On the one hand
As an atheist, I don‘t deny that I am a moral relativist (TCD 232).
On the other hand
RE: Triablogue. Here again, Parsival shows non-expertise. On August 6, 2010, Paul Manata of Triablogue tried to supposedly expose my non-expertise in epistemology and metaethics. But Triablogue had to take the post down due to flagrant ethical violations brought to their attention by the persons they were quoting in the post. Did Parsival not hear about that? So how much of an expertise in metaethics was shown by the operators of Triablogue if they themselves had to delete a post due to ethical problems?
i) How can Avalos ascribe “flagrant ethical violations” to a post when he’s a moral relativist?
ii) It wasn’t taken down due to ethical problems. It was taken down because Avalos, acting like a little pansy, contacted some of the individuals who panned his incompetent argument as a pressure tactic to censure Manata’s post.
I think Hector’s basic problem is that he suffers from a social inferiority complex. He’s ashamed of his humble origins. Ashamed of his lowly background as a poor Mexican preacher-boy. Ashamed of the lower class Pentecostalism he used to espouse. When you’re trying to impress the faculty at Harvard Divinity School, that’s not the sort of thing you want to be reminded of.
(Of course, from a Christian standpoint, poverty is nothing to be ashamed of. Joseph and Mary were poor. Jesus was poor.)