Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[LadyForCamus]

No moral system is based on any religious premise.  Religious premises are added as relevant purported facts to moral systems open to all human beings regardless of their beliefs.  

For example, a person who believes that right and wrong are based on gods will and a person who believes that right and wrong are based on how happy something makes them.... are subjectivists. 

I don't think basing what's right and wrong on gods makes one a subjectivist. Scripture won't change you know, what Allah said in the Qur'an will never be altered. As of the "what if god said otherwise ?" Then yeah, the hell it'll be otherwise - except god will never say otherwise. If God's words are unchanging, that makes religious people morally absolutists.
The famous story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac is a good illustration of that, it's in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Qur'an. God literally asks Abraham to perform an unspeakably horrific act, Abraham obeyed God's command which in the end turned out to be a mere test of what comes first : our innate sense of morality or God's command?
The latter two don't actually diverge much : God didn't allow Abraham to perform the horrific act, but he still wanted him to put his word first. In the end, if God is the creator, he's the one who made us see these acts as horrific, so listening to this moral compass - that god put in us - or listening to god .. is the same thing.

Grounded in subjectivism, yes.  If god said otherwise, would it be otherwise?  As a person who refers to moral facts, I don't think so.  What is good is good no matter what anyone has to say on the matter, and what is wrong is wrong no matter what anyone has to say on the matter.  That's bound up in what it means for something to be a fact.

I don't think moral facts will get you very far on other issues. What distinguishes fornication/cheating from sex with a spouse? They refer to the same act, they're both consensual, but one is hugely immoral.

As for clear answers, there's a huge set of clear and simple answers to questions that are wholly and irreconcilably wrong.   Clarity is no certification of accuracy...and "god said so" makes nothing objectively right or wrong at all.  Islam is a moral nonstarter - from a realists perspective.  If you wanted to advocate for more reliable moral systems, then you'd need to start advocating for a moral system in the first place.  Following orders is not a moral system.  That you can't specify goodness outside of those orders very persuasively argues that you have no inherent moral sense, or compass, nor any moral agency whatsoever.  If it were true, ofc...which I strongly doubt to be the case.

I actually prefer to follow orders when it comes to skullfucking. Following orders is a very good moral system at least with the basic issues - rape, murder, fornication, etc. I prefer Peter Singer being told that he's not obeying god's law rather than respond with lengthy moral discussions of his utilitarian position. Singer is a good example where it's not worth it to think much about the intricacies of moral systems, we just know something is horribly wrong with his position. If you think Peter Singer shouldn't merely follow the order of not killing haemophiliac infants, you need to play in his territory, namely discussing and refuting utilitaniarism. And by doing so you're already giving his horribly wrong position some credit.
And religions of course go father than just following these primitive orders, they can build jurisdictions based on the holy texts to answer more complicated issues.

---

Why is it immoral to rape someone, Klorophyll?

Because it's harmful, I guess.

You needed a god for that?