Originally Posted by WilliamBlue

Yeah, good thing you have that book, you might become a crack smoking thief . The bibles morals are preceded by other books and they all are pretty much the same, the bible did not invent morals.

I believe that morals are an invention of nature so that we can all get along in a group, that being said if you are not considered part of a group their morals may or may not apply to you. So I believe they can be both fixed and relative to whatever group (tribe/religion) you are in.

http://www.leaderu.com/wri-table2/morals.html#Primitive

The Hindus have a cool one;

Originally Posted by Absolute

Within logic there is no such thing like “relative truth”. The belief in the absence of absolute truth is a logical impossibility because of this: Assume for a moment that there is no absolute truth. If there is no absolute truth, the statement itself (“There is no absolute truth”) is not absolute true, too. So it may be false. But in this case, its opposite is true: “There is absolute truth”. Hence we have inferred something with its opposite at the same time. The law of noncontradiction forces us to conclude that the original statement is self-contradictory and therefore false. So only its opposite can be true: There is absolute truth. A question for doubters: Is your existence an absolute truth?

This problem stands for an important characteristic of relativism: you end up very often with self-contradicting statements, which cannot logically be true. Consider e.g. a statement I once heard from a liberal activist: “Since there are no absolute moral values, you ought to tolerate the relative moral values of other cultures”. What sounds so nice is a logical flaw: The first part of the sentence presumes that no absolute moral values exist. In the second part, you “ought” to do something, namely tolerate other moral values. But this is already a moral value itself! If the request “You ought to tolerate” is not an absolute moral value (according to the premise of the sentence), it must be a relative one. But then its opposite must be tolerated too! Imagine a culture which does not tolerate the moral values of other cultures (such a culture can easily be found). According to the second part of the sentence you ought to tolerate this intolerance, which is a direct contradiction to the statement. And if “ought to” is not a moral absolute, why should I “ought”? So the self-contradiction here is the demand to tolerate, which is an implicit presumed absolute and at the same time the statement says that there are no moral absolutes.

To avoid such self-contradictions, you only can assume that there are absolute moral values! This is the only logically consistent way. Otherwise you never could use words like “it is better if…” or “you should…” etc. accurately, because if moral values are relative then these words can only express personal opinions and can not be imposed on other people. An atheist recently said to me that there could be no “good” God because of all the evil in the world. But since my atheistic friend does not believe in moral absolutes, why is something really evil at all? It may be my friend’s opinion that certain things he thinks are evil, but without an absolute reference point, why should God consider these things as evil, too? Why impose my own standards on God? Again, the admittance of the existence of evil in the world implies that there is an absolute measure for it. Some object that a statement like “You are beautiful” is only relatively true since this is a matter of opinion. But this is not so, because if two people would agree what the meaning of the word “beautiful” is, e.g. with the help of a long list which defines this word, they surely would also agree about what is beautiful. So this “relativism” is only lack of agreement concerning semantics. They simply don’t mean the same thing when talking about “beautiful” things. Last but not least, there are logical inconsistencies with moral relativism like these: Moral relativists proclaim that they are inclusive and non-partisan. This of course is also a selfcontradictory statement because they exclude the party of moral objectivists.

Originally Posted by B-continum

There was nothing wrong with the proof for 'absolute truth'. However, the only absolute truths are to be found in mathematics. If you come back to the issue at hand, morality, you can't say that because morality is a human construct. The ideas of good and bad are subjective values that humans give to things and issues. Seeing as morality is based on what is good and what is bad, morality is also subjective.

And before the absolute truth bit is brought up again, answer this: what is truth? Is it good, bad or morally neutral?