Columbine film actually addresses Darwinism as the mass murderers’ motive

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 21, 2016

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Wow. How that one got past “All suits on board for PC over fact” is anyone’s guess. From Alex Murashko at World News Daily:

Although producers of “I’m Not Ashamed,” which releases Friday, use the 1999 Columbine High School massacre as a backdrop to the feature story of martyred Rachel Joy Scott, the film doesn’t shy away from the underreported fact that killer Eric Harris was most likely motivated by Darwinism and natural selection.

Based on Harris’ own journal, and as depicted in movie clips given exclusively to WND, Harris, along with Dylan Klebold, found justification for their diabolical plans in Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theology. More.

Our Barry Arrington was the lawyer for some of the families who had lost children in the massacre and read everything Harris wrote. He confirms the Darwinism link here. But just watch the spin begin.

See also: Jerry Coyne’s Statements Turn Out To Be Uninformed Blithering

and

Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

What sabotaged the conscience of the killers is that they conceived of love as a factual issue of brainchemistry. Same as with the nazi's who viewed the emotional disposition of people as a matter of racial science is what sabotaged the conscience of the nazi's. If one does not conceive of love as being spiritual, the existence of it a matter of opinion, then conscience cannot function. There is then no room for any subjectivity at all, and the people become coldhearted and calculating. Evolutionary biology just as well denies the human spirit choosing which way people turn out, as it denies God the holy spirit choosing which way the universe turns out.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

rvb8 claims that morality (whatever it is according to him) evolved via selection pressure. Whether or not this is true or even possible given his definition of morality, rvb8 has yet to demonstrate. Unsubstantiated assertions (due to an obvious commitment to a narrative) are worth less than dog doo doo.mike1962_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

