On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

This is true.

If you accept it is true then asking me to justify it when it's a tautology is utter nonsense. Do you not realize that?

I'm asking you to justify why it is neither. I'm not asking you to justify the logic of dichotomies. If I answered with my own option, 'squirrel', wouldn't you ask the same thing?

The dilemma is false, remember, simply because "neither" can be given as an answer.

So can "squirrel" be given as an answer. Both of these won't fly until you justify. And we've already been through your justification, which fails, because 'gods don't exist' won't be taken seriously by anyone.

I'm giving you a defintion and you accept it and then you want me to justify it?

Yes, yes I do, because I find that 'gods don't exist' is a weak justification.

The same equally applies to you.

I'm not the one saying the dilemma is false. I have no option c to justify. 

If gods don't exist then a question of their goodness is pointless.

To your mind. But realize that philosophy isn't about you.

 That is not the purpose of the dilemma. The purpose of the dilemma is to get theists to have to wrestle with the problem of evil.

*ding ding ding* you have objectively failed ethics 101. That is not at all what the dilemma is discussing. The problem of evil has it's own argument, it's called the Problem of Evil.

I'm not interested in the purpose of the dilemma

Which is why you're grossly misunderstanding how your reasoning fails.

until you give a consistent answer regarding whether you understand the definition of a false dilemma or not.

Yes, I understand, just like I understood yesterday and the day before.

Do you know what a false dilemma is or not?

You're leagues behind. This isn't the point of contention.

You can't even get past step 1. Yes it is a point of contention whilst you continue to parrot "it's not a false dilemma" after already saying it is one.

*bzzzzt* wrong.

I'm not going to budge until you stop contradicting yourself.

Never have. Start budging.

You've already done it again here now. You said "this is true" regarding the definition of a false dilemma

Yup.

and then you asked me to justify why it's false, lol!

Because I find the justification, that 'gods don't exist' boring, uninteresting, dull, uninsightful, meaningless.

It's false because you already admitted it is?

*bzzzzt* wrong.

And yet you continue to say it isn't?

Yup.

Consistency please.

Been getting it all along.

You're more interested in scoring points than accuracy and being correct. This is why you would rather continue to contradict yourself than admit you're wrong about something petty. If you can't even be consistent and stop contradicting yourself about something petty why should I bother you with the big stuff?

Because only then will the nitty gritty be important. If you don't even understand the purpose of the dilemma, then why should I take your arguments seriously?

[FallentoReason]

Something tells me that you're the kind of guy who sees a no swimming sign with a picture of a gator on it and thinks;  "Look, a public pool".  

Ha ha!

Well, I do live in Australia, so nothing new there   but in all honesty, I will have to say I like going where most people haven't. I know some of the things I'll come up with are silly (**like the OP to this one), but I enjoy being a little bit creative and liberal with philosophy and seeing if something worthwhile comes out of it. I suppose that's where you guys come in, to see how my reasoning fares. 



**I realise that my OP at best shows an authority who happens to be moral, but not an authority *of* morals. The two aren't connected in the right way.

[Edwardo Piet]

Premise 1. A false dilemma is a dilemma where [at least one other option] can be given. You accept this.
Premise 2. The answer "neither" [could some day, with adequate reasoning] be given to the dilemma we are discussing. You accept this.
Conclusion: The dilemma we are discussing is a false one. You don't accept this.

I've corrected it for you. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

My bold and underline.

Regarding my bold:

You haven't corrected anything there. I said a false dilemma is a dilemma where the answer "neither" can be given. That is because it demonstrates that another option is available. Your so-called correction of me is saying the exact same thing I said.

Regarding my underline:

No, it can be given.

The dilemma asks if it's true that the gods are good because they're good or if it's true that what is good is only good because it comes from the gods. The dilemma is false because it ignores the possibility of "gods are neither good nor does goodness come from them."

That is the definition of a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be "Are the gods good because they're good or is what is good only good because it comes from the gods or not?"

That would be a true dichotomy.

But, sure, keep doubling down on your wrongness. I expect nothing less from you at this point.

[FallentoReason]

Premise 1. A false dilemma is a dilemma where [at least one other option] can be given. You accept this.
Premise 2. The answer "neither" [could some day, with adequate reasoning] be given to the dilemma we are discussing. You accept this.
Conclusion: The dilemma we are discussing is a false one. You don't accept this.

