Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[là bạn điên]

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)

[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.

[là bạn điên]

I have never met a critic of radical feminism who has not failed to understand it.

You mean you support it and everyone who doesn't must be ignorant because you are so clever, except I don;t think you have convinced anyone of anything bar that you are a twat.

I'm supposing that you haven't noticed that 'liberal feminism' (or 'fair play' feminism) is bunk.

just like that..no explanation, no theory just 'its bunk'. Its as pathetic as your previous comment but then you never fail to tell us here how clever you are

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.. .

Yes I am against discrimination based on race. you cannot eradicate racism with racism. I suppose you think Derek bell's 'The space traders' is powerful evidence of white racism.

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

You haven't defended anything. You have just asserted without proof -just like a christian. I have asserted strong ethical positions here- such as on non human animals- Think again.

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

I have never met a critic of radical feminism who has not failed to understand it.

You mean you support it and everyone who doesn't must be ignorant because you are so clever, except I don;t think you have convinced anyone of anything bar that you are a twat.

I'm supposing that you haven't noticed that 'liberal feminism' (or 'fair play' feminism) is bunk.

just like that..no explanation, no theory just 'its bunk'. Its as pathetic as your previous comment but then you never fail to tell us here how clever you are

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.. .

Yes I am against discrimination based on race. you cannot eradicate racism with racism. I suppose you think Derek bell's 'The space traders' is powerful evidence of white racism.

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

You haven't defended anything. You have just asserted without proof -just like a christian. I have asserted strong ethical positions here- such as on non human animals- Think again.

Just ad hominem rubbish. If you feel that is defending a position, well, I suppose you have?

[là bạn điên]

You mean you support it and everyone who doesn't must be ignorant because you are so clever, except I don;t think you have convinced anyone of anything bar that you are a twat.


just like that..no explanation, no theory just 'its bunk'. Its as pathetic as your previous comment but then you never fail to tell us here how clever you are


Yes I am against discrimination based on race. you cannot eradicate racism with racism. I suppose you think Derek bell's 'The space traders' is powerful evidence of white racism.


You haven't defended anything. You have just asserted without proof -just like a christian. I have asserted strong ethical positions here- such as on non human animals- Think again.

Just ad hominem rubbish. If you feel that is defending a position, well, I suppose you have?

As I thought. You can't back up your assertions. I have not defended any position I am merely attacking your incapability of backing your assertions in favour of critical theory.

[Lemonvariable72]

La ban this guy is a troll that, don't feed him.
NOW REX, DO NOT TELL ME WHAT BELIEVE AS A ATHEIST!

[Chas]

I have a BA and MA in Philosophy. I also did a years' research with published work in a journal. I am acknowledged in a recent book on Kant. I am a teacher and lecturer. Let's not compare dicks mate.

I don't find atheists' ethics 'quite well developed', I find them cherry picked from various sources that don't necessarily fit together well. In fact, I don't find there to be a credible atheist 'way of thinking' and that's the reason for the discussion: because I feel there should be if what atheists say always already has socialised consequences (and nobody has contradicted me on this so far). This is the main reason I find atheists to be philosophically lacking. As I have mentioned, the symptom of this is the belief that we can build our lives around simple descriptive truths about the physical universe and forget the complexity of human need. I'm glad you would stop at telling someone about to die that there is nothing waiting for them, but I wonder where you do draw the line.

For someone who claims an advanced degree in philosophy, your argument is quite unsophisticated.

You lump atheists together and refer to "atheists' ethics" as though atheism was a philosophy. It is not - it is simply a skeptical stance on the existence of gods.

I suggest you do more reading than writing here until you understand that.

[Esquilax]

I suggest you do more reading than writing here until you understand that.

But if he did that, how would he be able to make sweeping, blanket generalizations against a diverse class of people! He needs his position of ignorance to do that!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I suggest you do more reading than writing here until you understand that.

But if he did that, how would he be able to make sweeping, blanket generalizations against a diverse class of people! He needs his position of ignorance to do that!

I feel he's probably written more papers than he's read.

[Faith No More]

The problem with saying 'the theist has failed to substantiate his/her claim' is that this is not literally true.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating god's existence with using the same fallacy-ridden reasoning and unconvincing arguments as your predecessors.