Evil Dasa

Originally posted by sonship
Are you going to help out the Forum Atheists to explain exactly what makes Dasa's speech about Moslems objectively evil ?

Do not harm (he proposed the murder of hundreds of millions of people); do not deceive (he made countless false statements and generalizations about people); do not coerce (he proposed putting people in concentration camps for thought crimes). Are you unable to make an evaluation like this of the morality of what Dasa proposed without recourse to Ancient Hebrew mythology?

Originally posted by sonship
I don't know if you have expressed a view of Dasa's diatribes against Moslems.
But I am asking some of the Atheists who joined in on a chorus of condemnation against Dasa to explain from their belief why Dasa's speech is objectively evil morally.

Yes, yes, yes, I watch some debates.
Its not terribly relevant to my question.

Are you going to help ...[text shortened]... Forum Atheists to explain exactly what makes Dasa's speech about Moslems not moral objectively ?

the reason i ask, is that the topic of morality is covered extensively in those debates. there is no mystery, its a pretty straight forward explanation. im surprised that you dont already know what the answer to your question is.

if you were to have a guess at the atheist answer, what do you think it will be?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the reason i ask, is that the topic of morality is covered extensively in those debates. there is no mystery, its a pretty straight forward explanation. im surprised that you dont already know what the answer to your question is.

if you were to have a guess at the atheist answer, what do you think it will be?

Argument by Yawn.
"We've answered that SO many times."

Like you just essentially did.

Now we have a strong chorus of condemnation of Dasa. I too find his speech really bad. Why on an objective basis it is evil, no one wants to tackle, so far.

I get the impression of several atheists waiting around for the theist guy to say something problematic about God and sin, so they can point out their complaints.

Some atheist could offer a positive explanation why Dasa's speech is objectively really evil in a world of nothing but material entities.

How much does justice weigh ?
What is the atomic weight of an "evil" molecule ?

And if this is not the case, they can point out why an objective standard of goodness and evilness exists by which we can metaphysically measure Dasa's attitude as evil.
IE. Atheism with a non-material aspect to the world influencing moral judgments.

Atheists are just waiting for me to put my foot in my mouth?

Originally posted by sonship
Now we have a strong chorus of condemnation of Dasa. I too find his speech really bad. Why on an objective basis it is evil, no one wants to tackle, so far.

Haven't I tackled it?

I argued that it fails a simple morality test - do no harm, do not deceive, do not coerce - and if you add his pathological lack of empathy and the extremity of his proposals, one could argue that it gets to a level of immorality that many theists might term "evil".

Originally posted by sonship

if you were to have a guess at the atheist answer, what do you think it will be?

Argument by Yawn.
"We've answered that SO many times."

Like you just essentially did.

Now we have a strong chorus of condemnation of Dasa. I too find his speech really bad. Why on an objective basis it is evil, no one wants to tackle, so far. ...[text shortened]... ld influencing moral judgments.

Atheists are just waiting for me to put my foot in my mouth?

that wasnt 'essentially' what i was saying. i was saying that im surprised a man with your interest in debating and watching debates on youtube has never come across an atheist explanation for the existence of morality. most debates between the likes of dawkins, harris and krauss with de'souza, lane and lennox cover the topic at some point.

morality is just a description of an individuals values, we can have our own morality and our own morality varies between individuals. however our values are heavily influenced by the society we grow up in and our genetics. so our values are not purely our own but also a reflection of our society. we develop these traits to help us be successful in our society. if our morals stray to far from the average then we maybe perceived as a threat to the success of the society.

we can easily see the effects of society influencing morality by looking at the huge moral differences between countries. we can see the effects of the individual mind by observing how people react when put in moral dilemmas.

surely the huge varieties of morals through christian countries and people show that they do not all have an intrinsic set of morals. for example some christians believe in the death penalty others do not.

Originally posted by FMF
Haven't I tackled it?

I argued that it fails a simple morality test - do no harm, do not deceive, do not coerce - and if you add his pathological lack of empathy and the extremity of his proposals, one could argue that it gets to a level of immorality that many theists might term "evil".

