We are talking about moral epistemology here about the reality of objective moral values. Whether someone is theist or not is beside the point all together.

Dude, you brought it up and I answered. Follow up..

Atheist can act morally and theist immorally, but even then, according to your point of view there is no moral or immoral.

Exactly. Again, I was answering based on your own perception to demonstrate how subjective this is. again. follow up.

Whether or not it is written in a particular book is also beside the point. (that's moral ontology)

i know. exactly my point.

On the theist side, moral values are a transcendent reality, they are true independently to individual preferences.

not always. hence the thousands of heresies. each person on the face of this earth is his own special moral compass. No two people hold the same morality. not even the same person holds the same morality at different times of the day.

But at this point, I think it's pointless to talk because in the post-modern point of view that you are holding on to, truth doesn't even exist..."everything is relative" as you say..

no need to give it a name. "postmodern". I am trying to demonstrate to you EPISTEMOLOGICALLY . that your position is erroneous based on Popper's falsification. The burden of proof is on you. I merely hold the null hypothesis. You have to demonstrate everything else - hence why you drilled on the subject on a personal matter (what i think) rather than examine it philosophically. (you just started doing it).

But then...is it objectively true that everything is relative? If so, you are living in a contradiction...if not, not everything is relative.

Everything is relative including this statement. No need to put words in my mouth man. Now. All you have to do is demonstrate something, a premise that falsifies mine. I am waiting.