rvb8 I note that Marfin addressed some of the same concerns of the evolutionary idea that love or morality are evolved mechanisms. I pointed this out also where what you call 'love' is actually just unintelligent, chemical processes. The reason that is not love is because it is a determined response. There is no involvement, choice or gift from one person to the other.
I also love my parents, brothers and sister, their children, and my friends. You can not say this is not real, as I am me, and I know my feelings. If you want to deny me my feelings you can try, but how successful do you think you would be, and can you understand why I would ridicule such attempts?
You're assigning the word 'love' to some feelings. But those feelings are just selfish responses for survival, according to the evolutionary view. That's not what humanity has understood as love. So, when you get rid of religion, as you seem so eager to do, you get rid of human culture that was built on that.
No, I know what love is, as I am sure you do. We disagree merely on its origins.
Well, the different origins tell us something a lot different about what you and I think love actually is. The origin of the thing tells us about why it exists. There is a huge difference between something created by God and something that emerged, accidentally, from a blind unintelligent chemical process. One was created for a purpose with an intention. The other has no meaning or purpose - it did not need to exist.
You believe an all powerful deity gave it to humanity as a gift,
That's right and that's actually a very good way to explain it. But let's build on it so it's more complete. It's not just an "all powerful" deity, but an "all good and all loving" deity. It's not just power. So, in my view, love comes from pure Love. Yes, love is a gift from God, who is all good. It's a gift of love, so we can be like God.
I say it is a natural by-product of our development as a species.
Right. For me, love comes from supreme, perfect, all-Love of God. For you, love comes from impersonal molecules.
You believe your love is more true because of its supernatural beginnings,
Well, it's not only "supernatural", but as I said, love comes from God who is all, perfect goodness and who is Love itself. It's a gift, as you rightly said. Now this is a huge difference also because where there is a gift, there is Gratitude. So, we can be thankful to God for this gift. Not only that, we can be thankful to each person who shows us love. That is radically different from a determined process. There is nothing to be thankful about when a person simply does what chemicals force them to do. Where love is a gift, we can receive it or we can reject it. We also can give love or refuse to love. That's a choice. It's not true of the evolutionary view since the feeling of love is determined by evolution. There is no one to be thankful for, and there is no gift. It's like being thankful to the rock rolled down the hill. That makes no sense. Gravity determined the speed and path of the rock. That's what the feeling of love is in the evolutionary view. It's just a natural force moving molecules, no different than gravity acting on physical objects. So, that's the difference, and it's very big!
Guess what? My love for all those mentioned is not deminished either by my knowledge of its origins, or your tedious pretensions to ‘a higher’ morality.
Ok, you might say to yourself that you feel love and that's fine. However, when you communicate to me, you need to explain yourself. When you say that your love is merely a determined chemical response, an evolutionary mechanism, then why is love any different than any other chemical response? What makes your love so important or great? It's really nothing. You might feel it is great, but you explain to me that it is nothing at all.
I suppose it must be annoying to find out atheists love with the same (actually more, as we see love as being innate in humanity, not a gift, what ever that entails?) intensity as the religious.
You know what is annoying? Your complete and total denial and refusal to admit or even recognize what your own belief is all about. You avoid that constantaly -- and yes, it does get annoying! What more honest evolutionists would say is "Yes, love is just a chemical response. I don't choose it and I deserve no credit for it. It is exactly the same as any other response - not better or worse." But almost nobody says that. Some actually try to go down that path (Dawkins, Coyne, Myers and others) but they get quite timid all of a sudden. They like to hold on to their Christian belief (which they haven't fully gotten rid of yet) and they talk about the importance of love and moral belief. I see you do the same thing, rvb8. You're not so convinced about your own atheism. We can see it when you say: "love as being innate in humanity". Ok, but in the evolutionary view, everything a human does is "innate in humanity". Hatred is in humanity. Genocide, rape, torture, greed, deception ... all of these things you don't like, they're just the same as love in the evolutionary view. Evolution produced the desire for murder in some people. It's not different from love - not better or worse. Hatred is just an evolved mechanism. Now, to try to impose some kind of moral rules on the results of evolution is to play God in this case. Evolution created the desire to hate and kill. In the theistic view, these are moral imperfections. We try to be more like God who is perfect goodness, holiness and love. So, we strive against hatred. We try to love more. Most importantly, we love God also! But for evolution, hatred is the same as love. It's just a feeling. It came from evolution. It must help us to survive and reproduce. There is no reason to fight against hatred since evolution produced it in us.
We also refuse to kill for, die for, bow to, or in any other way placate that which is not there.
Can you show me "love" from a scientific, empirical view? How much does love weigh? How much space does it occupy? What are the dimensions? How does love move in space? Of course, many people will kill (defending loved ones from hatred), die for (sacrificing), bow to (honor and respect) and make a gift in Love, for Love and to foster Love. In fact, that's what love is all about! But if you're not willing to give yourself for love -- then that would be just selfish. Personally, I cannot believe you are that kind of person. You certainly don't seem so. However, it's your worldview and belief system that reduces love. That's where I see you as being inconsistent. You're holding on to a Christian view of life, but also claiming to be an atheist. You can't be both though.Silver Asiatic_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

rvb8-re 39 you say morality is an evolved response and thats the point, everything is an evolved response it does not mean any action is any more or less moral than any other action , as evolution does not select on moral grounds it selects on survival grounds, so what on earth is morality and how can any atheist define it. So when the rapist or pedeophile claims they are not doing wrong as they are just acting out of their evolutionary selection pressures, what can you tell them.Marfin_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

rvb8- You keep using the word morality but have yet to define what it means. Atheists scream SCIENCE as the be all and end all of knowledge , so please define morality in scientific terms as that is the only option open to the atheist , as what other type of knowledge is acceptable , surely not metaphysics, revelation or philosophy. I would say New Zealand is more agnostic rather than atheistic because is very difficult to get sheep to commit to a belief system.You wanted a sense of humour on this site .Marfin_{October 25, 2016
October
10
Oct
25
25
2016
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Marfin, I'm not going to get into endless debates with you about the soundeness of your basis for morality, and the unsoundeness of another basis for morality. The minutiae you require, is something you may find interesting, it merely bores me to tears. Yes! Our morality is an evolved response to living together in large groups that had to get along. People who didn't get along were selected against to the point where they bred less; morality became inherited. Now that statement is clear easy to understand and doesn't bring with it your tedious philoso/religio gobbledigook.rvb8_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