Okay, you tackled it.
The "simple morality test ?"

How is it that the passing score on "the simple morality test" was determined ?
Was it determined by a moral agent ?
If so, who ?

Was it determined by a committee?
How was authority vested in this collective to determine what passes or fails "the simple morality test?"

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, you tackled it.
The [b]"simple morality test ?"

How is it that the passing score on "the simple morality test" was determined ?
Was it determined by a moral agent ?
If so, who ?

Was it determined by a committee?
How was authority vested in this collective to determine what passes or fails "the simple morality test?" [/b]

That's the beauty of atheism sir. We each have our own 'simple morality test' born of our own conscience and sense of what is right and wrong. We are our own 'moral agent' free from the 'collective morality' of the bible, and of such concepts as evil and sin.

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, you tackled it.

Thanks.

Originally posted by sonship
The [b]"simple morality test ?"

How is it that the passing score on "the simple morality test" was determined ?
Was it determined by a moral agent ?
If so, who ?

Was it determined by a committee?
How was authority vested in this collective to determine what passes or fails "the simple morality test?" [/b]

Did Dasa pass my morality test or not? I don't think he did. What do you think?

Does he pass yours?

I don't mind if you base your assessment of Dasa on Ancient Hebrew mythology if you need to. Whatever it takes.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
that wasnt 'essentially' what i was saying. i was saying that im surprised a man with your interest in debating and watching debates on youtube has never come across an atheist explanation for the existence of morality. most debates between the likes of dawkins, harris and krauss with de'souza, lane and lennox cover the topic at some point.

moralit ...[text shortened]... intrinsic set of morals. for example some christians believe in the death penalty others do not.

that wasnt 'essentially' what i was saying.

Okay. I acknowledge that as unfair of me.

i was saying that im surprised a man with your interest in debating and watching debates on youtube has never come across an atheist explanation for the existence of morality.

I have seen the debates. I have re-visited some of them a second and third and even fourth time.

Particularly the debate between Shelly Kagin (spelling?) of Yale and William Lane Craig "Is God Needed For Morality?"

At first I thought Shelly Kagin, humanist ethicist, scored very high. I still think he did very well to argue that God was not needed for morality. But as I re-visited the debate in subsequent sessions, I thought - "Well, maybe not good enough".

My question here is the the Atheists who so boldly denounce a man like Dasa as having failed morality in some grand sense, which practically everyone obviously agrees.

Okay. But why ? Why if God does not exist, does he commit an moral offense against what OUGHT to be spoken ?

most debates between the likes of dawkins, harris and krauss with de'souza, lane and lennox cover the topic at some point.

Come now. Dawkins is scared to debate Craig.

Lawrence Krauss I cannot consider really a debater on that issue.
Krauss is too use to interrupting and dodging Craig like a nervous grasshopper in a hen house.

Probably Sam Harris on the ethics matter tries to be consistent.
I am asking you[/b] fellas about Dasa's speech specifically.

Richard Dawkins would probably just say that Dasa is "dancing to [his] DNA".
Well if Dasa is just dancing to his DNA, why is his speech objectively evil?
Do you want to endorse Richard Dawkin's explanation that we all are just acting according to the dictates of our DNA?

morality is just a description of an individuals values, we can have our own morality and our own morality varies between individuals.

Morality is not just descriptive. It is prescriptive. We OUGHT to act this way. We OUGHT NOT to act that way.

According to the consensus of Atheists (and others here) Dasa OUGHT not to have spoken such things. IE. [i]ALL Moslems rounded up and executed (or some such other extreme remedy to terrorism)

Biology is descriptive - saying a living organism behaves in this way because of this or that. A moral judgement upon Dasa's speech is more than a descriptive issue. It is prescribing how Dasa SHOULD act as opposed to how he SHOULD NOT.

Whose grand prescription determine's his failure to live up to this OUGHT in an objective way? Whose morality have you instituted as the ultimate standard by which Dasa's talk is measured against?

however our values are heavily influenced by the society we grow up in and our genetics.

