On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

You failed to ever explicate your mysterious stance on why it's neither, you failed to recognise an argument in favour of your own position and now you fail to explicate why you don't think these are colossal fuck ups.

Learn philosophy before we speak again, because I'm not wasting time correcting your wankery.

I understand the philosophy I'm talking about unlike you.

"Neither because the gods don't exist" is a possible third horn.

You are being thick. That isn't a response to an argument in favour of your position. It's the fucking conclusion, Jesus Christ.

That makes it a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy contains the word "not".

The negation creates nothing more than a mutually exclusive scenario, which *is* currently the case.

With a true dichotomy there is no third option.

Which is what the theist wants to say regarding Euthyphro's Dilemma. Just stop, for fuck's sake.

It's not a position. It's a fact that if a dichotomy can be answered coherently with "neither" then it's false.

~ The Theistic Apologies of Ham the Athiest

You have a position. Your position is denying that a false dichotomy is a false dichotomy. And the dichotomy itself has no relevance to your incoherent failed hypothetical in the OP.

Just stop. Your ability to miserably and repeatedly fail to grasp an argument was an interesting spectacle the first time, but now it's just annoying.

[theologian]

Now, what is dangerous is not considering the whole truth. The whole truth considers that God is Goodness Himself. But, your point here is not considering the whole truth, for one can only say that if for God, rape is moral, then it will be moral for people. Hence, it is not that everything that dogmatic that is dangerous. What is dangerous is your reasoning which proclaimed a contradiction that God Whom is Infinitely Good shall be the source of evil.

The same can be said regarding the conclusions that lead to atheism. In science, one cannot found God. Hence there is no God, so as they reason. But, is it indeed the case, or this is a case of not considering the whole truth? It seems that it is the latter. For, the scope of science are all those which are verifiable and all that which are quantifiable. But, not all reality are verifiable and quantifiable. Take for example the hidden premise of reasoning "since in science, there is no God, therefore it is indeed that there is no God". The hidden premise of that is that everything that is real must have a scientific evidence. But, that hidden premise itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim! Therefore, the hidden premise is self-defeating ,and therefore the hidden premise is false, and so the reasoning that "there is no God, because in science, there is no God  and only those which have scientific evidence are real" is a false reasoning. That's how dangerous then to reason from an incomplete premise. Hence, the soundness of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, which reason from the perspective of being, for what is common to all are being. So, what is not only dogmatic, but also dangerous here is the scientism of the atheists.

How can rape be evil if God says it is good? That's not a contradiction. It's good, and not evil, because God says so. Unless there is some way of deciding what is good/evil external to God, then "good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels he gives things. If there is in fact a way of determing it external to God, then his word is not required.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science does not say "There is no God". You're drawing up a system of strawmen.

Are you telling me you need God to tell you what is right and wrong? I consider what is best for human and animal wellbeing, and then use reason. I don't need God to think for me.

So which is it? Is something good because God says it is good, or is God just really good at spotting what is good? Can you choose one and stick to it?

But, does God say rape is good? To the contrary, God says love your neighbor.

Now, what's wrong basing morality from God Whom is the Perfect Being? Or, it is just that atheism are biased against Him? Any other reason aside from being biased? For, if morality is based from God's will, then it will just be arbitrary according to you, as if God is like human whose will may be arbitrary.

If you will not consider God in your morality, then your morality is subjective. If your morality is subjective, then you don't have the right to be protected based from your subjective opinion, as that is equal to imposing one's opinion to others. Hence, if you are used as a fish bait, you cannot appeal to your subjective morality to be saved from being used. That is just your opinion, if God will not be considered.

[Edwardo Piet]

I understand the philosophy I'm talking about unlike you.

"Neither because the gods don't exist" is a possible third horn.

You are being thick. That isn't a response to an argument in favour of your position. It's the fucking conclusion, Jesus Christ.

You are thick.

It's a false dichotomy because it can be answered with "neither because gods don't exist". It's not fucking rocket science. That isn't a position I'm arguing for that's just a fact regarding what a false dichotomy is.

That makes it a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy contains the word "not".

The negation creates nothing more than a mutually exclusive scenario, which *is* currently the case.

Talk about fucking doubling down when you're wrong about something. Look you clearly don't know what a false dichotomy is. If you can answer with "neither" it's a false dichotomy.

