I think I misunderstood what you meant by normative, I didnt take that to exclude something like resisting sunburn.
Could you tell me what exactly you mean by normative?

Its a strange definition to me. I generally think of racism as involving hate, or general feeling of superiority of one race over another (as opposed to some, specific trait of each race).
Like, the differences in melanin results in black people being better at resisting the effects of sunburn than say, white people.
Thats a fact. So its racist against white people to say that I guess, by your view?

Ok, I would suggest more than a brief perusal because you are wrong. Look up the statistics for osteoporosis among black women and white women, that should be easier to focus your data search.
Also, I would like to address your definition of racism. Anyone who thinks there Are “races”, is a racist? Or being “a bit racist”?
Oh and who am I being racist towards? You never answered, all races or did you have a specific one in mind?

Well there IS differences in bone density. Its a fact. Black people generally have higher bone density than white people. Are you saying that that science is either racist, or the work of racists?

Racist against which race? Just all races in general, or did you have a specific race in mind?
Anyway, so bone density has no effect on a persons ability to physically perform any physical tasks?

Ok, so bone density has no effect in difference of physical ability? (Its uncontroversially understood that black people have higher bone density that white people for exsmple)
Also, the geographical factors can result in differences in races, if one race spent most of its time in a specific place with specific geo factors and another race somewhere else...they would have different factors...wouldnt they?
Obviously there are physical differences in races, what is it that draws a line between those physical differences and physical differences that effect physical ability?

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture?
Obviously im speaking in general terms, but it seems like there are physical differences, and Therefore difference in some physical abilities. No?
What about the physical strength of say the Japanese compared to African Americans, or Scandinavians? Would you say absolutely zero difference in physical ability? (Again, generically speaking. Obviously there are outliers).
Would you explain differences as cultural instead of say, the geological area the race is adapted to? (Kenyans come to mind, My understanding is that the higher elevation has equipped the average Kenyan for endurance running more so than most other races).

Yes, I think you got it exactly. Nice observation.

You are giving him way too much credit. He isnt being stubborn, that would require him having an actual position to cling too, which he doesnt. He THINKS he does, and thats why he cannot engage. He has been programmed with placeholder words that have no substance and thus anyone actually trying to engage with him is just firing off into thin air. He has nothing to offer, so there is nothing to hit with any point you might want to make.
That, and there is this underlying immaturity to his comments which make it easy to think of him as stupid, or a troll but thats not what it is. He is a victim, made vulnerable by his own childish fears and fragility. Its not really his fault, which I think is why he gets people trying to help him. It is folly however, as part of his delusion is a defence mechanism where he ridicules the things he doesnt understand. He HAS to do that, he HAS to put in those dismissive responses and “LOL”’s, because his entire view is based on a childish narcissism of self importance. He’s this special guy, with a special little view that his philosophical opponents are powerless to respond. Again, that is the exact opposite of the reality. Unsurprising, since thats basically what religion is all about, denying reality for comfort.

Yes, he is being completely disingenuous and dishonest, but I do not think he realises it. This is the evil of religion, how it corrupts the basic integrities of the human mind. The cognitive dissonance humans experience becomes a way of thinking, a gross inoculation against rational thought and self reflection.
Take “faith” for example, An utterly vacuous term that gets trotted out as a reason for believing when of course its the exact opposite of a reason.
Worse still, guys like this amen dude actually view themselves as paragons of rationality, and of virtue when again...exact opposite. Emotional analysis, not rational and so lacking in virtue they cannot even be honest with themselves let alone when posing “questions” to philosophical adversaries.

Risk? As in, if racists make it racist?

Well they wouldn't be varied as you describe on certain traits (racial ones), and the trends/tendencies (stereotypes) wouldnt be something thats always applied to all members of the race since thats not what a trend or tendency is (they arent things we expect to always be the case fir all members of the race).
So it seems like a conflation of race traits and race stereotypes you are making, and then rejecting the concept of “race”.
I understand that might be my own idiosyncratic distinction, just for the record.

Well some peoples ideas about race rely on the stereotypes, but it doesnt seem like stereotypes are intrinsic to “race” to me. Id call that conflating race and race stereotypes.
Anyway, thanks for being patient, I understand.

To me you are describing stereotypes, not race. Stereotypes are trends/tendencies about groups/population.

There are tendencies and trends that a population to have, is accounting for that why you say “mostly” hogwash/nonsense?

Aside from the fact that if you go back far enough, we all apparently come from the same place, from the same general population (circa eastern (although by some accounts southern) Africa about 3 million years ago), as humankind spread out geographically and had a chance to diverge genetically, folks kept exploring and interacting and being horndogs, so that any divergent genetics wound up back in a melting pot. The idea that genetics diverged and stayed "pure" in their divergence over time as we continued to spread out geographically is a bunch of hogwash. — Terrapin Station

Well thats a description of race in my mind. Race is the distinctions that developed over time as the same species (human) adapted to different evolutionary stimuli.

Ok, so you are saying that there is more genetic diversity outside the “race” paradigm than inside it? And therefore...those differences in race are by comparison...some sort of arbitrary or unnecessary distinction?
I understand that “race” is much less genetically important than other genetic factors in a persons biological make up but its still a physical set of traits that are distinct.
Also, I dont think that “racial”differences are just superficial, appearance based. Some are, like hair texture and skin colour, but others are not, like specific genetic diseases or physical prowess.

