Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Unchanging and eternally subjective Are you out of your mind?

I told you to research these terms pages ago.  The term objective refers to facts independent of any given subject, not things that never change.  

An objective position on any matter changes as often as the facts of the matter do.  It has to, in order to be an objective position.  

You should be more concerned of the possibility of it being always right?

Why?  I'm merely explaining to you how and why eternalism is not interchangeable with realism.  

I see you didn't give up your garbage attitude of ad hominems, insulting people, beliefs , which already gives me a pretty solid idea of your moral system ... Here's the thing : I gave you a clear scenario where the drugged victim isn't bothered at all by the rape, she won't remember it, she won't be traumatised for life, she won't get pregnant, nothing bad, she was actually sexually aroused by the rape, and the rapist too, she was even euphorically happy. Their overall happiness increased during the act.

Now based on your garbage system : squeeze the bad making property in this scenario now, or shut up forever.

It would be an ad hom if I claimed that you were wrong because you're dumb.  Not if I'm just flat out telling you that you are dumb..but also explaining exactly why and how you've been wrong about all of this from the get go.  

-and with that, you managed to add another thing to the pile of what you get wrong.

My "garbage system" is that there are moral facts.  Things truly right and wrong.  Do you disagree?  It's still a fact that raping people is harmful.  Drugging them beforehand doesn't make it less or not harmful..less, or not rape.  That's a rather clumsy subjectivist objection you've got there.  

The GHB defense.......and you think that you could take an atheist to task for their moral positions...with that?

You being okay with infidelity if it doesn't harm the partner is strictly equivalent to you being okay with rape if the victim can't feel the harm in any way. Good luck now with the your bad-making properties.

Who said I was okay with it?  I'm merely pointing out that a thing cannot be rationally contended to be wrong if it doesn't contain wrong-making properties, whatever those are.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that an act which contains no bad-making properties can still be wrong?  

 You being okay with having more than one slut, in addition to the slutty wife who accepted what you call a "healthy open marriage", really should shut your mouth with regards to polygamy.

Just straight up babbling out your own god based bigotries at this point, huh.  Celebrated my 14th anniversary this year..with my one wife, who doesn't seem to need any outside peen...lol.  You flew off the handle on account of me pointing out that it's incoherent to claim that some x is bad if it lacks a bad-making property.  

You're an idiot.
(see how that's not an ad hom, just a insult which happens to be true?)

It's okay if you can't do it, I myself will never be able to do it. But we would be wrong.

Exactly....  but if you say so, then any religion or "moral system" which contends that refusing to kill my son on the say so of some ghost is wrong isn't something I'd be interested in.   No more so than I would be interested in killing one child to privilege another - even if we assumed their argument were true.  

This is why I don't need an argument against stingers contention, or an argument against your bullshit about djinn...and why I certainly don't need to throw away my moral system on account of the pure existence of dipshits like you or dire circumstances like stingers. Neither is compelling or relevant to me, and there's nothing I can do about being on the "wrong" side of either issue, by his or your own metrics.

It's just who I am. Perpetually uninterested..you might even say unchanging....on the issues of killing kids for some willowy greater good or joining abhorrent religions.

like a common bad person..I guess.

Of course there are. I would be nevertheless wrong if I didn't do them. If god is really god, that is, the absolute parent with complete information, it would be the very definition of stupid to go against his orders, and even more stupid is  to rationalize the latter. We rationalize things using our 1300-1400 grams brain, I don't get how atheists get so confident in their cognitive prowess when it comes to ethics, politics, etc. If your senses can deceive you, so can your brain, and your ancestors' brains, and the most brilliant moral philosophers' brains. It's only us.  And if we cannot accept some absolute guidance at least with basic moral issues, we would allow for too many fucked up moral systems to gain ground.

Excellent.  At least there's that.  If you got food poisoning and thought god told you to do some shit, you might not do it.  This is the best I could hope for from a moral subjectivist, as far as practical outcomes of our moral systems are concerned.  As for the rest, you either think that you're capable of rational thought, or you don't.  I can't make you feel more competent than you do...and you may actually have reason to judge your own competency by the contents of these posts.  

So, what's the score, do you reject moral facts and that man is capable of reason?