If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

One ought to be good.

One ought to do what is good, one ought not do what is bad.

How is one to know the difference?  Situationally, the same act can be good OR bad.  Furthermore, a well-intentioned 'good' act may have unforeseen bad consequences.

Boru

That’s a question of epistemology, but it’s irrelevant, since my point pertains to ontology. Even if we’re in agreement about all things good and bad, there has to be an overarching principle that we ought to do what’s good, or else try decipher what’s good in any particular scenario is irrelevant.

Secondly everyday moral problems, are almost never an issue of definition.

---

No, that is utterly dishonest. You said there was "a reality that posses moral purpose and aims" and I asked for a moral aim or goal provide by a reality.

It is provided by reality. Reality reveals that we ought to do
Good.

If there s something that everybody agrees on then all that tells you is that there is a unanimous opinion on the subject. It does NOT mean that reality is dictating a moral directive; it means that humans generally agree on a particular act being moral or not. The universe doesn't care and will not act in any way to punish somebody who has a different opinion.

If everybody acknowledges an elephant in front of them, you can be pretty sure there’s an elephant in front of us.

Most people acknowledges that that there a moral reality, that obligated us to do good. We perceive every-time we recognize good and evil, and this isn’t just in our heads, or a product of our imagination, but out there. Atheists like yourself may deny that such a reality exists, but I would view as a solipsist, or someone who believes the earth is flat. In fact your inability to hold morality as reducible to personal opinions, like your taste in clothes, or to say all is permissible, reveals the underlying deception and delusion you’re operating on.

That is also dishonest. I objected to morality being "reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies". There is a subjective component but reason is a major component as well.

Yes, the basis for why reason is a component, unlike subjective frills of personal opinions, is because morality requires truth. The only way morality can be discerned through reason is because morality is a matter of objective truth. Further evidence atheists such as yourself are confused, and contradictory.

Your statement is far too trivial to be useful in any way at all. Equating "moral" and "good" is pointless without defining what is good and that depends on what your goals are. Once we agree on the goal then we can use the facts of reality to evaluate which actions move us closer to that goal or further from that goal. Setting the goal IS subjective and not defined by the universe/reality/whatever.

The goal is to be Good. Discerning what’s good is means of achieving that goal. All religious people are capable of acknowledging that they ought to be good, that this is an objective truth, not one dependent on some sort of subjective agreement.

The goal is defined by reality, the arc of the moral universe as MLK put it, it’s not subjective, the reality that you try to sell that lacks this is a lie, one that requires delusion to be believed.

And once again, folks like MLK, abolitionism, civil rights etc.., even our founding documents, with concepts such as inalienable rights, are built on such a recognition of the reality you claim does not exist. If people actually believe this, there wouldn’t be any MLK.