On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

The issue you're having is that for some unknown reason you believe that producing *an* answer, any answer at all, will miraculously make the dilemma false. I've asked for you to justify how it can be neither, and to be fair, you actually did give a response. You keep saying it's because 'gods don't exist'. But see, that assertion is up for debate. The whole reason why there's volumes and volumes of literature on gods/no gods etc. is because we're all trying to find sound reasoning, either for or against the existence of god(s). And simply denying the dilemma 'because gods don't exist' is rather narrow-minded, uninteresting, biased. My equally boring reply to that would be, 'they exist, so you're refutation is wrong'. Now what?

My bold.

I thought you said that you know a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where the answer "neither" could be the case?

This is true.

The dilemma is false, remember, simply because "neither" can be given as an answer.

So can "squirrel" be given as an answer. Both of these won't fly until you justify. And we've already been through your justification, which fails, because 'gods don't exist' won't be taken seriously by anyone.

Do you know what a false dilemma is or not?

You're leagues behind. This isn't the point of contention.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that's a subtelty?  LOL, that's inanity.  Jim Jones was revered as well.  

You can't address the subject at hand, that you insist on, and so you've attempted to make this an issue of people saying that there's nothing to get out of "authority x", which, ofc, is something that no one but yourself insists on.  The only reason you've been forced to such desperation is because you attempted to make an appeal to authority in defense of a false dichotomy.

Toilet swirling.

[FallentoReason]

...you've attempted to make this an issue of people saying that there's nothing to get out of "authority x"...

No, I believe you guys just stop at, 'oh, just because he's an authority'. I'm giving a reason for why their name(s) have stood the test of time, within philosophy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Like I said you'd make a better politician than a philosopher.

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... and to say you know what a false dichotomy is, and to correctly say it's a dichotomy where the answer "neither" can be given, and to admit that the answer "neither" can be given to this dichotomy that we're discussing, and yet to continue to say "It's not a false dichotomy" is indeed doubling down on your wrongness. Rather than put 2 and 2 together you'd like to keep insisting the answer isn't 4.

My own story? All my story has been is that the answer "neither" can be given to the dilemma, and thereby it's a false dilemma, because that's what a false dilemma is... and then I've also said that I think the answer is "neither" because I think there aren't any gods. All this nonsense about me saying there necessarily are no gods and that the answer necessarily is "neither" is just a strawman.

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.

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. I've just said it's a false dilemma. And it is a false dilemma. You've said what a false dilemma is, correctly. You've said that the conditions of a false dilemma apply to the dilemma. You have failed to put 2 and 2 together and continued to insist it's not a false dilemma.

Premise 1. A false dilemma is a dilemma where the answer "neither" can be given. You accept this.
Premise 2. The answer "neither" can 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.

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.

Bonus conclusion: It's time you bit the bullet.

Bite the bullet is in philosophy, taking-in an unavoidable situation that would be deemed as unpleasant.

A more specific meaning of the phrase is to accept unpleasant consequences of one's assumed beliefs. Sound reasoning requires its practitioner to always sustain a consistent set of beliefs. This may involve accepting a disturbing belief that is a consequence of one's currently held beliefs. It may be disturbing because it is counterintuitive or has other disturbing consequences. Given a philosopher's currently held beliefs that he or she is not prepared to give up, he or she may have to bite the bullet by accepting a particular claim offered as an extreme case or putative counterexample.

[The Grand Nudger]

...you've attempted to make this an issue of people saying that there's nothing to get out of "authority x"...

No, I believe you guys just stop at, 'oh, just because he's an authority'. I'm giving a reason for why their name(s) have stood the test of time, within philosophy.

Still trying to make this about something it's not.  It doesn't -matter- why or whether they've stood the test of time, it's still a false dichotomy.

Now you're appealing to tradition, in defense of an appeal to authority, that was a defense of a false dichotomy. Something isn't made more valid because a smart guy said it, no matter how many people have accepted it, or for how long that they have done so.

Toilet...swirling.

[Edwardo Piet]

My bold.

I thought you said that you know a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where the answer "neither" could be the case?

This is true.

If you accept it is true then asking me to justify it when it's a tautology is utter nonsense. Do you not realize that?

The dilemma is false, remember, simply because "neither" can be given as an answer.

So can "squirrel" be given as an answer. Both of these won't fly until you justify. And we've already been through your justification, which fails, because 'gods don't exist' won't be taken seriously by anyone.

I'm giving you a defintion and you accept it and then you want me to justify it? The same equally applies to you.

If gods don't exist then a question of their goodness is pointless. That is not the purpose of the dilemma. The purpose of the dilemma is to get theists to have to wrestle with the problem of evil. I'm not interested in the purpose of the dilemma until you give a consistent answer regarding whether you understand the definition of a false dilemma or not.

Do you know what a false dilemma is or not?

You're leagues behind. This isn't the point of contention.

You can't even get past step 1. Yes it is a point of contention whilst you continue to parrot "it's not a false dilemma" after already saying it is one. I'm not going to budge until you stop contradicting yourself. You've already done it again here now. You said "this is true" regarding the definition of a false dilemma and then you asked me to justify why it's false, lol! It's false because you already admitted it is? And yet you continue to say it isn't?

Consistency please.

You're more interested in scoring points than accuracy and being correct. This is why you would rather continue to contradict yourself than admit you're wrong about something petty. If you can't even be consistent and stop contradicting yourself about something petty why should I bother you with the big stuff?

[Edwardo Piet]

FallenToReason took some philosophy courses and got some qualifications and degrees and he thinks that makes him a good philosopher

Let's deal with the arguments on their own merits please, Fallen.

[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.

[FallentoReason]

No, I believe you guys just stop at, 'oh, just because he's an authority'. I'm giving a reason for why their name(s) have stood the test of time, within philosophy.

Still trying to make this about something it's not.  It doesn't -matter- why or whether they've stood the test of time, it's still a false dichotomy.

Now you're appealing to tradition, in defense of an appeal to authority, that was a defense of a false dichotomy.  Something isn't made more valid because a smart guy said it, no matter how many people have accepted it, or for how long that they have done so.  

Toilet...swirling.

So your view is that it's open to debate, no matter what. I can agree with that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Something tells me that you're the kind of guy who sees a no swimming sign with a picture of a gator on it and thinks;  "Look, a public pool".