If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

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.

Yet, in order for morality to be objective, reality needs to “possess the stuff of morality”, even if you want to suggest this exists in some non-platonic way.

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).

Not really. In fact i’m more confident that moral goodness exist in reality, more so than I am that your mind exists. And you yourself seem to be of two minds when it comes to the question. Unsure of where you stand in the equation. You’ve never really argued otherwise.

I can recognize it exists objectively, and not just in my mind, by acknowledging a variety of similarities with other things that exists objectively like the cup. That the thing I’m perceiving with my mind exists independently of it. I can go around asking others whether they also see that the holocaust is objectively wrong. And they confirm they see this as well.

I can recognize that goodness, wrongness are not decorative frills of personal opinion, like my taste in music, nor are they imposed on us by our societies and other people, as evident by even babies having some basic moral cognitions, or the existence of core universal morality. I can acknowledge that morality is matter of objective truth, as evident by the level of delusions, lies, and falsehoods required to believe things like the holocaust is good, unlike for subjective things, like pepperoni pizza is good, which require no such false justification, to disagree.

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.

See even you can’t bring yourself to deny the existence of a reality that “possess moral stuff”, unlike the sort of confidence you might have about the God question. I’m also not sure how i’m supposed to reject that it does, when my opponents lack the confidence, and are so unsure as to whether it does or not?

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.

No I’m just saying my argument is not dependent on you acknowledging the existence of God, doesn’t require any agreement on what the term God means between us, etc… As a result for the purposes of this discussion, we can leave the God question out.

What I will say that it’s not merely coincidental that you as atheists are unsure about whether reality possess moral stuff, unsure about objective morality, regardless of whether you see the relationship between these views and your atheism or not. In fact  in my view, its your atheisms that makes  you unsure, a fear that such beliefs may undermine your disbelief. It’s a symptom of your disease.

---

I'd say that's a brute fact of society, not reality.
Society is an intangible thing that arises from the interactions of several individuals, hopefully, to make life easier and more prosperous to every individual within the group.

This doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Even if every other person in my society claimed that  torturing innocent babies just for fun is good, they would be wrong, just as they would be if every other person in my society claimed the earth is flat. Societies or people might recognize a fact, but they themselves are not the authors of it.

You can take an infant, a baby, put on a puppet show where one puppet is cruel or mean, and they seem to recognize that there's something wrong about that behavior, that this level of recognization is not dependent on external social influences telling him that it is.