With a true dichotomy there is no third option.

Which is what the theist wants to say regarding Euthyphro's Dilemma. Just stop, for fuck's sake.

You stop. There is a third option "Neither because there are no gods", therefore it's false, therefore you're wrong. I don't give a fuck what a theist wants to say (and yet you do, and yet you call me a theist because you can't handle your own bullshit) that's not what you said. The whole point is the theist asserts a false dichtomy because they mistakingly assume that there is a god. It can be answered with "neither".

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

My bold.

It's not a position. It's a fact that if a dichotomy can be answered coherently with "neither" then it's false.

~ The Theistic Apologies of Ham the Athiest

Okay. I'm done with you. You are an utter utter moron. If you think giving you the definition of a false dichotomy to demonstrate how you're wrong about it being a false dichotomy equates to apologetics because you're too intellectually dishonest to stop double-downing on your wrongness when you're wrong then you can just fuck off you utter utter moron.

You have a position. Your position is denying that a false dichotomy is a false dichotomy. And the dichotomy itself has no relevance to your incoherent failed hypothetical in the OP.

Just stop. Your ability to miserably and repeatedly fail to grasp an argument was an interesting spectacle the first time, but now it's just annoying.

Such a tosser. Telling me to stop. Just because you can't handle being wrong. I will stop but only because you're not worth the effort. Bye-bye. Welcome to my ignore list.

[FallentoReason]

You are being thick. That isn't a response to an argument in favour of your position. It's the fucking conclusion, Jesus Christ.

You are thick.

It's a false dichotomy because it can be answered with "neither because gods don't exist". It's not fucking rocket science. That isn't a position I'm arguing for that's just a fact regarding what a false dichotomy is.

I cannot believe you're still insisting. Are you seriously not seeing it yet? It's like offering an atheistic argument against god and then answering your own argument by saying 'my argument is false, because it mentions god which doesn't exist'. You're out of your mind.

That makes it a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy contains the word "not".

The negation creates nothing more than a mutually exclusive scenario, which *is* currently the case.

Talk about fucking doubling down when you're wrong about something. Look you clearly don't know what a false dichotomy is. If you can answer with "neither" it's a false dichotomy.

Will you stop! The dilemma isn't meant for you. Stop. Stop. Stop.

With a true dichotomy there is no third option.

Which is what the theist wants to say regarding Euthyphro's Dilemma. Just stop, for fuck's sake.

You stop. There is a third option "Neither because there are no gods",

That's the bloody conclusion. Stop.

therefore it's false, therefore you're wrong.

Not even close.

I don't give a fuck what a theist wants to say (and yet you do, and yet you call me a theist because you can't handle your own bullshit)

It's called philosophy - understanding both positions of an argument. Clearly you do well, because you keep defending the theist impeccably.

that's not what you said. The whole point is the theist asserts a false dichtomy

This is just too embarrassing. Plato wasn't religious. The argument isn't for religion. Stop defending what you don't believe in.

because they mistakingly assume that there is a god. It can be answered with "neither".

This is the conclusion. Please stop.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

My bold.

No shit. I've already explained how theists would explain it's a false dilemma.

It's not a position. It's a fact that if a dichotomy can be answered coherently with "neither" then it's false.

~ The Theistic Apologies of Ham the Athiest

Okay. I'm done with you. You are an utter utter moron. If you think giving you the definition of a false dichotomy to demonstrate how you're wrong about it being a false dichotomy equates to apologetics because you're too intellectually dishonest to stop double-downing on your wrongness when you're wrong then you can just fuck off you utter utter moron.

This isn't about me. It's about you failing to recognise an atheistic argument when it repeatedly slaps you in the face. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's disgraceful.

You have a position. Your position is denying that a false dichotomy is a false dichotomy. And the dichotomy itself has no relevance to your incoherent failed hypothetical in the OP.

Just stop. Your ability to miserably and repeatedly fail to grasp an argument was an interesting spectacle the first time, but now it's just annoying.

Such a tosser. Telling me to stop. Just because you can't handle being wrong. I will stop but only because you're not worth the effort. Bye-bye. Welcome to my ignore list.

Go ahead. I'm only interested in philosophy, thanks.

