Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

You can't seem to decide.  Here at the beginning you say that you do disagree, but by the end you say that you don't.  There either are..or there aren't... moral facts.  It really is one or the other. 

I think I didn't frame that correctly. There are true moral statements out there, but we disagee on which ones. And saying that moral realism = there are moral facts isn't, I think, correct. The word fact means, to me, a true logical statement, that could or couldn't be confirmed by external reality.

It's true, though, that moral realism contends that things simply can't be wrong without some bad-making property.  It was actually your explanation for why infidelity could be bad that lead to the rational conclusion that it may not be.  Open relationships don't work for me...and I doubt that you've had pussy since pussy had you...but some people simply aren't harmed by it, and it makes little sense to call it wrong if no one is being harmed.

Actually, if we don't call something like infidelity wrong, obligations of marriage will be taken more lightly than if there was a clear condemnation. Your moral realism implies that, if no one is harmed at the scene, it's open season for infidelity. Namely, it doesn't care much about the long term consequences, or how it changes people's cultural view of marriage, or any other commited relationship.

If that's what you think, that drugging a girl before raping her makes it somehow less or not wrong - then what can I say?  This has literally nothing to do with atheism, lol.  The existence of moral facts doesn't mean that everyone will agree on them.

It's a consequence of atheism. I am pointing out to scenarios where the optimal moral decision seems to be a simple imperative, without overthinking. And I don't get why you're so allergic to following orders, it's trivial to include a set of axioms in any moral system (don't kill, don't rape, etc.) that, although unfounded, wouldn't warrant religion.

...and now you're the dipshit threatening me with hell..as though I believed in hell, or it would matter if I believed in hell.  I don't, and it doesn't.  I can only tell you this so many times in so many ways.  If doing the right thing gets me sent to hell..I guess that's where I'm going.  If doing the wrong thing gets me into heaven..I'll never make it in.  There's really nothing I can do about either situation..nothing I can do to prevent some silly god from doing what it wants.  

I have a moral system....it's not a bid to get an all expenses vacay to the land of liquor rivers and cherubic sex dolls.  I can save you alot of trouble.  Assume that I'm going to hell.  So what?  The question of an acts moral status is a question about that act, not about where my soul might one day end up.

I didn't mean for that to be a threat. I was simply wondering where your certainty of all other religious people being wrong comes from. Sure, I, too, didn't look up thousands of religions hard enough, but I sticked to an answer and joined the fight, with some hypothetical chances of getting the right answer.

I actually came to this forum exactly for that. I hoped I could find a decisive rebuttal of the Qur'an, a good case that literary achievements with superior quality could be made, a clear mistake that would leave no doubt to any curious reader's mind that this religion is a fake. But all I got was moral complaints, Muhammad did this, Muhammad didn't do that ...

I don't want to spend my life praying and fasting for some delusional hope either. But the total absence of good rebuttals to my position got me to think that maybe I am not wasting my time.

I've managed to trudge through my turgid existence without becoming a child molesting warlord.  I don't draw a blank as to why rape is bad or imagine that drugging the victim makes it better.   

Seems to be working well enough for me. 

I see. Now you take refuge in your personal experience, if an erroneous moral position worked well for you, specifically, then that makes it less erroneous.