That "it is about your morals" doesn't imply that it is a moral absolute. It's not an absolute statement, and it's not a statement that suggests an absolute moral framework (which is the sense in which you're using the term "absolute"). It's not even a normative statement, much less an absolute normative statement (which is generally what "moral absolute" means).

I think you're missing my point. You're basically saying that with no absolute morality we can have no basis for criticizing those who go around murdering our families. That's not the case at all. You also seem to be suggesting that there would be no way to stop such people without absolute morality; that's absurd, as morality doesn't even have an impact on how we stop these people - they are going to be immoral regardless of our moral systems, and we can either deter them or (if unsuccessful in that) we can kill/imprison them. Morality doesn't enter the picture.

This is just equivocation and semantics. Nobody has ever claimed that one can't make "absolute" (defining "absolute" as referencing all rather than some). The claim is that no moral system applies universally and that no moral system is ultimate. You can't change your definition of "absolute" in mid-stream.

So if "God" said rape and murder were alright, that would make it okay?

Moral Absolutism is just Moral Relativism in sheep's clothing.

A "moral absolute" is not a definitive statement concerning morals, it is a moral rule or framework or point-of-view that is not subject to change, no matter when or where or any other circumstances.

It's obviously not my place to tell you what to do, but if you honestly do not understand this distinction, in my opinion you shouldn't be participating in this thread, you should be seriously thinking about what you are talking about and trying to truly make sense of it for yourself -- and not just parroting back something that your father or your friend told you, or something you heard in church.

You are being foolish in this thread, as everyone has attempted to point out to you with specific details; no skin off my nose if you are simply not interested in listening or are too stupid to understand.

Yes. The standard is benefit vs. harm. Anything else does not fall within the definition of 'morality.'

Again, this does not fall under the definition of morality. Morality is definitively what you consider to be right and wrong. One cannot 'command' morality, god included. This is nonsensical. To easily understand this, simply ask yourself by what 'code' do you judge whether these commandments are right or wrong?

Why exactly would this mean I could not call what he did wrong? It certainly disagrees with my moral standard. And you still seem to be under the misconception that 'relative morality' means 'just pick whatever you want.' It does not. That different people can consider different things good or bad does not somehow imply that we cannot identify which option is the best.

Bingo. If whoever (God, in your case) passed these morals down to you told you rape and murder were morally okay, would you actually think that they were? It should be fairly clear now that morality cannot be dictated.

You have said this a couple times. I would appreciate an explanation as to why this is true as opposed to simply asserting it.

No. What a moral relativist means when he states 'there are no moral absolutes' is that there is no absolute instance in which there is definitively a 'right' or a 'wrong' regarding an action. This is what a moral absolute is. 'There are no moral absolutes' is not an instance in which there is definitively a 'right' or 'wrong' regarding an action and therefore is not a moral absolute.

Good. You are fulfilling your duty as per 1 Peter 3:15.

It is quite a stretch to go from 'we have a conscience' to 'this is a moral law written upon our hearts by God' and is one that you will need to demonstrate. As a human being, I understand that I do not like to be hurt. It does not take a lot then for me to be able to extend this idea to other people, identifying that they do not like to be hurt either. In fact, it is pretty simple.

No. He just is not assuming that god does exist.

So far, you have yet to make a case that even morality is evidence that a god exists. Even if we accept the fallacious arguments you have put forth so far, that does not automatically imply that it then must be a god who gave us morality. 'Moral relativism' or 'god did it' is not a true dichotomy.

You can't debate the finer points of football with someone who doesn't get that football isn't the sport where you hit each other with boxing gloves.

I'm going to postulate that, since the guy doesn't already get this (and its been pointed out that he's wrong here several times), this is pointless. He fundamentally doesn't understand basic english sentence structure. To get further you have to teach him english....

You cannot debate the finer points of football with someone who doesn't get that football isn't one of the finer points of football.

I shall phrase my answer in the form of someone elses youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNWqvEIcJpo

Euthyphro Dilemma and more. TLDR verson: skip to 5:30

Best series I've seen on YouTube in a long time.

People get so caught up in defining morality and the idea that things are "right" and "wrong". People should be paying more attention to their actions and the consequences.

In reality, me walking up to the cashier at McDonald's and stabbing her in the face is not inherently "wrong" or "bad". However, we can all accept that being stabbed in the face is no fun and therefore it'd be very much so preferable that we didn't stab McDonald's cashiers in the face. So hence, we define stabbing cashiers in the face as "wrong" since it caused an unfavourable outcome.

To get caught up in "what's wrong and how do you define it" is missing the point. Which is that some actions affect people negatively and it'd be best not to hurt people in these ways.

People are obsessed with figuring out what's "wrong" because apparently you "shouldn't" do these things. It's like what problem could you have with two grown men consensually ****ing each other in the ass? They both want to do it, and gain pleasure from it so what's the issue?