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.