there is so much wrong in the OP its tiresome just to read.

Many of you are arguing against my stance in invalid ways.

Firstly, moral relativism IS constructed against itself.

Saying that there are no moral absolutes IS AN ABSOLUTE! You can try to dance around it, but at the end of the day it is what it is.

Secondly.

I see a few different arguments coming at me about the McDonalds guy.

There are so many fallacies in the arguments all of you are bringing up but if I didn't have 10 people coming at me at once, I would be able to answer them all specifically and deconstruct each and every one. This may take a while, but I will be responding to each one in the chronological order they appear. I have school and work, so please be patient I will get to yours.

This is the only bad part of being a Christian in these forums, I'm kind of alone and it ends up being 100vs1 in these types of threads. But I will try my best to answer all responses. I just wanted to let you all know what I am doing to respond so you don't think I am dodging your questions and avoiding responding.

Indeed. What the man should say is that ABSOLUTE morals was what made him do it, and then we'd all smile and crack some jokes.

there are many Christian posters on this forum, feel free to be patient and see if any of them come to your support.

OP what if we are caught in a traditional philosophical interpretation that is only partially true.

I say that because the 10 Commandments and Levitical Laws were given in the OT but Christians are now under new improved commandments.

The old commandments known as the absolutes are like poles or reference points for us so we can identify right from wrong or evil from good. As these poles get closer together due to more and more complex circumstances we can shift to a type of moral relativism that is guided by the Spirit because instead of having the 10 Commandments we instead have the Golden Rule which is 2 Spirit Guided commandments.

If you read the Scriptures and aim for the fruits of the Spirit, use the 2 Commandments and simply ask yourself what would Jesus do in this situation you can come pretty close to getting most moral dilemmas right.

Moral dilemmas are a result of the fall. We didn't have any in the Garden of Eden. The need for morality only arose because we fell.

So I think we are still caught in old time frozen philosophical dualism concepts. The Spirit allows flexibility between the 2 poles. Its just a matter of when you act flexibly did you act in the true spirit or not.

who cares. its not a moral absolute.

Moral relativists don't say there is no absolutes. They say there are no moral absolutes.

sheesh

In my experience, this is shorthand for: I'm ******ed and I watch a good deal of televised sports.

No, it isn't. The fact that you say it is doesn't make it true. If you think you can prove it or provide a link to some authority backing you up, feel free. But frankly, I think you're just making this up.

Think about it this way OP.

The truth about morality is its a paradoxical truth.

It is both absolute and relative at the same time. Its relative because when you do unto others as you would have do unto you the relative standard is yourself.

Also when you imitate Christ: God or Christ is called The Absolute.

Also Christ himself broke the OT laws when the spirit of the law was violated. That was his whole beef with the Pharisees. They were unwashed cups. They were form without substance.

With Moral Relativism its the individual.

You're right, I was wrong. I was confusing it with something else.

Will be grunching over the next few posts as I read through the thread.

Firstly, the Argument from Morality is one of the worst theistic arguments there is. Morality cannot be arbitrarily dictated by somebody (you can call it 'his nature' or whatever you want, but this is no different from arbitrarily assigning rules, at least not in the abstract). Morality is necessarily what you consider to be right and wrong. It then follows that somebody else arbitrarily dictating what is right and what is wrong does not make sense.

Secondly, objective morality is possible through naturalistic means. The Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism are two examples.

Thirdly, you have some misconceptions about what moral relativism implies. I will try to explain some of that in the following.

The concept is correct, in that it means different people can have different ideas about what is right and wrong. However, to say 'what is right for you is right for you... and that is okay' is misleading. Moral relativism does not mean that every judgment is on an equal level. For one, it is possible to consider that something is 'right' in and of itself, but that that something carries with it necessary consequences which are harmful. Moral relativism does not mean we cannot reach a consensus about what is best. For another, that something is subjective does not mean that there has to be a wide variety of opinion on the matter. Something can be subjective, yet the majority, in fact the entire population, can still agree on it. Most people would probably agree that dog crap on pizza would taste bad. It is still subjective.

That is ridiculous. I do not think most would make that claim. And it certainly is not a necessary claim of moral relativism. Perhaps you misunderstood what those people were trying to tell you. It is not necessarily that everything is relative, just morality. The 'everything is relative' claim is not a position most people hold, and is fairly naive. If one does want to hold that position, however, the exception would of course be that 'everything is relative.' There is nothing logically wrong with everything being relative (with the exception of 'everything being relative').

This argument is commonly put forth by proponents of the Argument from Morality and it is false. In fact, it is absurd and borders on intellectual dishonesty. That different people consider different things right and wrong does not somehow magically imply that we cannot identify what is harmful and what is beneficial to us and others. It also does not imply that we cannot identify things that we would not like to have done to us and that we are not able to extend that idea to others. It does not imply that we cannot empathize and act on that empathy. Moral relativism does not mean that we can just all do whatever we want to and that nobody can reasonably object to it. This assertion is wildly inaccurate.

I've got money saying OP responds with even more capslock, or doesn't respond at all.

Who says what I think is right and wrong in those situations? I do... who else would it be?

By my moral code? Of course not. Not by most other people's either. In fact, we all pretty much agree it is wrong because it was so detrimental.

