Someone looked me in the eye, figuratively, and said, "morals are relative. You know that. We have morals because for a million years we had to keep telling the next generation what would hurt them until it finally sunk in". I may have misquoted him here but it translates out the same. He implied this moral "sense" took so long it actually found its way into our genes. He then jumped the shark by saying his position on morals upholds the right of women to choose. He asked why should a mother have to carry a baby that's not even part of her body? THAT triggered a WTF moment but it soon passed.
There are rules surrounding the areas of epistemology and communication and reason. There are rules of grammar, evidence, logic, and there are levels of proofs that have been described and defined for centuries by philosophers and scientists and historians and mathematicians. There are systems of arriving at conclusions that use premises and propositions and induction and deduction and inference.
Learning these rules as we mature is like learning table manners or etiquette or how to carry on a polite conversation. I won't go hungry at a company dinner if I eat my mash potatoes with my fingers but I won't get invited again. These rules I'm talking about MUST be obeyed if differences of opinion are going to be resolved or correct strategies discovered or truths exposed that impact our existence as civilized people.
We have an entire couple of generations of people in this country who have never been exposed to these rules, don't know they exist and therefore haven't a clue as to why much of what they say is nonsense. Are you familiar with presuppositional apologetics? I can't explain it here as its more complicated than it appears but because I don't have the time or inclination to teach a course in clear thinking and communication to these people, I have drifted almost entirely to the application of presuppositional apologetics with them. Cornelius Van Till is the man to read if you're interested.
Its like this. I can't accept a claim that a theistic, personal, all knowing and morally righteous (holy) God doesnt exist. There are laws regulating the evaluation of truth claims embedded in and actually comprising the foundation of reality. They are not self refuting. You can't tell me with a straight face that God isn't all powerful because he can't make a rock too heavy for him to lift. In other words any statement you make denying the truth of reality is rendered false by the laws you must use to make your statement.
You say morality is relative and that man developed morality as an evolutionary survival mechanism? Who told you that? Its false. Morality is absolute. If something is evil its always been evil and will be tomorrow. Good things are good. Period. They're good because they're good. You're saying a cognizant, rational, artistic, creative and empathetic species of hominid needed millions of years to figure out that its evil to kill one of its own, a baby, a developing child, for fun? Or to please the gods or for convenience. The very first man in existence, Adam, the one created by God, knew it was evil. And so did his wife and kids and their wives and kids. We ALL know it. You know it. Get outa here with this relative morality jabber.