Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

Well, your morality certainly seems both racist and sexist. I don't think we need to have any claims about anything as grand as 'objective morality' here as you've managed to out yourself as immoral per se!

I am racist and sexist. Please elabororate and tell me how my morality is racist and sexist?

I support liberal feminism and I am a supporter of racial blindness. I refuse to discriminate on the basis of race.

I find critical race theory and radical feminism absurd -they are both racist and sexist beleifs.(respectively)

I have never met a critic of radical feminism who has not failed to understand it. I'm supposing that you haven't noticed that 'liberal feminism' (or 'fair play' feminism) is bunk. As far as what you call 'critical race theory' is concerned, trumping 'racial blindness' tells me that you probably think that 'affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination' are asking too much.. How fitting that this is also a discussion about atheism in which the atheist also must not be 'too much', as to offer or defend an ethical position.

---

A simple fact of lack of belief may make us point to someone and say 'atheist', but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in principles such as (and particularly) the scope and validity of the method of doubt.

I haven't read through this thread, so pardon me if I rehash old points.

You're over-complicating the atheist position. The only principle it is grounded in is that the the theist has failed to convincingly substantiate his/her claim, which does not rest upon the "scope and validity of the method of doubt." It rests upon the failed philosophy and fallacious reasoning that has lead others to conclude that a god exists. How doubt is applied has no bearing on the debate when the positive claim has never been satisfactorily evidenced, for I need not invoke doubt to demolish an argument that fails to get off the ground.

So, you may point to someone and say 'atheist,' but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in the failure of the the theistic position.

You're wrong. Dealing with the claims for God's existence as knowledge claims requiring evidence and critical thinking is not a simple situation. It may be very productive, even the most productive and the best choice of perspective, depending on your point of view, but takes its place as a perspective within the history of ideas. It (let's call it 'positivistic atheism' or PA for completely no reason) likes to read back the history of thought viewed in its own terms as if we are looking through special goggles, and see what fools people in the past and 'over there' are. That this is something of an effect, like looking backwards in a mirror, a measure of how much of our values we can find 'back there' or 'out there', is a hard point to accept when the techniques we're used to thinking with are so potent as philosophy has made them today. But this is still how it is.

Nobody ever had to establish God on the terms that we commonly discuss God in today. It took a lot of historical process for us to be able to do so. The problem with saying 'the theist has failed to substantiate his/her claim' is that this is not literally true. It is really helpful to be able to criticise religion in this manner and treat it as a set of knowledge claims, but that is something new. Since it is the nature of PA is to treat itself as disinterested, the real meaning that comes from its use is not settled. And hence the 'over-complication' and debate. Just because we have a perspective it doesn't mean it's the only one. That's what 'totalising ideologies' are for, and PA is likely one.