Antidioses

I just published the unassailable argument for Objective Morality, derived directly from Descarte's Cogito Ergo Sum. He stopped deducing, but I didn't. lesswrong.com/editPost?postI… @ESYudkowsky @ScottAlexander @robinhanson @gwern @SamHarrisOrg @dwarkesh_sp

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike 2+2=4. Consistency, coherence and predictability without god or any entity.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Then go ahead and define rationality objectively apart from God.

Christians accept the truth.

@ContramediosFM @JackDeLaConcha Ella muriendo a usted no le afecta nada. Ignore su ausencia como ignoranel dolor de todos

@Halo2ndLanguage @JackDeLaConcha No hace falta respetar todas las opiniones como si fueran sagradas, la gente se equivoca mucho y esta claro que decidir matarse no es una buena decisión

No entiendo por qué a tanta gente le molesta que un desconocido decida morirse. Es bastante raro eso.

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike It might be difficult for you.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Yeah. You both believe you’re being rationally coherent. Your issue is that rationality is hard to define objectively (apart from God)

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Surely you see a difference between believing and being.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike The Nazis thought they were being rationally coherent

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike It's rationally coherent, and rational coherence it's the actually opposite of arbitrary.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Yours is arbitrary too

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike That's arbitrary, not objective

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Nazi morality

@ContramediosFM @JackDeLaConcha Ella es libre de decidir, el estado debe estar para respetar la decisión.

@JackDeLaConcha No es eso, lo que molesta es que el Estado te apoye en la decisión y no pretenda ayudarla para convencerla de lo contrario

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike The decision made doesn't invalidate or negate harm inflicted upon de victims

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike The Nazis decided it was moral to rid the world of undesirables

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Try to find a moral rule that doesn't prevent harm on vulnerable sentient rational beings. Then you'll have a point. I didn't asume anything, I carefully showed you how it's logically objective to protect each other's capacity of Reason.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike That’s not true at all. You’re also starting with moral system. You’re assuming it is objectively true. Prove it is.

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Everybody did. All moral precepts prevent Reason from ontological vulnerability. All disciplines measure harm and try to mitigate it and prevent it. It's logical and rational, that's your obligation. You may reject 2+2=4, but that just leaves you as a irrational creature.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Who decided morality protects function?

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Because Reason is not determined by strength, but function. Morality protects function, not strength.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Why isn’t it rational to let the weak die off? You’ll end up with only the strong!

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Wrong. Evolution theory relies on the survival of the best adapted, not the mightiest. Survival of the fittest is indistinguishable from Tiffany. Also, such concept obligates you to not seek medical treatment when sick it injured. Just go away and die, you're weak

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Evolutionary theory relies on survival of the fittest

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Because you're weak and vulnerable. Survival of the fittest is chaos, not rational. You want to involve.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Why should the weak, vulnerable be protected. Survival of the fittest!

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike Isn't it for you? Didn't others create the language and the platform you're using now to argue rationally? Truth is not produced, it's discovered.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike For you, Reason is a collective endeavour right? How then does it produce truth?

@Captain__Ex @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Your god is obligated to protect the possibility of Reason, prevent all unnecessary harm or at least not cause it. Your god didn't any of those, declaring him arbitrary, which is not consistent with a god that's pure Reason.

@Halo2ndLanguage @SimonReye @_Ochiedike God already told us right and wrong there is no reason to define it. You're right, so he came himself to tell us and we killed him.

@SimonReye @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike You confuse might with right. You don't need force to get 4 out of 2+2.

@Halo2ndLanguage @Captain__Ex @_Ochiedike No. I’m saying a person who can just bash you up needs a better argument than “our shared reason means you shouldn’t”.

@Captain__Ex @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Because men are the only ones who are able to define it. God doesn't exist, if he did, he wouldn't need prohets or messiahs.

@Halo2ndLanguage @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Yes so why would leave it up for men to decide what is good and evil.

@Captain__Ex @SimonReye @_Ochiedike No, man make mathematical mistakes and that doesn't make math subjective. Man fails because man can be irrational.

@Halo2ndLanguage @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Subject to man yes thats why it always fails and corruptions ensues, every time.

@Captain__Ex @SimonReye @_Ochiedike All christians evangelicals support Israel.

@Halo2ndLanguage @SimonReye @_Ochiedike None of those groups you mentioned are following God.

@Captain__Ex @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Morality is not subjective to man. It's subjective to rational coherence.

@Halo2ndLanguage @SimonReye @_Ochiedike Yes so inevitably, humans will error in their code of laws, agreed. Morality cannot be subjective to man, it must be objective to reality, which was created by God.