Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

That's quite the claim.  It's not as though a god needs to be present for something to be defined.  Being generous, gods may or may not exist, but we certainly do..and we define things.  Similarly, we exist and judge.  

Is your objection to humans being able to judge and define things, or that our definitions are wrong?

Of course we don't need religions to behave morally. As I said before, morality is a theoretical problem for atheism, not a practical one. It does become a practical problem too when it comes to more complicated social issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. That's where we basically split ways. Being generous is universally regarded as good although it still lacks a justification for why it's good. And good is a very loose word itself. At least when we have holy books/theism we narrow this stuff down.
My objections is then that your definitions are wrong.

I guess that's one reason to be glad that I'm not Peter Singer?  

You still need to have good theoretical grounds to rule out his arguments.

What inherent moral compass?  You're unwilling to state that skullfucking your neighbors' kid would be wrong in a world without a god.  It doesn't sound, to me, like you have one.  You believe..instead, that things are only right or wrong insomuch as a god is in or out of the room.

Of course I can state it's wrong without god. But my statement would be meaningless, objectively speaking. Skullfucking the neighbors' kid is something I know I will never do, but the challenge is with articulating this position based on sound definitions.