If it wasn't for religion

[GrandizerII]

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.

Ok, let's rewind a little because we're getting sidetracked here. Suppose this is true, how do you turn this into an argument that logically favors theism over atheism? This is what I'm interested about.

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.

Such an unwarranted confidence you have there.

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.

Let's be really clear here. My agnosticism is on the nature of morality, and you yourself don't seem to be clear on what exactly is the nature of morality either. When asked how exactly does nature tell us we ought not to kill, or that killing is wrong, you're unable to provide the answer. So let's not pretend you know what you're talking about here. Have some intellectual humility for a change, and don't be a "Dunning-Krueger" guy.

On the other hand, what I am not agnostic about is whether a god is needed or not for objective morality to be a thing. Whether objective morality exists or not, IF it does exist (and I lean towards that view myself), then it can exist in the absence of God. God, at best, can assert/assume killing is wrong, and that we ought not to kill, but God's existence, character, nature or will cannot sufficiently explain how killing is wrong and why we ought not to kill. So theists have that problem that they need to resolve first before they can argue for anything else regarding objective morality. Theists generally argue as subjectivists even when they delude themselves into thinking they're realists.

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.

Yeah, sorry, but I can't agree with this reasoning at all. A cup for one thing is observable to us, and we can do such things as see and touch a cup and intuit/reason that therefore a cup exists. Even though the holocaust may objectively be wrong, you can't use the cup analogy to get to what you're trying to argue, because the existence of moral truths is clearly of a different nature than the existence of physical objects such as cups.

But nevertheless, many atheists believe the holocaust is objectively wrong, and you have yet to establish a clear logical link between a god and objective morality. Get working on that please, and stop with the distractions.

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.

Again, you aren't really arguing for theism here. All you're doing is making some case (whether it's a poor case or not) for moral realism, which if true, is true regardless of whether a god exists.

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?

All this focusing on my agnosticism regarding the nature of morality just so you can avoid addressing the challenges presented to you, eh?

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.

No you cannot do that without being disingenuous. If you want to convince us that the objective morality argument logically favors theism over atheism (something which you did attempt to do anyway earlier with the whole MLK thing but now choose to backtrack), the natural thing is to show that God is needed for objective morality to be a thing. As you have failed to establish the needed link, you have failed to provide any compelling case for your god.

Not to worry though, since you're not the first nor the last theist to fail to do so.

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.

It's called being a limited human being with limited knowledge on matters of metaphysics. You aren't any different, you just don't have the guts to admit you lack knowledge as well. For you, to admit agnosticism is to admit a weakness in your position of certitude (which you are forced to take because of the demands of faith). You need to be right for your own psychological wellbeing, so you will pretend you're certain you're right. I, on the other hand, don't have to struggle with that.

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.

Wow, there comes your true colors. You don't think too highly of atheists, and I was right to suggest earlier that you have a prejudice against atheists.

So what we have seen thus far is that you can't think of a compelling case to make for god being necessary for objective morality, so you dodge and distract (because that's theb est you can do). And you have a personal beef with atheists.