On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm well aware, and I've shared my thoughts on that already. Though, that's not what Ham is talking about, purely due to the fact that he's unable to conceptualize the dilemma the right way.

Hilarious.

Oh well, I'd rather be underestimated than overestimated

Just because I won't budge my stubborn ass until you give a consistent answer about something and stop contradicting yourself doesn't mean I can't conceptualize something. I refuse to engage in what you want me to engage in if I'm dealing with someone who isn't even willing to give a consistent answer on whether a false dichotomy is one where the answer "neither" can be given. Once I know you're mature enough to stop doubling down on your self-contradicition, then we can talk about the dilemma. Either you know what a false dichotomy is or you don't. You tell me you know what one is and that you know the answer "neither" can be given and yet you continue to say it's not a false dichotomy. You're more interested in your pride and saving-face than debate, clearly. Like I said you'd make a better politician than a philosopher. I'll engage in what you want me to engage in when you admit that if the answer "neither" can be given it's a false dichotomy, and since the answer "neither" can be given, it's a false dichotomy. Rather than admit that I'm right about that you'd like to strawman me with all this bullshit pretending I'm saying the answer necessarily is neither. I never said there necessarily are no gods. I'm stubborn regarding your wrongness and correcting you because your self-contradiction is embarassing and I'm testing you to see if you're actually worthy of debate. Because until you can learn to debate someone without doubling down on your self-contradiction when you've been shown to be wrong, you're not worthy of debate. You've literally said you know that a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where "neither" could be the case, and you've also said you know that within the dilemma you speak of "neither" could be the case.... the fact you can't put 2 and 2 together and continue to say it's not a false dichotomy is so embarrassing. You'd rather pretend 2+2 isn't 4 than admit you're wrong about something.

[FallentoReason]

You wouldn't get taken seriously in an academic environment. This sort of response doesn't engage with the dilemma in any meaningful way, just like 'squirrel' won't either. You see, philosophy isn't about seeing the world through *your* eyes. Understand that this argument isn't meant for *you*. What it's asking of you is to get in the theist's shoes and think through the horns. If you actually stopped being stubborn for once you'd realise we would have something to agree about, only IF you actually bothered to philosophise and reach a conclusion.

Before I engage in the dilemma I have just been trying to get a consistent answer from you regarding true and false dichotomies. Your inconsistent answers and self-contradiction and unwillingness to admit you're wrong is embarrassing. Why not just say "Oh you're right, it is a false dichotomy, because the answer "neither" had been given, I'd never thought of that."? You've already said that you know what a false dichotomy is and that the answer "neither" can be given, so then why do you keep insisting its not a false dichotomy? You're contradicting yourself. Either you know what a false dichotomy is or you don't. In order to debate you have to admit when you're wrong about something. You're more interested in your pride than in debate. I'll address the dilemma when I've discovered that the person I've addressing is capable of admitting to their own self-contradiction rather than burying their head in the sand and doubling down on their falsity.

The issue you're having is that for some unknown reason you believe that producing *an* answer, any answer at all, will miraculously make the dilemma false. I've asked for you to justify how it can be neither, and to be fair, you actually did give a response. You keep saying it's because 'gods don't exist'. But see, that assertion is up for debate. The whole reason why there's volumes and volumes of literature on gods/no gods etc. is because we're all trying to find sound reasoning, either for or against the existence of god(s). And simply denying the dilemma 'because gods don't exist' is rather narrow-minded, uninteresting, biased. My equally boring reply to that would be, 'they exist, so you're refutation is wrong'. Now what?

[FallentoReason]

I'm well aware, and I've shared my thoughts on that already. Though, that's not what Ham is talking about, purely due to the fact that he's unable to conceptualize the dilemma the right way.

Hilarious.

Oh well, I'd rather be underestimated than overestimated

All I mean by that is that I think you're not giving it the proper time of day. There's a reason why it gets taught, and it's not because of authority.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, it gets taught because a particularly myopic view of the divine has enjoyed cultural hegemony for a few thousand years.  That makes it important regardless of it;s being a false dichotomy. Historically important. It has no other bearing or relevance to the subject at hand, since believers have long been able to escape the dillemma and it's not a dillemma at all to secular moral theory, which is also available to believers.

[FallentoReason]

It;s a false dillemma for Hams reason,

I really am being punk'd, hey?

and for any other reason that one can offer that doesn;t adhere to a or b. Any c is sufficient to demonstrate that this is the case.

Okay, let me try! Ooh, ooh, I know, "squirrel"!

Lol, I'm done.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hilarious.

Oh well, I'd rather be underestimated than overestimated

All I mean by that is that I think you're not giving it the proper time of day. There's a reason why it gets taught, and it's not because of authority.

That was about your saying Plato is likely to be right because he's revered.

[Edwardo Piet]

It;s a false dillemma for Hams reason,

I really am being punk'd, hey?

Dude. I can quote your own posts to show that you agree with us. And then I can also quote you continuing to insist it's not a false dichotomy after saying it is. I have already showed you your own self-contradiction once. The fact you are so blind to your own errors is very amusing.

[FallentoReason]

Like I said you'd make a better politician than a philosopher.

You insist I'm "contradicting" and "doubling down", yet you can't even get your *own* story straight. Never have I read this from you in the previous pages, unless you chucked it in as an edit I missed.

Look, I admit I'm only human, but if there's one thing that all those units taught me is how to think critically. I think I have the capacity to know what I'm saying, and hold to that/those beliefs closely. Considering you wouldn't be taken seriously academically, I know you lack what it would take to follow my reasoning (as evidenced by your failure to understand what a proper refutation of the dilemma would look like), let alone call me out *properly*.

[Edwardo Piet]

The issue you're having is that for some unknown reason you believe that producing *an* answer, any answer at all, will miraculously make the dilemma false. I've asked for you to justify how it can be neither, and to be fair, you actually did give a response. You keep saying it's because 'gods don't exist'. But see, that assertion is up for debate. The whole reason why there's volumes and volumes of literature on gods/no gods etc. is because we're all trying to find sound reasoning, either for or against the existence of god(s). And simply denying the dilemma 'because gods don't exist' is rather narrow-minded, uninteresting, biased. My equally boring reply to that would be, 'they exist, so you're refutation is wrong'. Now what?

My bold.

I thought you said that you know a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where the answer "neither" could be the case?

The dilemma is false, remember, simply because "neither" can be given as an answer. Do you know what a false dilemma is or not?

[FallentoReason]

All I mean by that is that I think you're not giving it the proper time of day. There's a reason why it gets taught, and it's not because of authority.

That was about your saying Plato is likely to be right because he's revered.

And the subtlety you missed is that maybe he's only revered because there's some truth to get out of him. Truth never goes out of fashion.