On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

My pointlessness doesn't make me any less correct nor does it make you any less incorrect, Fallen.

It does, because at the end of the day this argument isn't meant for atheists to ponder.

That's a non-sequitur.

If you love your identity stuff so much, you'd realise precisely what you're doing here, and that is to say 'I believe x. This argument supports x. Therefore I will show it's fallacious by stating x'. So you tell me, do you believe x=x or not? Because since the beginning, it seems like you disagree with your own beliefs. 

That's a strawman.

No, I changed it so that *any* answer can be inserted as option c. That's more accurate than just 'neither'.

That's irrelevant.

The reason for why you think it's 'neither' is false. Simple.

That's a strawman.

I'll be wrong only if you can explain why believing gods don't exist makes it a false dichotomy.

That's a strawman.

Which is why I'm wondering why you're so militant about proving it wrong with an atheistic conclusion. It's not a logical thing to do, given you're an atheist.

That's a strawman.

Merely stating your belief, that gods don't exist, is not even a poke at theism. 

That's a strawman.

Which is an uninteresting statement that doesn't engage with the dichotomy.

That's irrelevant.

...since your statement doesn't come even close to properly addressing the dilemma, which it never will since you're trying to refute an atheistic argument with an atheistic conclusion. Do you not see it yet? 

That's a strawman.

You can only correct me if you properly explain why gods not existing is a valid reason for rejecting the dilemma.

That's a strawman.

That's irrelevant.

I won't bother explaining myself to you. You don't deserve it: