The Theory. . .

There is a new theory floating around this planet that many people have taken firm hold of. It isn't actually new, but it's far more pervasive than any other time in history. This theory is that there are no moral absolutes. It's a completely atheistic idea.
To start with, it is founded upon the premise that there is no God. If there is no God, then several other things must go. First of all is morality. See, God is the source of morals--or at least, that's the claim made by all religions (except Buddhism, which is atheistic). So if there is no God, who says morals are true?
No one, except for the religious people. But if the religious people are just people, what makes them right? Nothing. So, their morals are fine for them, but that doesn't mean they're true. From this, it follows that there is no truth.
So all this is built on the fact that there is no God. So to refute this theory, all that must be done is to prove the existence of God. This is really hard, however, but not because there are no proofs. It's hard because the people who don't believe in God will cling to any tiny thing that could possibly be a difficulty for religion.
Since I'm not sure how to go about proving God, I'll just refute the idea of no absolutes.
Here's the first thing: There are absolutely no absolutes. I emphasized "absolutely" for the convenience of the reader. My view of the universe is only true for me, and yours only for you. Well, but my view of the universe states that there are absolutes. So that one isn't valid? Doesn't that mean that the only truth is that there are no truths? That's self-refuting.
Also, there's another big problem. What makes moral laws so different from the laws of physics? Just like the laws of physics are a vital part to the behavior of the universe, moral laws are a vital part of human behavior.
So here's an illustration. Right now, it is winter, and therefore it is cold. I don't like the cold. So, if physical laws are as malleable as we say that moral laws are, I can just say that it's mid-summer and 100 degrees outside, right? But if I decide to go swimming to ward off the heat, I'm going to freeze.
Moral laws are the same. Even if I don't like that I'm not allowed to kill, I'm still breaking a law if I decide to murder, both moral and civil laws.
If I applied this s upposed flexibility to anything but morality, it would cause some tremendous problems for me. Every sane person understands that. So it's just insane to apply such looseness to morality.
I don't know if any of my readers believes in the personalizing of morals, or knows someone who does, but I thought I'd write about it anyway.
Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell