On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Are you done, or...?  

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.

Not my problem.  If you've never seen a believer escape this on entirely, then you need to find a better quality of believer to listen to.  

Congratulations, you've also failed ethics 101.

Something tells me that your grade means very little.

[FallentoReason]

Are you done, or...?

Yep. I'm not wasting time on people that wouldn't pass a basic ethics class. I used to think you could build monuments, but now it's just hit me that you don't even understand the basics. You've only built monumental piles of shit here. 'Kant isn't describing ethics'... for the love of god, that's face palm worthy.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have a palm, you have a face, and it's your baby.  You know what to do.  Are you done now....?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not interested in a basic ethics class. I'm more interested in analysing paradoxes in population ethics, thank you very much.

I'm the guy who corrects the teachers, they do a Google search and then they're like "Ooops, you were right."

[Edwardo Piet]

But I can link you the basic definition of a false dichotomy and your head is too up your ass to admit that it's a false dichotomy. Doesn't mean we can't discuss your dilemma, anyway, by the way. You failed my test, which was to see if you were capable of admitting you were wrong but no, you are not, you double down even when I link you to the definition of a false dichotomy and it's staring in the face.

Ethics 101 isn't going to get you anywhere, dude, until you learn logic 101.

[FallentoReason]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

When you say it could be "neither" you are agreeing with me that it's a false dichotomy. I don't have to explain logically why it's neither I never said it was. That was your own strawman of me.

So it took this long for you to admit I was right, basically. And you still haven't admitted I'm right explicitly, you've only done it implicitly, and you're probably going to continue to double down on why it's not a false dichotomy, according to you, despite just now implicitly agreeing that it is one.

In reality, the only one embarrassing themselves here is you. Anyone who thinks I'm embarrassing myself is just one more person who can't grasp my logic.

Here's my own argument from authority to counteract your bullshit about Plato, seen as you like your fallacies so much:

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
― Bertrand Russell

[FallentoReason]

When you say it could be "neither" you are agreeing with me that it's a false dichotomy.

Negative. You were galaxies away from explicating how it's neither. Let me demonstrate: option d, squirrels, just because. Accept it or accept you're wrong.

I don't have to explain logically why it's neither I never said it was.

YOU ARE JOKING?! Lucky for you I'm on my phone right now and cannot be bothered to quote every single time you kept parroting 'neither'.

That was your own strawman of me.

Bull-fucking-shit. This is too rich.

So it took this long for you to admit I was right, basically. And you still haven't admitted I'm right explicitly, you've only done it implicitly, and you're probably going to continue to double down on why it's not a false dichotomy, according to you, despite just now implicitly agreeing that it is one.

Hopeless.

In reality, the only one embarrassing themselves here is you. Anyone who thinks I'm embarrassing myself is just one more person who can't grasp my logic.

Your brand of logic reeks of falsities. Not interested.

Here's my own argument from authority to counteract your bullshit about Plato, seen as you like your fallacies so much:

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
― Bertrand Russell

Cool.

[theologian]

Which arguments do you regard to be sound? We won't discuss them here, but I'd like to know your context please.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas

But, Being, and Truth and Goodness are one and the same reality, those are just viewed in different ways : Being is Being in Itself, Truth is just Being viewed in Intellect, and Goodness is just Being viewed in the will.

Why does it have to be Truth and Goodness? Why not Lies and Badness?

Because truth is the state of mind in accordance with being or reality while lies are the opposite. And because everything that must be truly good, must be true, and everything that is true must be real, and badness is always in contrary with being. Hence Truth and Goodness instead of Lies and Badness.

So, since cheating and lying are against truth, and God is Truth Himself; lying and cheating is against God; and that God is the end of man, and the morality of man is based on the end of him, it follows that lying and cheating are bad.

How does all of this fare with the Old Testament? Is God really all that you say if he once upon a time commanded to kill and rape?

The Old Testament must be understood in light of Christ. It teaches about justice and can be used in spirituality like fighting one's sins like how God's people must eradicate not some, but all of the opponent and so all and not some sins may be eradicated. Without Christ and the teaching of the Church, one cannot conclude rightly from the Old Testament. That is not an old problem. A heretic named Marcion in times of first Christians had denied the Old Testament by understanding it incorrectly, by, like the modern atheists, conclude God of the Old Testament is evil, which is again incorrect, for it didn't consider Christ and His Church which is the completion of God's revelation.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "they had it coming" theory of xenocide justification.  Some god, some morality. You know, it's not a problem at all if you just repeat after me. "God didn't actually do or command any of that shit, they're just stories".

Hey presto! Evil lying heretic atheist objections handled. Next.