You must have missed the generality of the initial comment (somehow) - I wonder why. Well, not really since I used to try the same tactics when I was an apologist (with that same absolutist mindset). "Just show him that without a God there is no morality. That'll make'em squirm!" But it doesn't.
The larger point is that I reject any notion that morality has anything to do, whatsoever, with any appeal to the theological (since I find no reason for thinking the theological is anything more than fiction - which of course I stated in that post and which you ignored). For me, morality has to do (generally speaking) with well being (that which is generally good/beneficial for human flourishing vs that which is not) and it's not a dogma either (like the bible you hold so dear), as it can be easily overturned (say for a Nietzschean outlook etc, given good reason). Can your belief in the bible be easily overturned given counter evidence and demonstrated contradiction and/or error?
p.s - Why did you ignore the entirety of my first post there and just focus on one thing I said?
I have two points to make in response to the above post. First of all, in regards to my focusing on only one thing that you said - do you expect me to simultaneously respond to every point you have made any time I write something to you? Am I not reasonably entitled to ask some questions of clarification before writing an in depth response? Just because I ask a question about one thing you have said doesn't mean I am planning on ignoring the rest of your post.
Second, it seems to me that you think that just because I have been branded a 'theist' that everything I say must in some way be a roundabout argument for God's existence. If you care to re-examine the contents of this thread I think you will find that you are the only one who has brought religious notions such as God, the Bible, or the arguments of natural theology into this discussion. What was actually being discussed before you made your two posts (and Azdgari can correct me if I am wrong) was the epistemological question of what methods are valid for gaining knowledge. I was trying to defend the notion that there are some forms of knowledge (e.g. moral judgements, metaphysical statements, mathematical axioms, etc…) that are not dependent upon the scientific method for us to come to know them – I could very well be an atheist and still believe that. Incidentally, the question of whether or not moral absolutes exist is peripheral to the issues of whether or not moral judgements constitute knowledge and what methods we must use to obtain that knowledge.