On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

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.

Because you are contradicting yourself...

*bzzzzt* wrong.

and to say you know what a false dichotomy is,

Yup.

and to correctly say it's a dichotomy where the answer "neither" can be given,

Yup.

and to admit that the answer "neither" can be given to this dichotomy that we're discussing,

*bzzzzt* wrong.

and yet to continue to say "It's not a false dichotomy" is indeed doubling down on your wrongness.

*bzzzzt* wrong.

Rather than put 2 and 2 together you'd like to keep insisting the answer isn't 4.

Poetic.

My own story? All my story has been...

Are you sure it's not you that should be a politician? Loving the smooth question dodging.

...is that the answer "neither" can be given to the dilemma,

And I've told you time and time again how it's not justified.

and thereby it's a false dilemma,

*bzzzzt* wrong. Yet to be proven successfully.

because that's what a false dilemma is...

If you could for once successfully justify your answer.

and then I've also said that I think the answer is "neither" because I think there aren't any gods.

And this is why you're wrong. Simply stating your belief isn't a valid option c. Reason being that if that's legitimate, then the theist can just as easily say, 'no, but they do.' Now what?

 All this nonsense about me saying there necessarily are no gods and that the answer necessarily is "neither" is just a strawman.

Then make an effort to clear up your mess.

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'll believe it when I see it. You could start by giving a consistent answer regarding whether the dichotomy is a true or false one.

My answer has always been that it's not a false one. Otherwise this discussion would have ended days ago.

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*.

Hello strawman again. I've never been trying to refute the dilemma.

Yes, you have. By saying

...it's a false dilemma.

And it is a false dilemma.

*bzzzzt* wrong. You still haven't provided good reasoning for why it's 'neither'.

You've said what a false dilemma is, correctly.

Yup.

You've said that the conditions of a false dilemma apply to the dilemma.

*bzzzzt* wrong.

You have failed to put 2 and 2 together and continued to insist it's not a false dilemma.

Because that's been my argument all along. Keep up please. 

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.

You continue to double down on explicitly saying it's not a false dilemma despite implicitly saying it is. All I want is a consistent answer.

And I've been doing that since the beginning.