Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

You can’t explain how moral realism requires a theistic god.

You can’t explain how it requires a deistic god.

You can’t explain how it requires any kind of god.

Since I don’t hold this position, given your definition of moral realism. Since I don’t hold these positions why would i defend or explain them?

You can’t explain why you thought it did.

Because I didn’t expect self identifying moral realist to reject moral statement like x is bad, as normative, or render them as purely descriptive. Or indicate that all they’re doing is substituting the word harm with bad. Rather than quibbling over the semantics I let you have your own moral vocabulary.

For any moral realist here, who agrees with your understanding of it, I concede that this view requires no god of any sort.

Vulcans was the only one to offer anything really interesting here, and that was his belief in a Platonic conception of Good, surprised no one else found that worth exploring.

You can’t explain why don’t know what your position is.

I know what my positions are, I just don’t know what position you want me to explain.