[robvalue]

How can rape be evil if God says it is good? That's not a contradiction. It's good, and not evil, because God says so. Unless there is some way of deciding what is good/evil external to God, then "good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels he gives things. If there is in fact a way of determing it external to God, then his word is not required.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science does not say "There is no God". You're drawing up a system of strawmen.

Are you telling me you need God to tell you what is right and wrong? I consider what is best for human and animal wellbeing, and then use reason. I don't need God to think for me.

So which is it? Is something good because God says it is good, or is God just really good at spotting what is good? Can you choose one and stick to it?

But, does God say rape is good? To the contrary, God says love your neighbor.

Now, what's wrong basing morality from God Whom is the Perfect Being? Or, it is just that atheism are biased against Him? Any other reason aside from being biased? For, if morality is based from God's will, then it will just be arbitrary according to you, as if God is like human whose will may be arbitrary.

If you will not consider God in your morality, then your morality is subjective. If your morality is subjective, then you don't have the right to be protected based from your subjective opinion, as that is equal to imposing one's opinion to others. Hence, if you are used as a fish bait, you cannot appeal to your subjective morality to be saved from being used. That is just your opinion, if God will not be considered.

You don't know what God says. You read books, and people tell you things. Rape, in the bible, is often nothing more than a property crime. And sometimes God simply allowed people to do it to the survivors of cities his "people" pillaged. Slavery is also permitted.

Yes, my morality is subjective. But I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone. I own my morality as subjective. I make arguments as to why my morality is the way it is. If I'm used as fish bait, it doesn't much matter what my opinion of it is, does it? Morality doesn't save you from things happening to you. I think murder is wrong, but I can still be murdered.

Your morality is also subjective; it is god's opinion. You have chosen that reference point. I use my opinion instead.

[robvalue]

Also, divine commandment morality is clearly not objective anyway.

Is it moral to walk into a town and kill everyone there, including all the children?

It depends on whether the correct voice in your head told you to. If it did, it's moral. If it didn't, it's immoral. So it's not objectively moral or immoral.

[FallentoReason]

Also, divine commandment morality is clearly not objective anyway.

Is it moral to walk into a town and kill everyone there, including all the children?

It depends on whether the correct voice in your head told you to. If it did, it's moral. If it didn't, it's immoral. So it's not objectively moral or immoral.

Careful throwing around Euthyphro's Dilemma. Apparently it's a false dichotomy, so it can't be used against the theist.

[robvalue]

Not this theist, they plainly stated that if God says something is moral/immoral, then that is what it is.

Sure, if a theist has a way out of the dilemma, I'd love to hear it. Generally, they have nothing though. This guy at least admitted to have surrendered all humanity. Most people try to claim morality is two different things at once.

[robvalue]

Well, my version of the dilemma is pretty simple:

Does "what God wants" always align with "what is best for our wellbeing" or not?

If yes, the fact that he is God is irrelevant. He just happens to want us to do what we do anyway. He's like an expert analyst or something, nothing more.

If no, then you are compromising the wellbeing of people in order to please this God.

If anyone wants to tell me how that's a false dichotomy, I'm all ears.

[The Grand Nudger]

*Plato. And I don't mean to appeal to authority, but in this case it's justified, because do you really think Plato would be taught for the last ~2500 years if he was obviously an idiot that got it wrong that easily? Go ahead Rhythm, teach an ethics class, because obviously you know something we don't. I mean c'mon...

-an appeal to authority won't make it any less of a false dichotomy.  A false dichotomy is an issue of valid argument structure, not ethics, or who's an idiot...so this little bit of nonsense here is as pointless as the last bit.

There *is* only a or b, because it's mutually exclusive.

inb4 "but god doesn't exist" - no one cares. That doesn't suddenly make it a false dichotomy, because your belief doesn't negate philosophical arguments. And no, it's not even a logical third choice either, because otherwise what would it mean to philosophize? To repeat to yourself over and over again what you believe, so you can sleep warm at night? You're no better than Ham at philosophy parties, and that sucks Rhythm, because I remember you being different. Not sure what happened while I was gone.

It doesn't matter whether or not god exists, an invalid argument is an invalid argument.  A person who believes in god can -also- answer with a third option.  That's the reason that a false dichotomy is uninformative. You know what else is uninformative? Anything you might think regarding fun at philosophy parties, other people, or my relative level of warmth at night and where that originates from. Toasty by the way, ass and titties.