>>1837378No, that's not how 'right and wrong' works. You're claiming that you decide 'right and wrong' for everybody.
You also did not answer
>Besides, claiming to be agnostic on one subject and not on others is absurd.Also, you are claiming knowledge of 'right and wrong' while claiming to be agnostic. That's beyond material phenomena.
If you're going to claim biology (which is based on many non-material factors and axioms), then might makes right. I've taken what I've wanted and defended my claim, so I am in the right. I have reproduced, so I am in the right.
>>1837388You are caught up in countless other dogmas. 'values and morals' do not exist without that 'dogma'. In addition, they have no value without the dogma.
In addition, agnosticism means agnosticism, as in non-knowledge in general. Call yourself an atheist or begin fence-sitting on every single topic, including every single moral topic and moral judgement.
You're deluding yourself otherwise.
