On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

My answer is "neither", the fact that I can give that answer demonstrates that the dichotomy is false.

The fact you can pull shit out of your pocket proves nothing. I can play that game too: (d) squirrels.

The fact that I can answer with "neither" does indeed demonstrate that the dichotomy is false.

Here's you agreeing with me previously:

I did logic too, as well as philosophy of language, science, aesthetics, Buddhism, religion and ethics as mentioned. I was perhaps one or two units away from a minor in philosophy.

I know what a false dichotomy is. That's not in dispute. I know option c *could be* 'neither'. That's not in dispute.What's in dispute is your unsupported *reasoning* for option c. I asked you time and time again to either work through both horns logically, or explain to me how it's logically 'neither'. You failed time and time again to explicate your absurdity. I saved you from the embarrassment by pointing out you were speaking like a closet theist, blindingly saying 'neither' and how that's what the theist would say (without adequate justification). Yesterday was a disgrace to atheistic philosophy - seeing you failing to recognise (a) what the argument is doing and (b) you not realising you're attacking your own side. Now go read a book or something, I'm done wasting time on this.

My bolding.

So are you aware of your self-contradiction yet?

And here's the defeater for why it's not neither. You're attempting to undermine an atheistic argument with the atheistic conclusion to said atheistic argument. It's like saying the problem of evil is not sound because the mere situation it describes implies a god.

It's neither because there are no gods.

You're out of your mind. Now please stop.

Your mind is demonstrably contradictory. Mine is not. I do no want to stop. It's futile to keep asking me to. You respond, I respond. Fair is fair. You don't have to respond. We both choose to.

[FallentoReason]

The fact you can pull shit out of your pocket proves nothing. I can play that game too: (d) squirrels.

The fact that I can answer with "neither" does indeed demonstrate that the dichotomy is false.

And I can answer with "squirrel". Both unintelligible answers until justified.

Here's you agreeing with me previously:

I did logic too, as well as philosophy of language, science, aesthetics, Buddhism, religion and ethics as mentioned. I was perhaps one or two units away from a minor in philosophy.

I know what a false dichotomy is. That's not in dispute. I know option c *could be* 'neither'. That's not in dispute.What's in dispute is your unsupported *reasoning* for option c. I asked you time and time again to either work through both horns logically, or explain to me how it's logically 'neither'. You failed time and time again to explicate your absurdity. I saved you from the embarrassment by pointing out you were speaking like a closet theist, blindingly saying 'neither' and how that's what the theist would say (without adequate justification). Yesterday was a disgrace to atheistic philosophy - seeing you failing to recognise (a) what the argument is doing and (b) you not realising you're attacking your own side. Now go read a book or something, I'm done wasting time on this.

My bolding.

So are you aware of your self-contradiction yet?

Are you aware of the nonsense you're proposing yet? It could be 'neither' just as it could be 'squirrel'. It will be only when it has been successfully justified. And saying:

And here's the defeater for why it's not neither. You're attempting to undermine an atheistic argument with the atheistic conclusion to said atheistic argument. It's like saying the problem of evil is not sound because the mere situation it describes implies a god.

It's neither because there are no gods.

won't fly because that atheistic conclusion can't be the rebuttal to its own atheistic argument.

You're out of your mind. Now please stop.

Your mind is demonstrably contradictory. Mine is not. I do no want to stop. It's futile to keep asking me to. You respond, I respond. Fair is fair. You don't have to respond. We both choose to.

In all honesty, the only thing that makes me reply again and again is the sheer stupidity of what you're rooting for. I keep thinking I'm being punk'd, but I'm no celebrity, so this must sadly be real life.

[Edwardo Piet]

The fact that I can answer with "neither" does indeed demonstrate that the dichotomy is false.

And I can answer with "squirrel". Both unintelligible answers until justified.

I'm asking you whether you accept that a dichotomy that can be answered with "neither" is a false one or not. That''s not anything I have to justify that's something you've failed to consistently answer.

Are you aware of the nonsense you're proposing yet? It could be 'neither' just as it could be 'squirrel'. It will be only when it has been successfully justified. And saying:

"Squirrel" is an example of "neither".

