Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Or you're wrong and people can reason further. I'm leaning towards that hypothesis, because your response sounds like a taxicab fallacy.

For instance, if people cannot ground ethics in themselves or others, or rocks, or trees or carpets or horseflies or even the universe, and no material causal relationship can be demonstrated between ethics and behavior, one could very well reason that it's unlikely that metaphysical naturalism is true.

I don't see why that's an unreasonable conclusion, unless you want to go the other way and appeal to moral nihilism.

You are one of the dumber trolls, aren't you?

The scope of your question was limited to turning the Euthyphro's dilemma against atheists, which means the only relevant facts were about whether or not an atheist regards morality to be dependent on him and why.

Plato wasn't an atheist, so this question doesn't apply to him.

Going any further and asking what else morality does or doesn't depend on would be going beyond the scope of the question.

Once your answer came in, there was nothing more to discuss about the Euthyphro.

Did you think you were not allowed to talk about anything else? Everyone else is doing quite fine. Most people here don't even stick to the scope of rational answers.

[genkaus]

Once your answer came in, there was nothing more to discuss about the Euthyphro.

Did you think you were not allowed to talk about anything else? Everyone else is doing quite fine. Most people here don't even stick to the scope of rational answers.

I prefer not to move into new topics without settling the issue at hand first and once the issue is settled, I prefer to have acknowledgment of the fact.

As you said, once my answer came it, the issue of Euthyphro's dilemma was resolved, which means that the Euthyphro's dilemma does not apply to atheists and the question, as posed, was nonsensical.

Now that that is resolved, we can move an and talk about something else.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Once your answer came in, there was nothing more to discuss about the Euthyphro.

Did you think you were not allowed to talk about anything else? Everyone else is doing quite fine. Most people here don't even stick to the scope of rational answers.

I prefer not to move into new topics without settling the issue at hand first and once the issue is settled, I prefer to have acknowledgment of the fact.

As you said, once my answer came it, the issue of Euthyphro's dilemma was resolved, which means that the Euthyphro's dilemma does not apply to atheists and the question, as posed, was nonsensical.

Now that that is resolved, we can move an and talk about something else.

The issue was settled when you said the good transcended your existence.

We weren't going to settle the issue further. You know how hard it is to get consensus from a community that doesn't even know what they believe.

[genkaus]

The issue was settled when you said the good transcended your existence.

We weren't going to settle the issue further. You know how hard it is to get consensus from a community that doesn't even know what they believe.

Very well then. The issue was settled, you were shown to be wrong - what else is there to discuss?