Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Spend some time googling it.  The position of moral realism is open to anyone who would contend that moral facts exist, and that reference to these moral facts makes a given thing right or wrong.  It's a proposition that's true or false regardless of any god's existence.  

What do you think makes a thing good or bad?  True facts about the act itself, or true facts about gods?

I am currently looking into your so called moral realism. Meanwhile, to me, what makes an act good or bad is never the act itself. The act itself is a pure mechanical event in materialistic world, good and bad are undefined.

Deism/theism makes talking about "good" and "bad" possible.

Then you're not a moral realist, just as I've been telling you.  You're a cognitivist, same as I am, you think that moral propositions are truth alike.  There, however, we split.  I believe that objective facts are the moral facts.  You believe that facts about some subject..in this case god, are the moral facts.

As I said, moral realism is open to anyone, even you. It's not mine. Anyone who refers to the harm done to one's sister by slapping her in the face as to why it's "bad" to slap your sister is availing themselves of it. In fun point of fact, a person referring to the harm done to ones soul by some act is also making an attempt at realism.

You'd have to elaborate more on why you think deism and theism, two states of belief about gods, are required for any state of belief about moral value. As I've explained, moral realism needs to proceed only from the existence of moral facts. Whether there is or isn't a god doesn't change those facts, or whether or not there are facts.