On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

*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.

The reason he still gets taught is because maybe, just maybe, there's something there worth learning. But clearly it's going way over your head.

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.

Yes, and whenever the theist says 'neither' and they try explain why... well, we've all seen that mess before. Therefore, the dilemma still stands the test of time as an argument for atheistic morals.

Congratulations, you've also failed ethics 101.