The Moral Argument for God

[Pat Mustard]

I tend to think there is objective but not universal morality, although the larger portion of morality is culturally and personally subjective and a fair amount is arbitrary, I don't think we can construct a scenario where it is morally okay to use human infants as hockey pucks for fun. 

Certainly not.  That would just be wasteful when you consider how tasty they can be.

I think you're thinking 'bout California Cheeseburgers.

Edit: Replying to Roadrunner below

Bull shit! Absolute and utter garbage.

Lets take a look:

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
   

1) Why can't we, just because you can accept that other people with a different morality than you could be right, or that morality can be dependant on context doesn't preclude you from describing a wrong act as wrong.
2) The problem of evil is only a problem for monotheists, where their god has to be both the absolute good and the source of all evil. Not a problem for relativists.
3) See 1. The same issue arises
4) Again see 1.
5) Of course we can. We improve our morality much more readily than absolutists because we can acknowledge that others can have a more refined morality and learn from them than absolutists can. For absolutists their morality is already perfect and they cannot learn from others.
6) What is this I don't even. Look you're just getting into fractally wrong territory here. Claiming that moral relativists cannot have a meaningful discussion on morality is like claiming that astrophysicists can't explain the Doppler shift.
7) Hey, I'll just finish off by copying your usage of non-sequitur. Moral Absolutists cannot hook other players.