'Q', I'm glad I made you laugh that was the intention, to satarize the vague pronouncements, and lack of clarity that is Leviticus, Numbers and co. I open and read my KJB quite often and I tried your challenge. What on earth did you think was going to happen? My favourite Book BTW is Job. The intimate relationship between God and the Devil is very telling of the oldest parts of the Bible. How God does not know what the Dark angel is doing, how He needs to test Job's faith; He doesn't know Job's faitjfulness? He has to test it? How God is plainly chipper as Job passes each test in an almost boasting tone to Lucifer; "see told you he'd pass." This God looks decidedly local.rvb8_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

rvb8- The point is, if all traits ,desires,,actions are a product of evolution. So then rape and murder are the same as love and kindness, as if someone rapes and murders or are loving and kind they are just doing what they have evolved to do,the fact that some individuals prefer to think of certain actions and thoughts as more moral or superior to others is just a product of evolution. So please tell me what is any atheists basis for defining objective moral behaviour. What is any atheists basis for free will, truth,morals, or anything for that matter as you are just following your evolutionary programming.Marfin_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Querius, I just tried your experiment. I got Exekiel 16;31. It's all about stripping a prostitute naked and then stoning and hacking her to death with swords. Charming. Thanks God, I guess you have your mysterious reasons as to why I needed to know that... Hilarious.Pindi_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Rvb8,
‘Break not your toil on the days of rain, lest my wrath be laid against your beasts, and women folk, for it is written that the rain of the Lord is not the reign of the troubled.’ Notice how I lump ‘beasts’ and ‘women folk’ to gether? Kind of like the Bible describes women as ‘chattal’.
LOL. that's so NOT like God's Word in the Bible! Are you willing to try a pretty scary experiment? Open your King James Bible. Ask God to show you something. And then start reading. Betcha that you'll find some excuse to avoid even opening it! Or maybe you'll notice that something is actually *preventing* you from opening it! Try it and see. :o -QQuerius_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

'Q', you have a serious problem with misunderstanding irony. Try this, I'll give you another one of the 613: 'Break not your toil on the days of rain, lest my wrath be laid against your beasts, and women folk, for it is written that the rain of the Lord is not the reign of the troubled.' Notice how I lump 'beasts' and 'women folk' to gether? Kind of like the Bible describes women as 'chattal'. Get it!? Neither do I, its mulch, stupidity, uninterpretable gibberish, just like the 613. No, I didn't go to Deuternonmy, although the KJB is on my desk, because I know the flavour of writing. Unlike science it has a million various interpretations. Again, get your laws and moralities from this if you will, unfortunately for you, and greatly relieving to me is the simple fact that man's law, in this day and age trumps God's.rvb8_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

SA, nonsense!Truly! I also love my parents, brothers and sister, their children, and my friends. You can not say this is not real, as I am me, and I know my feelings. If you want to deny me my feelings you can try, but how successful do you think you would be, and can you understand why I would ridicule such attempts? No, I know what love is, as I am sure you do. We disagree merely on its origins. You believe an all powerful deity gave it to humanity as a gift, I say it is a natural by-product of our development as a species. You believe your love is more true because of its supernatural beginnings, I say rubbish. Guess what? My love for all those mentioned is not deminished either by my knowledge of its origins, or your tedious pretensions to 'a higher' morality. I suppose it must be annoying to find out atheists love with the same (actually more, as we see love as being innate in humanity, not a gift, what ever that entails?) intensity as the religious. We also refuse to kill for, die for, bow to, or in any other way placate that which is not there.rvb8_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

