If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

You're mistaken.  This has been explained to you at length, multiple times, in two threads.  

There are bad things - the moral fact.
holocaust is a bad thing - the value judgement.
we should avoid doing bad things because of x - the 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.

I recognize that they can be because to claim otherwise would be to reject an actual fact of morality as practiced.  That an ought can be (and often is) subjective doesn't mean that oughts must be or always are 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.

What else would you expect a natural realist to be referring to when they made a value judgement from a moral fact?  I think that there is some empirical fact(s) of a matter x that establishes whether or not that thing belongs to the set of Bad Things™.  That's what identifies me as a moral realist, and even more specifically, as a natural realist.   OFC I don;t think that knowing whether or not something is bad establishes what we ought to do about it.

To derive an ought from an is......at least one evaluative premise is required. The evaluative premise informs me as to what I should do about it, and why... not the possession of the moral fact in and of itself. Is/ought.

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.

It may be that atheists hold contradictory and delusional beliefs..I say that half giggling, because I'm certain that we do..but you've failed to explain why it would be relevant and failed to present an example of such a belief in this conversation......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.

................?

I think that there are moral facts of a matter.  This is the only requirement of moral realism.  Since I don't simultaneously think that there are -not- moral facts of a matter.....it's difficult to understand why you would imagine that I hold some contradictory or incoherent belief that precludes me from being an authentic moral realist. I just don't share your superstitions.

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.

A point as poorly attempted as any other in this thread or the last.  You're not actually making points..you're just saying ignorant things that you can't explain, establish, demonstrate, or even competently communicate.  

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.

Until you can establish a superstitious requirement to moral realism or civil rights this is as doa as it was the first time you asserted it. Simple empirical facts such as the existence of atheists in the civil rights movement and the preponderance of atheists advocating for moral realism, combined with the presence of influential atheists in both areas...in addition to the compatibility of any reason or rationalization to either effect that needs no reference to gods or any other superstition tells me that you're just flat out wrong.

Ultimately, it seems as though you've taken a rejection of your own purported facts of a matter as a rejection of facts of a matter in toto. Can you see why this would be a mistake? If we're going to engage with each other as realists, you're going to have to abandon the sloganeering your prejudices have inculcated in you. You say that there is some fact of a matter, and that fact of the matter is x. I say that yes, there are facts of a matter, but x is not one of them.

Your beef, as a realist, to another realist, could only be that I am wrong..not that I'm delusional or incoherent or not-a-realist, lol. Well, okay...but if that's so then get to fucking work and show that your purported fact is a fact.

Good luck.