't.  

Yep, that is most odd. Any parent has had a sick child in the bed with the same result. The child starfishes, and the parents end up clinging to the beading at the edge of the mattress.

It matters not how big the bed is, nothing comprehensively occupies any bed so much as a small sick child.

Any twonk who claims otherwise is lying. Has not children of his/her own.

And that is not all. While clinging to the mattress beading, one suddenly becomes aware that one's child is sweating like a pig. I have never sweat that much ever.

Don't get me wrong, I would give my life for my kids. But the pretense that it has no impact on the marital relationship is utter bollocks.

[R00tKiT]

I really don't....but that's a wonderfully strange detail to add.  So what if millions of people wanna sleep like Mo?  I don't. 

Okay, I get it. Just don't throw accusations if you're not ready to back them up.

Not really, and..ultimately, it doesn't matter how evil is defined in my system.   I'm only telling you that because, in my system, your cult founder and your religion are evil

Your system does look like a black box you're afraid to open. I bet you'll run into some kind of inconsistency once you define evil without resorting to anything religious.

You seem to be saying that your god is different. I'm telling you "it" is not different from any other god in history. They all came from the minds of humans. It is false because it has never existed except as a concept.

But you're to delusional to get it.

I never said, or seemed to say, that "my" god is different. And I think you're aware that "gods never existed" is a pretty ambitious epistemological feat, which you cannot back up.

[brewer]

I never said, or seemed to say, that "my" god is different. And I think you're aware that "gods never existed" is a pretty ambitious epistemological feat, which you cannot back up.

I believe that you did, or you would have included your god with all of the other gods of fantasy.

I don't intend to back it up. What I intend is to not believe until you (or others) can provide concrete evidence of any god(s). Until you can it's all just so much blah, blah, blah,.........

[The Grand Nudger]

I really don't....but that's a wonderfully strange detail to add.  So what if millions of people wanna sleep like Mo?  I don't. 

Okay, I get it. Just don't throw accusations if you're not ready to back them up.

What on earth are you talking about, lol.  Your religion says Big Mo took a child bride.  That's hardly me accusing the useless fucker of anything.   

Not really, and..ultimately, it doesn't matter how evil is defined in my system.   I'm only telling you that because, in my system, your cult founder and your religion are evil

Your system does look like a black box you're afraid to open. I bet you'll run into some kind of inconsistency once you define evil without resorting to anything religious.

Your inability to imagine or even research the many ways that evil can be defined without religion is your own problem.  Not mine. It's as easy for me to have a morality without religion as it is for you to have a morality without christianity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think evil can be conveniently defined as ‘that which harms people unnecessarily’, which covers both moral and natural evil. And neither resorts to nor recognizes religion.

Boru

[ignoramus]

So OP, is "Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position" is ridiculously dishonest in itself since we are all born Ignostics!
(which is a worse position, according to you since it equals agnosticism + complete ignorance)

My real question is why try so hard to convince or convert? You really don't need to do that. At the rate of births, Islam will take over the world anyway in 100 years.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So OP, is "Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position" is ridiculously dishonest in itself since we are all born Ignostics!
(which is a worse position, according to you since it equals agnosticism + complete ignorance)

My real question is why try so hard to convince or convert? You really don't need to do that. At the rate of births, Islam will take over the world anyway in 100 years.

At which point I will acknowledge that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed (peace be upon him) is His prophet.  It's a little trick I like to call 'cowardly self-preservation'.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Okay, I get it. Just don't throw accusations if you're not ready to back them up.

What on earth are you talking about, lol.  Your religion says Big Mo took a child bride.  That's hardly me accusing the useless fucker of anything.   

Your system does look like a black box you're afraid to open. I bet you'll run into some kind of inconsistency once you define evil without resorting to anything religious.

Your inability to imagine or even research the many ways that evil can be defined without religion is your own problem.  Not mine.  It's as easy for me to have a morality without religion as it is for you to have a morality without christianity.

Not only that he lusted after her years before marrying her and lusted after another girl while sill a child.Also love how he thinks religion provides any consistent definition of evil

[The Grand Nudger]

Definitions are notoriously consistent with themselves. In my experience, when people unfamiliar with any moral system beyond their own make statements like that, they're thinking of exclusively sub optimal decision fields, inherent conflicts between a plurality of value making properties, or the simple failure of a moral agent to consistently apply that moral system in day to day life.

We can define evil functionally, we can define it generally by it's relation to all moral systems, or we can define it specifically with reference to the contents of a given moral system. The first two are the most instructive as concepts, though we use the third in our day to day lives.

Functionally, evil is a categorization of items based on the referents of a moral system.

Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts. There's an incredibly high chance that this description of evil will be functionally equivalent to any description of evil, derived from any source..including a religious source. Disagreements are generally over the contents of terms, rather than the form of the moral inference.

The third definition is not a definition of evil itself, but a description of facts that can contribute to the categorization.

What qualifies as a competent moral agent?
What are the relevant attributes of a circumstance with moral import?
What are the mitigating factors of any relevant attribute or competent moral agent?

All fun questions, but as a practical matter - it's not necessary to know the answers to live a moral life. Don't harm, do help.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts.

That's fine (and a definite improvement on my definition) as far as moral evil, but it excludes natural evil.

Which, now that I think of it, may have been your point.  I'll see myself out.

Boru