Ok, no single gene. Racial traits are a too diverse to attribute to a single gene. Makes sense.

Bear with me, Im dumbfounded by what you are saying.
What is the nonsense of races? Why are you attempting to make a definition that ignores physical distinctions? And what part of that makes it a social construct?

What do you mean? Ones “race” is determined by genes, just like every other biological trait...no? If not, then what determines skin colour or other “racial” physical traits?

Sorry you lost me...those things you describe dont sound like social constructs, they sound like real, physical differences.

Well race just describes a certain set of differences between humans, like skin colour. Isnt that the standard definition?

How do you define race? You said its a social construct, so Im curious to how you would categorise some of the obvious physical characteristics such as skin colour.

I understand, but that doesnt answer my question about how you define atheism.

What is atheism to you? Does it entail something more than a lack of belief in god or gods?

Which is still atheism. Not mutually exclusive terms.

The reason why “colour blindness” is out of fashion is because race baiting and victim culture are IN fashion. Part of the dogma of that trend is that white people are inherently racist, and “colour blindness” goes against that narrative. They do not want a white person to be able to escape a charge of racism by saying they do not see race, so they make the obvious defense against a charge of racism something in itself racist.
Its all part of the dogma and training coming out of universities these days, part of an authoritarian movement and the strategies used to push a toxic ideology. Its part of a complex set of talking points and nonsense meant to inoculate these types of people against criticism as well as to preserve their great weapon in their war for authoritarian control, the charge of racism. Its vital they can call every white person a racist, because then anyone speaking out against their authoritarian agenda can be dismissed, attacked or whatever...after all, who would ever defend or listen to a racist?
Its the same thing with terms like “nazi”, “alt right”, “alt right adjacent”, all used as a tool to smear and dismiss ideological opponents. All you have to do is attach the label, then all your work is done. You dont need to reason, defend your toxic, authoritarian ideology or even listen at all. Just sit back and wait for anyone to go “wait wtf?!” And then call them a racist too.
Its disgusting. Its foolish and its dangerous.

Well it really would be felt and heard if god actually existed. One good reason to be skeptical of gods existence...alot of us feel and here nothing from the guy.
So choices we make...how would determinism factor in there?

Ive not read any Satre that I recall. It doesnt seem like an actually existing god could be ignored like that. His presence would be felt and heard, the biblical god at least would stand for nothing less.

Ya thats what I had in mind. You could believe in god but hate him, or resent him, or reject his dictatorship.

An atheist could be not merely a-theistic, but anti-theistic. — Janus

Right, such a person would be an atheist and an anti-theist but one could also just be one or the other.

My italics. But as he goes on to say, it's not so much that god does not exist, as that he is irrelevant to the human condition.

There's something in that for all of us. — Banno

Ah I see. Im not sure I agree. If god did exist then how could it be irrelevant to the human condition? Its kind of written into the character. Maybe im being too literal.

I dont understand that comment. Satre?

I would have thought atheists basing their philosophy on their atheism would be equally rare.
I wonder how that would work...basing something off of something you do not believe in.

What is a lack of belief in something? In cognition, what does that really mean? — 3017amen

Well you would lack a belief whenever you are not holding a particular belief. So in this case, I have not heard any arguments or seen evidence that convince me there is a god. Maybe there is, but I lack belief until such a time as those things are provided. Thats atheism. If anyone holds views about religion or god other than that, those views are beyond what atheism entails. (Anti theism for exemple)

Its not a belief, it is the lack of belief. This is an important distinction.

Ya, there certainly seems to be alot of posturing in these forums. The main sources seem to be defensiveness based on assumption of incoming attacks (which I cant blame them fir really, the internet is like that) and arrogance, that they have cracked some philosophical code thats 100% ironclad so disagreement is equal to failure to understand.

Ok, I will answer again but this is your last chance for an actual discussion. From me at least.

God does not exist, true or false?
The answer is I do not know. No, that doesnt mean atheism is untenable because atheism isnt the position that god doesnt exist. Atheism is the position of not believing a god does exist.
Now your turn to answer a question, I think thats fair.
Do you understand the distinction between a position that god doesnt exist and the position of not believing a god exists?

Im not trying to intimidate you, nor was any if that a personal attack. Im trying to help you, because if you keep on doing what your doing people will just start ignoring you. Id rather that people had interesting interactions instead of talking past or ignoring each other.
The reason you seem like you are trolling is because you are ignoring direct points and questions. You responded to that by just doing the exact same thing. Ignoring and restating your question. People are not confused why they are frustrated, you are confused as to why its frustrating.

And I already answered your question, remember?

But I love talking with you guys about religion. But you also have to own up to the fact that you never answered a lot of my questions in a direct succinct fashion. — 3017amen

You are conflating answering “in a direct succinct fashion” with the answers you want us to say. You clearly want an atheist to say “god does not exist and here is my proof” or somesuch. Expecting that answer shows that you do not understand atheism, nor some of the basic logic behind atheist arguments/positions (such as the burden of proof).
People are becoming frustrated because you are not engaging. (Hence the “troll” accusation). Instead of engaging in discussion you are just trying to illicit responses which you can use to perpetuate your own talking points.
Personally, I think that you are being dishonest (perhaps not realising it) and the best you can do is couch your posts with feigned humility and good humour. ( hence the accusation of condescension).
You can show that isnt the case by exercising some succinct engagement of your own. I suggest starting by recognising the difference between “talking to” and “talking at”. Most people find the former to be the better of the two.