I've corrected it for you. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

My bold and underline.

Regarding my bold:

You haven't corrected anything there. I said a false dilemma is a dilemma where the answer "neither" can be given. That is because it demonstrates that another option is available. Your so-called correction of me is saying the exact same thing I said.

I made your definition broader.

Regarding my underline:

No, it can be given.

The dilemma asks if it's true that the gods are good because they're good or if it's true that what is good is only good because it comes from the gods.

The dilemma is false because it ignores the possibility of "gods are neither good nor does goodness come from them."

I understand that, but since it's an atheistic argument against theistic morality your option is pointless. What's your motivation for proving an atheistic argument wrong with an atheistic conclusion? It's pure nonsense.

That is the definition of a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be "Are the gods good because they're good or not or is what is good only good because it comes from the gods or not?"

That would be a true dichotomy.

I fixed it.

Your correction doesn't add anything meaningful to the table, aside from being able to sneak in your pointless atheistic conclusion.

[Silver]

The moral authority seems to be what the majority believes and accepts.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

You made my definition "broader" which is just code for the fact you changed the definition from what a false dichotomy is to what a false dichotomy isn't.

At the end of the day this could have been you simply saying "Oh yes you're right it is a false dilemma! Anyways let's talk about the dilemma" but instead you spend what felt like forever explicitly saying it isn't a false dichotomy whilst saying things that imply that it is, contradicting yourself, and then when it finally comes to you having to admit I'm right you admit it by telling me that you understand but my accuracy is pointless. Yes it's petty but it could have just been a lighthearted "Oh yes you're right it is a false dilemma" but instead you made it into a big thing by doubling down on your fallacious wrongness over and over.

And it's certainly not been petty for me to discover how unwilling you are to admit your wrongness and how willing you are to double-down on it rather than admitting a point of being wrong.

You know, you could have said that what I was saying was irrelevant without pretending that it's not a false dichotomy.

Anyways, it wasn't completely pointless anyway. It became pointless because you insisted on making you being wrong about something small into a big thing by insisting you were right as you contradicting yourself, and claimed to know you knew what false dichotomy was.

The point is, as atheists, we don't have to worry about this dilemma. What I said was meant to be a non-serious, flippant stab at theism "False dichotomy because the answer is neither and that there are no gods" but instead you made it into this big thing about how it's not a false dichotomy.

And then there was me thinking:

"I was merely having a stab at theism but if you're going to tell me that it's not a false dichotomy when I know it is one, I don't care how petty it is I will correct you. It is a false dichotomy so don't tell me you know what one is when it's a false dichotomy and you simultaneously claim it isn't one even when the option "neither" being merely available as a possibility, which you acknowledge, is the very definition of a false dichotomy and contradicts and refutes your claim that it isn't one."

So at the end of the day, it was never meant to be a big point on my part. It was just something flippant to say but then you had to start being inaccurate. I don't care how small of an inaccuracy it is, it's still inaccurate and it would be fine if you admitted I was right and then called me a pedant but to double down on your wrongness and insist that a false dichotomy wasn't a false dichotomy won't give you a free pass. So originally there was no point but you made it into one and all's well that ends well when I demonstrate to someone that they don't admit their wrongness quite like they should. This is a lesson in how you ought to be more intellectually honest.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]What's your motivation for proving an atheistic argument wrong with an atheistic conclusion? It's pure nonsense.

That wasn't my motivation. I wasn't making an argument I was correcting your wrongness.

[Silver]

Oh, then show us the rightness.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you accept it is true then asking me to justify it when it's a tautology is utter nonsense. Do you not realize that?
[...]

I'm giving you a defintion [of a false dichotomy] and you accept it and then you want me to justify it?

Yes, yes I do, because I find that 'gods don't exist' is a weak justification.

One of the most hilariously non-sequitury non-sequiturs that ever non-sequitured.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh, then show us the rightness.

I did.

Right here:

The dilemma asks if it's true that the gods are good because they're good or if it's true that what is good is only good because it comes from the gods. The dilemma is false because it ignores the possibility of "gods are neither good nor does goodness come from them."

That is the definition of a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be "Are the gods good because they're good or is what is good only good because it comes from the gods or not?"

That would be a true dichotomy.

But, sure, keep doubling down on your wrongness. I expect nothing less from you at this point.

^^^ Red text ^^^