rvb8, LOL, you didn't even look up Deuteronomy 27:22, which falsifies your clueless assertion about incest not being addressed in the Bible! Instead, you went into a completely fallacious, hysterical tirade about Judaism and Christianity obviously knowing zero about them.
. . . while standing on your left foot, and eating a celery stalk every other Wednesday’
Celery is not even mentioned in the Bible. You just make stuff up as you go along! Shame on you! -QQuerius_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

rvb8
If I know that loving my partner is an evolved mechanism to protect my, and her DNA, does that make the love less?
If it's a mechanism then it's deterministic. It's not even love, which is something one offers freely. Love is something that is freely given and received. In the evolutionary view it's a mechanistic function determined by blind, unintelligent processes. It has no more love than any other chemical bond. Hydrogen does not love Oxygen when bound in the water molecule. You want to have a theistic worldview while professing atheism, but it can't work that way. To be consistent, you'd have to give up your belief in God which is obviously still quite strong in your thought processes (but I hope you don't give up that latent belief but rather foster it and let it grow again).Silver Asiatic_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

'Q', Deuterononmy 27:22? No thanks! I take my laws from humans after the Enlightenment quashed the 613 nonsenses. Besides, are you a Hasidic Jew? Why would you have cause to wear a, 'four cornered garment, on the sabbath, while standing on your left foot, and eating a celery stalk every other Wednesday'? Rediculous? Sure! But it's the kind of inexplicable nonsense those 613 silly rules entail; you're welcome to them. Luckily, in modern Western culture we have consigned those 613, as well as the ripped off 10 of Christianity to the rubbish heap of history; thank God, Heh:? One more thing, and you haven't addressed this; 'did the Jews believe it was okay to kill, steal, swap wives, and lie, before God said it was wrong?' Marfin, for the very last time I can not name a trait, thought, desire, or feeling that is not attributable to evolution. So what?! If I know that loving my partner is an evolved mechanism to protect my, and her DNA, does that make the love less? No! If I know that God was created by humanity as a way to understand our world, does that make God less? Actually yes! We now have better explanations. We went from polytheism to monotheism, a great advancement; one more tiny step chaps, and you've made it!rvb8_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

rvb8- Please name any trait,thought,desire,feeling or action which cannot be attributed to evolution. I await your refusal to answer another of my questions while still pretending to have the answers.Marfin_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

