I don't have a disbelief in absolutes, just that there is a way to have an absolute moral authority.
I think you're stumbling over the word "authority." Let me reword what I mean by it, so it's less offensive to you, and so that you can see why I would say that with no "authority" there are no absolutes. Let the phrase "duty-to-obey" stand in the place of the offensive word. If there is not written into the universe somehow a "duty-to-obey" a particular moral precept, then by definition that precept isn't what we can call "absolute." And absolute has to be something that ought
to be obeyed, even when it is not being: i.e. we have an absolute duty to it, whether we recognize it or not.
So again we should ask, do you disbelieve in moral absolutes, now under that improved definition?
Epistemologically yes but the history of morality and the history of philosophy shows that its a fruitless task and time to move on.
That's irrational, unless universal assent is somehow deemed necessary. But I can't see any reason it would be. And if, as you say, you do believe in absolutes, these absolutes certainly could not be contingent on universal recognition.
People agree and disagree about all kinds of things that we know to be facts. A "Flat Earth" society still exists, but I don't think reasonable people join it. Some people still read their horoscopes, but I don't think that suggests there's no answer to whether or not stars determine our destinies. Some people believe in reincarnation, and some deny it: but that disagreement does not mean that reincarnation will start or stop happening simply because disagreement exists. In all cases, disagreement does
prove that people have possession of different degrees of the truth; it does not
tell us one iota about whether or not a truth exists over which they are disagreeing. That's pretty basic logic, really.
We don't [know, absent any higher code, any moral facts] and the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' also vary across time and cultures. How we decide is by the actions of those who agree or disagree.
So forcible slavery is not really, ultimately "wrong'? Wife beating is "right" in cultures that believe it is? Child molestation is "okay" if lots of people practice it? And the Holocaust wouldn't have been "wrong" if enough people had agreed
with it? You're happy with those consequences? Because they are the logical corollaries of what you just said.
I doubt you're happy with that. You don't seem the type, so far as I can judge. I think you do want to advocate extreme libertarianism of some kind, but I hesitate to attribute a willingness to justify any of the above to you...
Will you accept those consequences, or do you deny them?