Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Humans disagree over facts all the time.

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality. Again, we don't claim moral deeds can't be done without believing, nor that religious people are morally superior. It's simply that we need guidance, because the moral systems we can come up are inherently fallible. And morality is too serious of a matter to leave it altogether to **rational inquiry**, especially, as I said, when there are so many divergent, and competing, viewpoints saying different things about issues as critical as rape, murder, etc.

I just don't need those facts, and if those facts existed.....which they don't... they would be subjective rather than objective facts - by definition.

And yet you failed, miserably, at pointing out what's wrong in infidelity from a realist viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, cheating is perfectly moral under your system if it goes unnoticed.

So, for example, if it is a fact that an open relationship is harmful, then it would be bad to be in an open relation. 

It is a fact that open relationships are harmful. Relationships are closed and should concern two people by definition. You're simply backing up all kinds of sexual depravity widespread and freely done in your country.

Consenting to an "open relationship" means there was no relationship to begin with, let's not play with the definitions.

Following?  Disagree?  Didn't you think it was compelling when you asserted that the little girl Big Mo raped didn't have a problem with it, and no one else complained? 

Muhammad married someone, pal. As I already said, if you really think it was rape, you might need to build a more solid case than mere assertion, that would be an outstanding historical insight already.

Since we're talking about traditional marriage, there is no possible comparison with an "open relationship" since it's an invalid, immoral engagement under any respectable moral system.

If I tell you that there's a certain amount of money in my pocket, and do not tell you an amount, wouldn't it be honest of you to say that you do not know how much money is in my pocket? In fact, wouldn't the most honest thing of all be to admit that you don't know if I even have any money in my pocket? I mean, certainly you wouldn't assume that I'm lying, but in all reality, isn't the most honest thing to admit that you don't even know if I'm carrying any money?

Your example is invalid in this context. The existence of god is hardly the same as the existence of money in your pocket. I already explained that if a just god exists, then he already left - as a result of his justness - clear evidence, or revelation for his existence. If there is no clear evidence then this just god surely doesn't exist.

---

Huh? How does this verse expressly forbid the murder of rape victims by their fathers? It might metaphorically do so, but I don't see the metaphor.

We don't need an explicit verse for every imaginable crime, you know. It's not how Islamic jurisprudence works.

And (apparently) some practitioners of Islam don't see the metaphor either because they brashly and without apology strangle their daughters to death for the crime of having been raped.

Then you can take it up with these practitioners in person.

Why don't you give a full and thoughtful analysis of why honor killings persist in areas of the world dominated by Islam?

Maybe because this world happens to be the Arab world, too? Where tribal values/practices still prevail despite *Islamic* ruling.