Alderic,

Yes, I KNOW there is such a thing as moral relativism...that's exactly what I'm writing about...As a matter of fact, moral relativism abounds in this day and age....and I bemoan this fact. The relativist dogma is that there are no absolutes, except relativism.

Which is my point, that you abscribe to their being absolutes when clearly...there is no such thing.

Your misunderstanding is due to failure to appreciate what faith and study really is and its basic role in the sphere of science and religion.  

Religion and science call for belief both by faith and study from whom?  An authority.

Divine faith isn't an emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather Divine faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen, and the acceptance of truth upon the authority of someone else. In religion it's Divine Authority, that cannot decieve or be decieved. 

Umm....yes. In science, even observation of data begins on human faith and study from a fallible human authority, that may or may not be right depending upon its personal integrity.   

Ah....the self refuting logic of relativism..If no truth is absolute, what about the "truth" that no truth is absolute??

Relativism is unscientific, illogical, self defeating, and dangerous.

There are of course alot of things that are absolute truths, there are also a hell of a lot of things that are relative. 

There is a truth about gods existance, there are realtive moral values.

Not forever.  

not true Dawia.  Our faith is not blind.  Now, that's a fallacy.   It's based on evidence.  Sure, we can't see God but we can see evidence of him everywhere.  When Jesus came it says he gave sight to the blind.  He did so in more ways than one you know.  There's physical blindness and there's spiritual blindness.  There are many seeing people who are very very blind. 

That's only because you believe what you see is not just evidence, but self-confirming proof.  No matter how you slice it, you cannot provide any evidence of God's existence or of the 'truth' of the Bible, only circular reasoning.

Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe you can't or shouldn't practice your religion and adhere to the beliefs you hold dear.  Just don't pretend those beliefs are something that they aren't.

I don't.  I'm not in the pretending business.  I gave up fiction a long time ago. 

Why don't you admit that there's a possiblity that you could be spiritually blinded? 

Couldn't that be true? 

 Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Prince of all Preachers) said, “Faith goes up the stairs that love has made and looks out the window which hope has opened.”

I for one am willing to admit that I could wrong in be denying the existance of your 'god'.  I am also willing to admit that I could be wrong in denying the existance of the flying spaggetti monster, etc.  I'm not willing to list the number of gods that I admit I could be wrong in denying the existance of.

If you prove a) that any god exists that your god exists over the evidence for every other god I will agree with you.

That was meant to be that.....

AGGHHHH  "b  )"

Because I'm not, and 'No.'

There is a possibility that little monkeys fly oughta my ass in the middle of the night while I'm asleep.

But ulimatly it is impossible to say 'there is no god'.  A god capable of creating the universe is also capable of hiding. 

It is possible to say that 'I think god existance is as likely as the existance of tiny invisable ass monkeys flying out of my ass every night'

With this I agree.

However, the impossibility of proving that there is no God is not evidence, let alone proof, that there is one.  We'll never know either way.

Actually that's not my job.  It's not up to me to prove God's existence.  Besides all that, even if I did, you wouldn't believe.  For most there isn't enough proof that would convince them. 

alrighty then.  You see just perfectly.  But you don't see God? 

ya, that's good.  But he says that if we seek him we will find him. 

It would be more correct for you to say "I don't know." 

Because I do know.