If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

Until you can give an example of some delusional or contradictory belief that atheists hold...no one is going to know what you're talking about.

Sure, we’ll start with you.

Your inability to recognize that calling the holocaust morally bad is a value based judgement, and as a result an evaluative proposition. Your inability to recognize that claiming that moral oughts are subjective, such as one ought to do good etc.. renders propositions such as the holocaust is bad as subjective.

Your weird belief that saying the holocaust is bad is synonymous with a historical statement about it, that it amounts to some physical description of what occurred and its impact, and that labelling of bad, isn’t implying moral guidance, or directive.

Now, it should go without saying that typically when people hold contradictory or delusional beliefs, they tend not to recognize it no matter how plainly you indicate it to them.

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.

Since no one has to commit to any of those statements or views in order to be a realist, why would it matter if a person did or didn't commit to those views?  Meanwhile, other realists can make logical connections, you may feel that the ease with which you accept something is relevant, but even if you do find it easy..you're at a disadvantage to those other realists who can do what you cannot, and need not accept what you have, regardless of how easily you've done so.

Yes, you’re right there does seem to be plenty of atheists who don’t subscribe to any teleological views of reality, that consider themselves moral realist, and defined the label as such to apply to them. This doesn’t mean their beliefs and views are no less contradictory or incoherent as yours.

But the commitment here is not about whether you can fall under the moral realist label or not, the original point I made here, is that you wouldn’t get an MLK absent of such commitments, of the very thing you refuse to commit to believing in.

No MLK will come out of a lack of belief in something equivalent to an “arc of the moral universe”, or a lack of a belief in a reality that possess moral aims and goals, and purposes.