Do you wish there's a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's simply a fact of human behavior and history that, among all of the things that might impair or completely eradicate an othrwise functional moral agency...the compelling nature of god belief ranks high.  

That’s baloney. We have no real reason to think people would have behaved more morally historically if they just didn’t believe in God or religion. That’s just some feel good atheist fairytale. There’s simply nothing morally motivating about a lack of belief.

It doesn't matter if there's anything morally motivating about a lack of belief (and that sort of tanks your thesis, but hey, wtvs) - I'm suggesting that god beliefs are very compelling for those that hold them.  

Do you disagree?  Doesn't seem like you do.  

Now perhaps religious beliefs have some special quality to motivate people into actions, that non-religious beliefs are incapable of inspiring or replacing. Like motiving people to fly planes into building, or sacrifice their life for a worthy cause like the Civil Rights movement, or abolitionism. But the idea of such motivating capacity is exclusive to immoral actions, is more a product of your cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias than anything else.

See above, in the comments you quoted...."among all of the things"?  Do you see anything above about the impossibility of god beliefs to motivate otherwise? Any indication of exclusivity of -any- kind? No, you don't. Because it isn't there.

Carry on.

Similarly, it is a fact that the only way that a persons atheism can inform their position on a hypothetical morality is if that position requires the existence of a god, which moral realism does not, despite the faithfuls constant mewling that it just has to...somehow.

Sure if an atheist, sees conceptions like the existence of a moral reality, an arc of a moral universe, of moral laws that exist as “intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” “a good that’s the source of all things right and true, etc…”, as beliefs dependent on some form of theism, then it should go without saying that their atheism requires a rejection of these very things. Believing in them undermines their disbelief.

Some atheists view the existence of a moral reality, of reality possessing moral properties, as teleological, and telelogy implies the existence of God, and since God does not exist, all teleological aspects of reality are to be denied or rejected as false.

Now you may not be such an unbeliever, but that’s beside the point.

-and since moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong.

Why is it, do you think, some atheists™ may be plain and simply wrong in the same way that the faithful are plain and simply wrong, the same way that you are plain and simply wrong?