On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

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. 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. 

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.

*facepalm*

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

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.

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

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.

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

The point is, as atheists, we don't have to worry about this dilemma.

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.

What I said was meant to be a non-serious, flippant stab at theism

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

"False dichotomy because the answer is neither and that there are no gods"

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

but instead you made it into this big thing about how it's not a false dichotomy.

...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? 

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.

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

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.

[FallentoReason]

[...]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.

By correcting my wrongness, that the dilemma is false, you are positively argumenting that the atheistic argument is false, via atheistic conclusions. It's pure insanity.

[FallentoReason]

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.

You're incorrectly using 'non-sequitur'. Saying that 'gods don't exist' is a weak justification isn't a premise/conclusion structure where a non-sequitur can happen. It's much simpler than that - 'gods don't exist' is simply an uninsightful thing to propose, and if you knew what a non-sequitur is, you'd know you've been wielding one the whole time.

[FallentoReason]

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 ^^^

And it was explained to you that your modification would allow you to slip in 'gods don't exist', which is an uninteresting objection to the dilemma, which is aimed at theists and not atheists.

[robvalue]

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

Nice. That is the closest I think we can get. It's what makes objective morality wielding theists recoil in horror, at the idea that humans could "decide" morality.

In the case of a dictatorship, you could have "imposed morality", but laws are not morals. So the actual morality of the people may be very different. Same with someone in a cult against their will, although in both cases here people may simply be brainwashed.

[Ignorant]

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

Nice. That is the closest I think we can get. It's what makes objective morality wielding theists recoil in horror, at the idea that humans could "decide" morality.

In the case of a dictatorship, you could have "imposed morality", but laws are not morals. So the actual morality of the people may be very different. Same with someone in a cult against their will, although in both cases here people may simply be brainwashed.

Well, I'm not sure that's what makes anyone recoil in horror. That humans can "decide" morality is a fact of history. That humans often "decide" poorly, is also a fact of history. That there is really something about which those decisions are made is the actual question. If there is a real something, then decisions can either be better or worse, and a common rational appeal to that real spectrum can be made and spoken about between the majority and the minority. If there is not a real something, then "better" or "worse" is artificially determined by the majority, with no rational appeal accessible by the minority. Tends to suck for the minority.

[robvalue]

A real something? What does that mean?

Moral choices can be better or worse towards specific goals. If we agree on some rough standards, then morality can be seen to improve or decline. But just saying "this is better/worse than that" does indeed not mean anything until you've defined what you're talking about. Morality isn't some inherent property, it's an abstract judgement made by sentient beings. (Or a way of studying behaviour, and the evolution of cooperative species, which is how morality came about.)

I think the mistake of attributing morality to "God" or whatever often comes about because people don't understand why people are moral. But the answer is simple; they want to be moral, in general. They evolved that way. They get nice feelings when they help people, and bad feelings when they hurt someone.

[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:

[Ignorant]

A real something? What does that mean?

Well, your suggested "specific goals" can serve as a perfect "real something". For example:

If you want to bring about X, then y is good/bad for that goal, and z is better/worse for that same goal.

^You can really be right or wrong about that.

If there is no universally sought "X" (i.e. no universal goal which everyone is trying to achieve through their smaller particular goals) among humanity, then there are either many particular x's, each as valid as the next, or no real x at all.

If no x at all, then there is no human morality of which to speak in the same way that there is no goldfish morality of which to speak. There is no rational way to speak of morality.

If many x's, even contrary x's can be simultaneously valid for different groups. Reason can be used to discuss morality within the context of its particular x, and only those humans who seek just that x.

If one universal X, then it's the one thing everyone is trying to do (some better than others) with their life. Reason can be used to discuss morality for any given human.

[robvalue]

Sure. Well, I'd say there is no universal goal. You won't get everyone to agree on a goal. But you could hopefully get the majority to agree on some vague principles. The way society works, this happens naturally anyway. But different societies go in different directions. The civilises West would mostly be concerned with human wellbeing. The extremist Islamic areas in the East are more concerned with what Allah wants, than human wellbeing. Clearly, since they're willing to kill people and blow themselves up to please their God.

So morality is just culture dependent, and further than that, it's different for each individual. Judging others as moral or immoral isn't helpful ultimately. Persuading them why this is the case is what matters. This is why it's the reasons why you act a certain way that are important, not the act itself.