>A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a
>hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY
>moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form,
>than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he
>says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This
>person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany.
>It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his
>doctrine of relativity.


Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this in the first place. But remember I also wrote that emotion dictates much of our thought. For example, if a community is perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the emotional thing to do.

This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of emotional reasoning.


>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and
>I can go.


Don't flatter yourself.




>>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates
>it
>>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!
>
>Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue
>that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism
>to.... ready?
>
>Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such
>that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door
>leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time
>my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room
>and enter it.
>
>Now...
>
>Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.
>
>Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell
>you that the light is "on" in my room.
>
>Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing
>that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is
>on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to
>reality or it does not.
>
>You are calling my announcement that the "light is on"
>(subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a
>statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.
>
>That's ridiculous.
>
>My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere
>opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the
>room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is
>EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments. However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that is more valid.



>LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
>I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that
>reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...
>
>Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on
>this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing
>THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY
>unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon
>over another (relativism), which precisely their position!
>They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!


I have already concurred with this several times. I disagree with the notion that religious activism is any different. You keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.



>>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>>principle?
>
>Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then
>I'll be happy to answer that.

>
>>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that
>is
>>infinite?
>
>IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there
>cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.
>
>HOWEVER
>
>I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's
>existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian
>God's existence is much more obvious than that.
>
>


It is? Pray tell.