"Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws, whether natural or divine. Moral relativism says anything goes …but does it? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?

C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most quarrels as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those quarrels is a concept of fairness, as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates? "

-from a philosophy page online.

The stupidity of it offends me deeply, I was just trying to go online to find a decent definition of moral relativism and I had the misfortune to stumble across this bullshit. too tired to state why, anyone with any background on philosophy and isn't a dumbass theist apologetic will get what's wrong with it.

You're all horrifically STUPID.

Soooo about that Market Anarchy?

why pro-choice is better - after two days of work, it is finally finished.

I walk past a row of graves, they are all different, but the same.

One life, One death.

draw dil - it'd be great if someone were to advertize this..

Positions:

libertarian, moral subjectivist, determinist, strong atheist, existentialist, materialist.

I know existentialism seems a bit contradictory to my other schools of thoughts, but I can explain myself.