rvb8 -- my #25 should have been addressed to you not Seversky.Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Rvb8 @23,
‘the Ten Commandements’, are not a series of laws that could solve any human dilemma.
That’s because you don’t understand that the Ten Commandments and the 613 commands in Torah are intended to act as moral fenceposts, examples and principles.
Why isn’t there a commandment, ‘Thou shalt not lie with thy sister, or mother.’?
Oh, you mean like in Deuteronomy 27:22? And why don’t you do your homework before making your unsupported assertions? The Noahic Covenant confers the basics just after the great flood. Starting with eight people, procreating with a sibling was not forbidden, and the prohibition against eating meat was lifted. Later, the world’s cultures and languages disbursed from Babel, including the people of India, China, Papua New Guineans, and the others you mentioned. Incidentally, a friend of mine trekked into the most remote areas in PNG many years ago. One of the first things he did when contacting one of the tribes there and after being invited into their “man house,” was to ask them to “tell me your stories.” They told him about their history going back to their version of the great flood. This was a mountain tribe that he lived with for many years. God communicated his law to all people, which many cultures changed over time. The Mosaic Law came much later. Ok, let’s return to your mysterious aversion to a dinner featuring a fat, succulent two-year old or an aborted fetus based solely on a food preference, much like my aversion to eating eggplant. What if you’re really, really hungry, and the barbecue smells so deliciously good. If no one would ever know, wouldn’t you, as an atheist, be tempted to take just a taste? After all, it’s just animal protein, right? -QQuerius_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Eric Harris took Darwinism to its logical conclusion.Andre_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky
I’m not trying to ‘animalise’ humans, we are already animals. Or is this term also beyond your comprehension. We are Homo Sapiens, some antecedents including other animals, Homo erectus (evidence abundent), Homo antecessor, Homo floresienses, Homo neanderthal etc (evidence dense and growing.)
The term must be qualified to be comprehensible. From Aristotle we have human as a "rational animal". The rational part of humans is considered (in that view) the soul - which has a more directly, divine origin and which reflects more perfectly the spiritual nature of God. So humans and animals are radically different. But from Darwin we have the idea that humans are the same as all organisms classified as animals, they only differ in physical characteristics modified by evolutionary processes.
What is your aversion to being labelled an animal? You are!
Darwin actually considered humans as an evolutionary advance, but later evolutionists explained that there is no progress in evolution. Humans are not 'superior' to non-humans in that sense. This means that humans should not be held to a higher standard of morality than with non-humans. Behaviors may be different, but evolution does not create 'more perfect' moral conduct. It's all on an equilibrium. I reject that view. But I think the Columbine killers were consistent with it. Their morality just was something they wanted to do - like any other animals, not better or worse. We don't condemn non-human animals for doing what they do. Why should we condemn humans for whatever they do? This is inconsistent.
We have the distinction of being able to enjoy the murder and painful tortured deaths of our own species, something other animals can’t do;
Here you seem to be saying that evolution actually created a "worse moral conduct" in humans than in other species. But that contradicts evolutionary theory. There is no better or worse. There's just survival and reproduction. Beyond that, you seem to be saying that it's wrong to enjoy doing something that humans do, and because animals don't enjoy killing (or killing for enjoyment) that is a superior moral norm. In the evolutionary view, humans just do things. There is no 'reason' for anything except these organisms (humans) are driven by evolutionary processes to survive and reproduce. Whatever humans do, evolution developed those behaviors for all the same reasons that all other animals do what they do.
they kill for good reasons, survival, protection, food, mates etc. We alone, amongst God’s creation kill for fun, or greed.
As above, you use the term "good reasons". Is "being selfish" a good reason for doing things? Again, even if humans were the only species that kill for fun (cats, dogs, porpoises seem to do so), why is that a problem in the Darwinian view? There couldn't be anything wrong or evil about having fun. As for greed, evolution could cause species to collect as much food as possible, even if they don't eat it (surplus killing). This deprives other species of the same. We notice that humans actually make sacrifices to support and help other species to thrive.
Don’t say we write operas, paint great art, or discover natural phenomena, because I will say, ‘you don’t, not even close.’
