The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[genkaus]

It is not self evident that phenomenological perceptions can yield objective knowledge in a world in which the concept of objectivity is not interwoven into an appreciation of the human person.

No.

How do you know what the senses can reproduce around you?

By examining what they do reproduce around me.

What if you have defective eyes?

Then the knowledge rendered is inaccurate.

What does the term "defective" even refer to when describing sense perception?

That it is unable to capture a certain quality of data.

Why do you reject Kant's categories of noumena and phenomena

Because there is no evidence for the former.

You are stuck in a skeptical worldview and you won't admit it.

No, I admit it. I am a skeptic with regards to all claims that are not proven or self-evident.

f you want to hang on to your teleology, you must become a Deist, plain and simple (or better yet, a Christian).

I must do no such thing.

That settles it. Why don't you go with that then and be honest and call your beliefs about the world opinions? That is what they are.

Now that would be dishonest, since I take care to justify my beliefs.

Sense perception is rooted in volition, which is tied the minds perception of deeply held cultural, economic, religious values that are always related to wants and needs. When people have sense perceptions, they have them according to their lingustic, cultural, social and economic makeup, which is function of their societies collective experience in meeting wants and needs.

Now that is incorrect. The linguistic, cultural, social, relligious and economic values and makeup are not automatic to a person but developed painstakingly over time through the sense perceptions. Even if you argue that they eventually become tied to those values, the very fact that sense perceptions can occur where they do not exist shows that it is not necessarily tied to them and therefore can be separated.

Also, necessarily, all human actions are directed towards wants and needs. Sense perception and the formation of linguistic categories is a volitional act, people choose what to think, and their thoughts are always directed towards appreciating the world in their cultural context, which is always tied to wants and needs, and most sense perceptions are directed tied to wants and needs.

Again, not necessarily. Before your sense perceptions are advanced enough to develop linguistic categories, your actions are not volitional and not necessarily directed towards wants or needs. They could simply be reactive. Which means, even after formation of linguistic categories, it would still be possible to volitionally evaluate your sense perceptions minus any cultural context - as you were able to do before you developed it.

The cultural categories of science and language are overwhelmingly aimed at meeting peoples wants and needs.

So separating your sense perceptions from cultural categories should suffice to make it objective.

The only way to transcend this is to become a mystic and to see in the spirit of the Holy God who freely gives knowledge to all people who humble themselves and accept their tiny, culturally conditioned, polluted view of the world and see in God's glorious radiance the splendor of the true telos of every living thing. You are not free to define the world around you as you see fit, a person is valuable not because you can perceive qualities of value in them, but because God sees them as such.

And at this point you cut off any tether you had to a rational debate. Even if sense perceptions had some inherent subjectivity - it still wouldn't make your ridiculous method any better.