Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

My "garbage system" is that there are moral facts.  Things truly right and wrong.  Do you disagree? 

Yeah, sure I do. And your moral facts led you to say, with every ounce of your intellect, that according to your moral realism : infidelity wouldn't be wrong. That's you, your moral realism, the combined product of your upbringing, readings, experience, and cognitive abilities couldn't point out what is horribly wrong with being infidel if no explicit harm is done.

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. 

I don't care if it's clumsy, or if it doesn't suit your euphorical morality that fails miserably when we change examples. Drugging the victim beforehand effectively removes the physical AND psychological harm, and you're not left with much to back up your assertion : it's a fact that rape is bla bla. That's the theoretical cost of atheism, rejecting god, claiming we got it all by science : you have no background, no references, all you have is the hope of figuring out some internally consistent *moral system* then play around and reshape the system through trial and error, no matter how immoral the errors turn out to be. You made it, you turned ethics into a playground, thanks to your moral realism.

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? 

I am not a moral realist, I think it can still be wrong with the absence of these properties. You are endorsing moral realism, so if you can't find something wrong - as defined in your system - in infidelitey, it renders the act perfectly moral and sweet in your worldview. You may not be **okay** with it, whatever the hell "okay" is supposed to mean, but that's irrelevant. If you don't want to follow any order, you better build the whole system you're advocating for. 

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.

You seem to have some delusion that we're playing with darts when it comes to morality. Just make sure you got it right with regard to afterlife not existing, being held accountable for what you're saying, doing, advocating ...

In the end, you simply abide by your local legal system, and adjust your retarded moral system accordingly, to appear cool and solid when writing in these forums. A moral system which, as I made it clear, doesn't and can't behave well when put into test. In the end, you'll do what everybody around you does, you'll be okay with legalizing homosexuality, prostitution, "healthy open marriages", and more . You're simply part of the slutty, secularized western system, nothing more, nothing moral.

It's understandable that, after every miserable failure of yours to patch theoretical holes in your atheism, you'll pull the 'I don't care' card. That's understandable because you think you won't be held accountable for that. Just make sure you got that last part right.

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?

I reject neither, I just happen to have different, more coherent definitions of what moral facts are, and why they are facts. It just seems to me that you think you're living in a universe immune from a possible god / a possible afterlife. I suggest you re-ead a very important sentence I wrote to you : if your senses can easily deceive you, so can your rational thought with regard to ethics, and the stinky, unethical products of your rational thought.