The differences between humans and non-human animals are vast and very significant. It goes far beyond writing operas and doing science. But the key point is that Darwin minimized those differences. Then, as you seem to do, a double standard is applied. Supposedly, humans have a high moral standard to achieve, which includes caretaking of other species. But that's just a leftover of the Christian worldview, not the atheist.
I will strive to make the humane ideals of man’s enlightenment thought availale to all, as I will equally strive to quell iron age myths and make them look as absurd as they plainly are.
What do you think the most important differences are between humans and non-human animals?Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Seversky,
This and the following being one long fallacy of the appeal to consequences.
Ironically, Science is based on consequences called “cause and effect.” I had no idea that this was a fallacy!
Moral codes regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. For one human being to kill another without good cause is immoral and a crime. A human being killed by a leopard or an avalanche may be a tragedy but it is neither immoral nor a crime.
You’re conflating moral codes with criminal law. Criminal law is based on government edict, which might come from a dictator or from legislation passed by popular vote and everything between. What are your moral codes based on—your opinion of the moment? Some quaint tradition? It’s usually criminal to kill a human, and sometimes it’s criminal to kill an animal. Do you think it’s immoral for an ISIS fighter to behead a Jew?
The Ten Commandments include prohibitions against taking the Lord’s name in vain or graven images or coveting your neighbor’s ox but none against rape or the abuse of children. Strange sense of priorities
What you don’t understand about Torah is that there are 10 commandments and 613 laws that act as fenceposts to help define the principles that were to govern the Jewish people. Under Jewish law, forcible rape was punishable by death. However, in the United States, only about 3% of rapists spend any time in prison according to RAINN statistics, and those who do go to prison are released after only about 3-1/2 years.
In other words, you’re endorsing the position that might makes right? God has the power to do whatever He pleases so that makes it right?
Not at all. God sets the standard for what is right, good, and perfect. You live your life and then comes the judgement where your life will make it abundantly clear where you should spend eternity. But there’s more. God provided his Son to take on himself the punishment that you richly deserve by being tortured to death on your behalf. . . but only if you are willing to accept this gift of life, which of course you’re not.
If the moral prohibition against taking human life without good cause is objective, why is it not binding on God?
Of course it is—God set the standard and abides by it. The Bible says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” and “the penalty for sin is death.” Some die sooner, some later. All will face the judgement. Even you.
… or both co-operate to ensure that both survive and reproduce.
Maybe. But Darwinism predicts that the fittest will survive and reproduce. Protecting the unfit, does not help the gene pool and subverts the race. Wouldn’t you agree? -QQuerius_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, I'm not trying to 'animalise' humans, we are already animals. Or is this term also beyond your comprehension. We are Homo Sapiens, some antecedents including other animals, Homo erectus (evidence abundent), Homo antecessor, Homo floresienses, Homo neanderthal etc (evidence dense and growing.) What is your aversion to being labelled an animal? You are! We have the distinction of being able to enjoy the murder and painful tortured deaths of our own species, something other animals can't do; they kill for good reasons, survival, protection, food, mates etc. We alone, amongst God's creation kill for fun, or greed. Don't say we write operas, paint great art, or discover natural phenomena, because I will say, 'you don't, not even close.' Should your life therefore be worthless? Not at all! I will strive to make the humane ideals of man's enlightenment thought availale to all, as I will equally strive to quell iron age myths and make them look as absurd as they plainly are. Querius, 'the Ten Commandements', are not a series of laws that could solve any human dilemma. First, before these commandments were bestowed, did the Jews think it was fine to steal, kill, swap wives, and ignore their parents? Did God suddenly make clear to them, that which was plain in China and India at the same time as these absurdly obvious restrictions on human behaviour were amzingly explained?! You don't think humans could figure this primary school morality out for themselvs? We did by the way, in all human cultures, from the Inuits and Laplanders, to the Pygmies and Papua New Guineans, and all cultures in between, and without Abraham's God too. Why isn't there a commandment, 'Thou shalt not lie with thy sister, or mother.'? Perhaps because there is an evolutionary cost to this behaviour, kind of like the downside to stealing and murdering, or perhaps it naturally (evolutionarily) nauseates us: We all get it! Thanks God, for nothing. Was God a late commer to morality? Or did He just plagirise from older human moral codes?rvb8_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

