How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

Wrong again, as already explained to you.  Historical and scientific facts are morally relevant, to a realist, regardless of whether they are attached to s goal.

The realist already subscribe to the goal that they should do things that are conducive to well being, and not do things that are detrimental to it. Many of them just fail to acknowledge the role such a goal has in statements like x is bad, or x is good. These statements only make sense in light of such a goal.  

Bad doesn’t stop being bad in the event that we don’t care to avoid it.  We just don’t care to avoid it

But you should have cared to avoid it. It's bad that you didn't care to avoid it. 

The expression what you did was wrong, what you did wasn't right, carries with it the implication that you shouldn't have done these things. That you should have done what was good, you should have done what was right. We never have to say it's wrong, and in addition you shouldn't do things that are wrong. Because wrongness already implies this.

If you want to strip that implication out of moral statements. What you're left with is series of amoral historical and scientific facts.