To say that a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where the answer "neither" can be given is not to propose nonsense, it's to give you the definition of a false dichotomy in order to demonstrate to you that you were wrong to say that a dichotomy involving gods is a true one because it can be answered with "neither". That makes it a false one.

won't fly because that atheistic conclusion can't be the rebuttal to its own atheistic argument.

A dichotomy involving gods can't apply if there are no gods.

In all honesty, the only thing that makes me reply again and again is the sheer stupidity of what you're rooting for. I keep thinking I'm being punk'd, but I'm no celebrity, so this must sadly be real life.

I didn't say I was routing for anything. All I'm saying is that a dichotomy that can be answered with "neither" is a false one, the dichotomy you gave was an example of that, and I believe that "neither" is the true option because I believe there are no gods so a horn of the dichotomy involving gods is an incorrect horn. You're making up some really bizarre misrepresentation of things I never said. You have literally no idea how pedantic I am. If you had said that your dilemma presupposed the existence of gods it would be a true dichotomy but you didn't' say that. You left open the option for "neither" and you admitted it was an option and yet still denied it. You're not pedantic enough. Oh goodness, I wish you were, I wish more people were. Non-pedantic is inaccurate. Anything less than full pedantry is an openness to jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. Make the implicit explicit.

[FallentoReason]

A dichotomy involving gods can't apply if there are no gods.

You wouldn't get taken seriously in an academic environment. This sort of response doesn't engage with the dilemma in any meaningful way, just like 'squirrel' won't either. You see, philosophy isn't about seeing the world through *your* eyes. Understand that this argument isn't meant for *you*. What it's asking of you is to get in the theist's shoes and think through the horns. If you actually stopped being stubborn for once you'd realise we would have something to agree about, only IF you actually bothered to philosophise and reach a conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

A theist can also answer "neither".  Again, you have a myopic view of god and good. Not every god botherer does or has.

[robvalue]

Sure, a theist can simply announce that morality is subjective, and there's no problem to be had.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or they can remind someone that their gods are capricious and fickle, that they have no relationship to the good.  Or that they are beyond petty human concepts such -as- good.  Or that the good is neither loved by god because it it good or good because it is loved by god...but that the good -is- god. The possible -neither- answers are limited only by the varying god concepts that people do and have believed in...and those aren't limited at all, despite some theists™ pulling the highlander routine at a fundamanetal and conceptual  level.  

As has already been pointed out.  It's a false dilemma that -some- theists find compelling.  There's a checklist, though, for which theists will find it compelling.  

1. Don't give a shit that the argument structure is invalid.
2. Has a myopic view of good.
3. Has a myopic view of god.

You have to check all three, if you don't, it's not even a dilemma.

[robvalue]

Sure. Each theist can make up whatever shit they want since it's all imaginary. And as "morality" isn't well-defined either, they can pretty much make up whatever they want for that too.

It's the ones who insist on objective morality and then use dual definitions which fall foul of equivocations and dilemmas.

I don't understand how anyone can support "objective morality", if morality is in any way to do with wellbeing. That implies wellbeing can be objectively assessed. And I say it can't. Not in the same way that length can be. For length, we only have to agree on the units we use. For wellbeing, it's such a broad topic that I doubt any two people would agree on a method.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I could casually call my morality objective.  It's objective in every sense that matters to me or to the subject, but if it falls below someone else's criteria for objective (alot of people use the word to mean uniformly and absolutely true with no exceptions and no room to argue) then it doesn't matter to me.  I'll call it subjective...and it doesn't change a thing about how I approach the issue. I still think that there are moral facts of the matter, even if I don't know all of them, and even if I've confused something else -for- one of them.

That's actually a realization I came to here at AF, over many long disagreements with smart posters, btw. This place does work!

[robvalue]

Well sure, you could call your own moral system objective. Everyone's is, at any particular point. But they change over time.

What I'm saying is people who try and state morality is objective for everyone at once are talking bollocks. All they are doing is projecting their own standard.