bornagain 77 @ 21: Good post. Atheists proudly reduce human beings to meaningless "specks" (again, Bill Nye's word) in a vast universe of other meaningless specks, then they feign moral outrage when one meaningless speck kills another meaningless speck, as if meaningless specks have intrinsic value. Go figure.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Seversky claims that Stalin losing his faith after reading Darwin is 'one long fallacy of the appeal to consequences',, and yet, Stalin losing his faith after reading Darwin is well documented,,,
Stalin's Brutal Faith by Paul G. Humber, M.S. Excerpt: STALIN'S FAITH--WHAT WAS IT? Often an individual's faith is firmly attached to a book of some kind. Muslims have the Koran; Hindus, their Veda; and Christians, the Bible. Writings of Confucius, Buddha, and indeed, Mao Tse-Tung, serve similar purposes for other groups. In Stalin's case, the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin incited him, but to stop here would be premature. There is one man-book amalgam which may have been even more determinative for Stalin, especially during his youthful, impressionable years. The man was Charles Darwin; the book--his The Origin of Species. To document this, appeal is made first to a book published in Moscow entitled, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. It was written during Stalin's "glory," and was designed to set him in a positive light. Note in the selection cited, that faith in Darwin and his "book" contrasts markedly with faith in a supreme being: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates: "I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .' "I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. "'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed. "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said. "'What book is that?' I enquired. "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me" 1 A few pages later, another individual--also reflecting on Stalin's youthful pursuits, added the following: ". . .in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings."1,,, 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ "More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God. The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.",,, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn - “Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeon Address - 1983 http://www.roca.org/OA/36/36h.htm
bornagain77_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

