If it wasn't for religion

[GrandizerII]

What does this have to do with whether or not objective morality exists in the Platonic sense? Or do you mistakenly equate "objective" to "Platonic"?

You do realize that moral platonism, is another name for moral realism?  Morality existing in a platonic sense would be an objective sense.

Yet morality can be objective without existing in the platonic sense. The only article I know that equates moral realism to moral platonism is from Wikipedia. Other [more] academic articles, such as on IEP, do not.

That's your view, which does not necessarily reflect what reality is about.

No it reflects what reality is about. Just like reality reflects the existence of other minds outside of my own, or objective truths, etc.. It's only your deluded version of reality that negates this, you're the solipsist, the reality you sell is akin to what they sell.

There's a world of difference between accepting that other people have minds of their own (because that should be the default reasoning given that other people are just like us in so many ways and behave as if they have minds) and accepting that moral goodness exists in the platonic sense (my default reasoning does not lead me to such a conclusion and I have nothing to go by in terms of observations that would compel me to do so).

Sure, but many atheists have no problem agreeing with this. So why are you trying to make this an atheism vs. theism thing when it's really not?

Yet, here you are, arguing that goodness and wrongness don't exist in reality, just in our minds alone, etc.. Yet it seems that only atheists tend to ever suggest such a reality, empty of "the stuff of morality". If you're a moral subjectivist, a moral nihilist, you're far more likely to be an atheist than a theist. Maybe you just think this is just a coincidence, or perhaps there is a relationship between atheism and a disbelief in a reality that possess "the stuff of morality".

I don't think morality exists in a concrete sense, but then again, this is just how I see things at the moment. That said, I think a lot of theists would disagree with you as well that morality exists in such a way, as many of them believe morality is dependent on God himself, which ironically makes them more subjectivists (and maybe even nihilists) than they are objectivists.

Many atheists, on the other hand, believe that morality is objective, whether or not they believe it exists in the way you posit morality exists. The important thing here, however, is that this is not a theism vs. atheism debate but a moral realist vs. moral platonist vs. moral subjectivist debate (irrespective of theistic beliefs or lack of them).

So again and again, I'm not seeing where a god (of any non-secular or supernaturalist sort) is needed for morality to be objective.

I don't deny a reality in which objective morality may be true.

So you don't deny the reality possess "the stuff of morality"?

You're equivocating (as explained above), but then again, even the platonic sense I merely question. Like I said before, my view on this is provisional and am very open to adjusting my view in light of proper logic, which I have yet to see.

Still no compelling argument for a god. And going by your last post, it looks like you submit that morality can be objective even if a god did not exist. That's good.