If Dasa's genes are bad genes then I don't see that his speech is objectively really evil.

If society scolds Dasa today for his bad speech, what about someday when society agrees that the Moslems should all be rounded up and executed? Don't say society cannot come to such a point.

Remember Germany's "Final Solution".

so our values are not purely our own but also a reflection of our society.

That is not too solid a bases.
And WHOSE society anyway?

ISIS has a society.
Boko Horam has a society.
Al Qaeda has their society too.

And Dasa appears to be speaking for his society OR attempting to convince his society to come over to his viewpoint.

Why is Dasa's speech objectively evil ?
If there is no God, why is his speech objectively below the ultimate standard of what is good to speak ?

we develop these traits to help us be successful in our society.

Dasa says that "SUCCESS" in society would be measured by the elimination of all Moslems.

Hitler's Final Solution prescribed an method of achieving success for Germany.
Society's success cannot be the ultimate standard to make Dasa's speech objectively evil.

if our morals stray to far from the average then we maybe perceived as a threat to the success of the society.

Wasn't turning over the Jews to the Nazis the "average" member of the German society? Dasa prescribes what average behavior will render society successful.

What makes his method objectively evil?

we can easily see the effects of society influencing morality by looking at the huge moral differences between countries. we can see the effects of the individual mind by observing how people react when put in moral dilemmas.

surely the huge varieties of morals through christian countries and people show that they do not all have an intrinsic set of morals. for example some christians believe in the death penalty others do not.

I agree that "Christian countries" ( if there really is such things) have different civic laws.
However, Christian belief acknowledges as last judgment where the ultimate moral buck STOPS.

God is seen as the final moral agent whose very nature determines what measures up to what is right and what misses the mark. The word "sin" is derived from archery I am told. And to miss the mark or miss the target is the idea behind the word SIN. That is a missing of the mark.

The mark is the nature of God.
In Atheism how is the mark missed?
How is it the Atheists are in agreement here that Dasa has objectively missed that moral mark which somehow they say exists and should be hit?

Originally posted by FMF
Did Dasa pass my morality test or not? I don't think he did. What do you think?

Does he pass yours?

I don't mind if you base your assessment of Dasa on Ancient Hebrew mythology if you need to. Whatever it takes.

Sonship believes it is god's "perfect justice" to supernaturally keep billions of people alive for all eternity while he systematically burns them alive, simply for not believing in him. I hardly think him considering dasa's premise of a measly temporal genocide come concentration camp as not being evil, is hardly surprising. After all if dasa were sonship's God, then his judgment is far shorter and far less painful.

Dasa was right in some respects - meat is murder and those who kill and eat animals should face punishment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dasa was right in some respects - meat is murder and those who kill and eat animals should face punishment.

What punishment should they face and who will dish out this punishment?

Originally posted by sonship

Is it just me or does anybody else have the foggiest idea what sonship is banging on about?

There have been a number of threads now in which posters have expressed their exasperation at Dasa. This is because of his very hardline hatred of all things Moslem.

I agree with some of these sentiments.

What I am "banging on about" is ...[text shortened]... n that Dasa's wanting all Moslems punished is objectively immoral ?

Still in the fog Knob ?

My ultimate moral standard of goodness by which i measure Dasa's attitude towards Muslims is myself. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, i don't need to recourse to Ancient Hebrew mythology to make that judgement call.

I maybe wrong but i don't recall anyone mentioning evolution, i think you were the first to bring it up.

Originally posted by sonship
Christian belief acknowledges as last judgment where the ultimate moral buck STOPS.

According to what you have revealed about your version of Christian theology ~ your torturer God ideology ~ Dasa will already [once he dies] be kept burning in agony for ever - anyway - simply for not believing in Jesus. There's your "the ultimate moral buck". There's your "perfect justice". So where does that leave you with regard to the morality or immorality of his call for genocide? According to your moral compass, what does his call for genocide matter if he is already going to be tortured for eternity for having different beliefs from you?