They are wrong by my, and most other's moral code as well.

Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase batair's question: Hypothetically if god declared it was morally good to murder families, would you consider it morally good? This should illustrate the major problem with the Argument from Morality.

Well wait a minute now, rationality is not subjective. It means pertaining to reason. Having a rational basis for morality does not mean 'just pick whatever the hell you want.' It means having reason as the basis for our actions. We all pretty much agree that that reason is benefit vs. harm. That which is overall beneficial is morally good and that which is overall harmful is morally bad.

its difficult to have conversations with theists when they rarely understand any of the words or concepts they try to address.

From this thread alone the OP has been confused about:
What moral relativists believe/how it works
what "rationality" is

This is like all the threads where theists describe all the things atheists believe....

You mentioned this in the OP too. I look forward to seeing you demonstrate it.

In a sense, yes. But that really does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. And it certainly is not a moral absolute.

1. Yes, I know this because it is what the Bible says, and it is demonstrated throughout the entire Bible.

2. That is exactly what I said, I'm not entirely sure where you are getting off saying that I need to learn my own religion, as I was the one who said sinning is impossible for God because it goes against his nature in the first place.

3. Not sure where you are getting at with this either. Please explain.

I apologize if my one example of the rapist seemed to make my argument appear to be invalid. I was simply using an extreme situation to get my point across.

The point that I am trying to get across is there has to be a specific standard of what is right and wrong, a source of where those standards came from, which is God and his commandments.

I wasn't really focusing on the rapist's motives, the point was to make that in a moral relativistic world, he could say that it is right for him and you would not be able to tell him he was wrong, because he makes his own morals because morals are relative.

As far as the topics you mention in which Moral Relativism is accurate, I will address them accordingly:

Vegetarianism is not wrong.
Abortion is murder.
I will agree with you that manners and etiquette are relativistic in the sense that some people consider certain things to be polite, and others don't.

I'm assuming acism was meant to be typed as racism. God clearly directs everyone to love each other as you would love Christ, no matter what race.
And to be completely honest I am not that familiar with Statism.

Euthanization, that depends on the type of euthanization you are are referring to.

Ok, so if whoever passed morals down on to me said rape and murder (as well as not so "serious" ethical issues) were alright, then that would make it okay?

1. I apologize for the wording of my argument, it seems to be confusing people on the point I was trying to get across. The point I was trying to make was that saying there are no MORAL absolute IS a MORAL absolute, because it is about your MORALS.

2. To be honest, I would have to refrain myself from doing the same. But that would go against what God commands us to do.

As far your stance that that the sentence "Moral relativists believe there are no moral absolutes." is not a moral absolute, its obvious that it is. You are claiming that just because the subject matter is moral absolutes does not make it a moral absolute, is a major fallacy and does not make sense at all.

The belief "There are no apples." (forgive me for the poor example) is an absolute about apples because it is saying there are NO apples and it is talking about apples, so therefore it is an "apples absolute" if you will. The same applies to morals. Saying " there are no moral absolutes" is an absolute, which contradicts with itself because you are saying yourself that there are no moral absolutes, which is a moral absolute.

By the way (and this is for everybody reading this thread and participating), I am really not trying to come off as condescending or rude, but as a Christian I owe it to myself to talk about this kind of stuff and "debate" (such an ugly word) what it is that I believe, to prove the validity (if only to myself) of what I believe. So just thank you for all that are participating, and now back to the topic. (sorry for the temporary derailment)

Ok, back to the response...

In your response you said, "Each of us as individuals acts as we wish, based on what we personally perceive to be right and wrong. That includes creating a legal system with lawyers and judges and courts and jails. In some places, it includes death as a penalty for some crimes." You are dancing around the fact that these beliefs that are right and wrong had to come from somewhere. As humans we all have consciences, which is God's law written upon our heart, to know what is right and what is wrong. I do agree that courts and jails and all of that have been made, which had to come from us knowing what is right and wrong, and those standards had to come from somewhere.

I agree with you that morals do not apply to rocks and stars, as they do not have the power to make moral decisions, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument or deconstructs mine.

Refer to my paragraph above regarding the locking the man in jail and frowning upon what he did.

You will have to elaborate more on the Hitler/Mr. Rogers point, as I'm not sure I completely understand it.

In that paragraph about the argument hinging upon an invisible God existing, you are correct. But you are assuming that God doesn't exist which would make moral absolutes invalid, but the argument that God exists is a whole other topic entirely, and another thread should be made. Moral absolutes are not the only evidence of God's existence. But for now we should stay on the topic of Moral Absolutes/ Moral Relativism.

Your final paragraph seems to be simply agreeing with my point. Also I am pressed for time so perhaps I will be able to discuss that paragraph with you further at a later date.

The fact that beliefs have to come from somewhere does not necessarily entail that that "somewhere" is handed down by God. An alternative theory is that the development of a conscience favoured reproduction. As I believe I wrote above we can derive moral positions through the use of reason.

Do you really think we are all imbued with the exact same notions of right and wrong? This seems to be demonstrably false. What are we then to conclude? That God writes different ideas of right or wrong on different people's hearts? And that some of those notions are diametrically opposed? Or is it just Satan who comes in and alters God's imprint in everybody?