If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

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.

We rely on our perceptions to recognize what exists externally to us, as distinct from what we might say exists internally to us, like our subjective states.

I also don’t need to touch the cup to acknowledge its objective existence, seeing is sufficient. Or for a tune playing in background, hearing is sufficient, to recognize it’s not a sound just playing in our head, but being played out there.

You can say the sound of music, and a cup don’t exist the same way. A cup i can touch and see but not hear, while a sound I can’t touch or see but can hear, but our perceptions indicate that they exist external to us, regardless of the components of our perception used to deduce it.

When we recognize the wrongness of things, we’re not recognizing a decorative frill of personal opinion, like my toddler discovering that she likes the taste of guava, that guava taste good, or recognizing something about our biological sensations. We are perceiving it as external to us, as objective, not subjective. Objective like the cup in front of me, or the sound in the background, not subjective like my personal tastes.

Someone who denies such a perception, would be akin to someone denying the earth is round. Even you can’t bring yourself to deny this, you’re just unsure, feel uncomfortable committing to this one way or the other.

Without any significant reason to doubt the veracity of our sense perceptions, we have no more reason to reject them here, than I have to believe I’m a brain in a vat.

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

I have no interest in arguing for the existence of God, I have an interest in arguing for a reality that posses moral aims and purposes. So why should I argue about things I’m not interested in arguing with you about? You, and others here have indicated my argument, can be separated from God beliefs, and I am glad to treat it as they can be for pragmatic reasons.

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.

Let’s skip whether it logically favors theism. Clearly no atheist here seems to believe that reality possess moral aims and purposes, or that the “universe possess a moral arc” as MLK put it, or with Bhikkhu Bodhi: “ morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

You may not deny such views of reality, but you have a hard time committing to them. Where as I, and other religious people like MLK and Bodhi don’t. It’s much easier for me to accept this as a theist, than it is for you to accept this as an atheist, regardless if we can or can’t make a logical connection between the two.

To put it less dodgey, such a reality that posses “ the stuff of morality”, moral aims and purposes is teleological. Teleological views of reality is an aspect far more comfortably accepted by theist, than atheist. It’s not just a coincidence that you as an atheist, have a reluctance to accept such a reality, even if you think it is just coincidental.

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.

I have a poor opinion about the beliefs and view atheists hold, most of which I think are delusional, and contradictory. I don't have a poor opinion of atheist personally. Meaning I don't doubt that you're a decent dude, who I wouldn't mind grabbing a drink with, or would mistrust watching my kids, etc... I'm sure there plenty of people in your life, that have stupid beliefs, who you think are a bit delusional, etc.. that you still consider friends, or decent people in general.