Same absolute argument is relevant to the concept of objective morality.
If the standards of morality aren’t objective, given by a source outside of human experience,
then they are arbitrary opinions, no better than their opposites.
Then it’s just a matter of “might makes right” - whoever can use force, be it physical size or a majority vote, to make others comply with their standard.
When the objective standard is recognized for what it is,
there is no question of who’s right - does your opinion match with the objective standard or not?
The really interesting thing is that science not only recognizes, but depends on objective absolute standards. It is critical to have equipment calibrated to that standard so that results from different sources can be compared for verification.
For the scientist/atheist to then turn around and declare that in some other arena, there is no absolute standard, or no need for one, is hypocritical to an astounding degree.
But it’s no surprise. While everyone wants precision, accuracy, and accountability within scientific endeavor, nobody is a big fan of having their morals held to the same rigorous standard which they demand of their lab work.
True enough.