If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

I deny that you're capable of competently describing it.  Try again you tedious moron, lol.

Honestly, it's not as if this is complicated.  You spoke directly out of your ass.  Own it.

Yet, moral realism faces a considerable amount of criticism, both among professional philosophers and laymen, and clearly your own fellow atheists don’t seem persuaded by the arguments for it, to ever get off the fence.

That's a common misconception.  Moral realism doesn't actually face much criticism at all...particularly among philosophers. Purported realist statements face withering criticism..particularly -from- realist philosophers.

This isn't to say that there aren't compelling positions that would, if true, reduce moral realism to being false...regardless of a persons superstitions....just that those theories are broader comments on the nature of reality as a whole, not morality specifically. Moral realism has no problems with coherence, there's nothing fundamentally contradictory about it, and no requirement that a person be delusional to find it compelling.

Your views are incoherent and contradictory.
You deny that goodness and badness exists as “stuff”, the when speaking about them as “mental designations” you say they refer to “stuff” out there in reality.

I don't say any such thing.  You say such things.   You say them, because you can't find anything contradictory, incoherent, or delusional about any of -my- statements..and....frankly, know far too little about the subject to ever be expected to find such a belief if I did possess it.  

(made all the more hilarious by the fact that I certainly do - all you would have to do was to find whats there - but ya can't...lol)

In reality what you done is likely persuaded readers here more to defend subjectivism and relativism than realism, so good job.

You don't know what those things are, so how could you know that?