On Moral Authorities

[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.