A couple of years ago Michael Egnor had this interesting exchange with Jerry Coyne:
Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution protests that I misunderstood his viewpoint on free will in a recent post. Coyne, who denies the existence of free will, had complained about a hit-and-run driver who dented his car in a parking lot. I pointed out that, if free will is an illusion, Coyne has no justification to condemn the fellow who hit his car and drove off, because without free will the dishonest driver had no choice to do otherwise.
Coyne responded:
The statement that "'good' and 'bad' don't really apply to humanity" is Egnor's own mistaken characterization of my views. Of course I see actions as "good" or "bad," based on their salubrious or deleterious effects on individuals or society… Indeed, I don't believe in moral culpability: that term is without real meaning if one denies the possibility of free choice. But there can still be still "culpability" based on the effects of one's actions. (I'd be glad to hear readers' feelings about why we should retain the term "morality" if there is no free choice.)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/misunderstandin080771.html Several points about Coyne’s non-compatibilist view of free-will. First, where does Coyne offer a scientific proof for this metaphysical belief? I believe metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven scientifically, but maybe I am wrong. If I am prove it to me. If not, why should I accept Coyne metaphysical belief that we do not have free will over mine that we do? Furthermore, how can we have or maintain a functioning society with a system of justice if there is no moral culpability? It seems to me we would have a lot more Columbine type incidents if Coyne’s view were widely accepted. Finally, what is the point in even engaging in an argument, whose purpose is to change someone else’s mind if no one really has free will? I suppose you could “argue” that maybe because we’re all determined we have no choice but that is really pointless and absurd. That’s why I choose not to engage interlocutors who are determinists. And whether you believe that or not that is my free will choice. It may not be evident to you but it is self-evident to me.john_a_designer_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 14: Sure it's right......drumroll......if it advances my cause, which can be anything from wanting a joyride to wanting to rule another nation. Killing can certainly be morally right in one's mind, but to kill a worthless "speck" that "sucks" (to use Nye's words) could never be morally wrong. Just like killing a bug is never morally wrong.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Querius @ 10
As far as I can tell, rvb8 views a leopard killing and eating a member of Homo sapiens as amoral, neither moral nor immoral.
As do I. Moral codes regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. For one human being to kill another without good cause is immoral and a crime. A human being killed by a leopard or an avalanche may be a tragedy but it is neither immoral nor a crime.
The Ten Commandments in Torah forbid the murder of one human by another. Even humans killing animals must be justifiable in another portion of the scriptures.
The Ten Commandments include prohibitions against taking the Lord's name in vain or graven images or coveting your neighbor's ox but none against rape or the abuse of children. Strange sense of priorities
In contrast, God created life as He pleases and He can take it back as He pleases. He doesn’t need or want Seversky’s approval.
In other words, you're endorsing the position that might makes right? God has the power to do whatever He pleases so that makes it right? If the moral prohibition against taking human life without good cause is objective, why is it not binding on God?
The atheist has abandoned any refuge in moral law. Either one person survives and reproduces, or the other person survives and reproduces.
... or both co-operate to ensure that both survive and reproduce.Seversky_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 15
Stalin, who lost his faith after reading Darwin,,,
This and the following being one long fallacy of the appeal to consequences.Seversky_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Wow, what a feeding frenzy! As far as I can tell, rvb8 views a leopard killing and eating a member of Homo sapiens as amoral, neither moral nor immoral. As many contributors quickly and fruitlessly pointed out to rvb8, Darwinism claims no special status for humans, having evolved like any other animal. Thus, whether a leopard eats a human or a human eats a leopard---or a leopard or human kills and eats one of its own has no moral consequences. That rvb8 seems to have an aversion to a dinner featuring a fat, succulent two-year old or an aborted fetus is simply a food preference, much like my aversion to eating eggplant. The Ten Commandments in Torah forbid the murder of one human by another. Even humans killing animals must be justifiable in another portion of the scriptures. In contrast, God created life as He pleases and He can take it back as He pleases. He doesn't need or want Seversky's approval. The atheist has abandoned any refuge in moral law. Either one person survives and reproduces, or the other person survives and reproduces. -QQuerius_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Stalin, who lost his faith after reading Darwin,,,
Darwin's Dictators Excerpt: "In his book, Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union, the Oxford University historian Alex de Jonge shows Darwin’s vital role in shaping Stalin’s youthful outlook. According to Jonge, he was “a theological student who had lost his faith; Stalin would always maintain that it was Darwin who was responsible for that loss.”28" http://darwinistdictators.com/articles/stalin.html
Stalin ,,,is estimated to have killed as many, or more, of his OWN PEOPLE than he, i.e. Russia, lost in all of World War II !
How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill? By Palash Ghosh - March 05 2013 Excerpt: "a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.,,, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess." http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Note the irony at Stalin's death
Clenched Fist Toward God "According to Svetlana, as Stalin lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead. The incredible irony of his whole life is that at one time Josef Stalin had been a seminary student, preparing for the ministry" https://bible.org/illustration/clenched-fist-toward-god
Stalin was far from the only brutal dictator to be powerfully deceived by Darwin ideology,
Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html
Darwinists are notorious for trying to distance Darwinian ideology from Nazism even though, as Weikart and others have meticulously pointed out, the connection is clear:
The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought - Richard Weikart - October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf Recalling the Wannsee Conference - Michael Egnor - January 24, 2015 Excerpt: Last week marked the 73rd anniversary of the Wannsee Conference, which was the meeting in 1942 held in a villa in a Berlin suburb where Nazi officials planned the Final Solution. The SS representative at the meeting was General Reinhard Heydrich, one of Himmler's top deputies. Although genocide was already underway in the occupied portions of the Soviet Union and in Serbia, Nazi officials discussed the need for a more comprehensive program to exterminate European Jews. From the article published by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: Heydrich announced that "during the course of the Final Solution, the Jews will be deployed under appropriate supervision at a suitable form of labor deployment in the East. In large labor columns, separated by gender, able-bodied Jews will be brought to those regions to build roads, whereby a large number will doubtlessly be lost through natural reduction. Any final remnant that survives will doubtless consist of the elements most capable of resistance. They must be dealt with appropriately, since, representing the fruit of natural selection, they are to be regarded as the core of a new Jewish revival." Despite the evidence that Darwinism profoundly contributed to informing Nazism, Darwinists persist in denying the documented links between the Darwinian understanding of nature and man and the Nazi policies to take control of natural selection and breed a master race along explicitly Darwinian lines. SS General Heydrich was a key figure in the planning of the Holocaust, and was the leading voice at the Wannsee Conference. The argument that Darwinists have is not with modern critics of Darwinian anthropology, but with the Nazis themselves, who were clear about the Darwinian motivations for their policies. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/recalling_the_w092991.html If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi). “The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” - Adolf Hitler "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." - Jesus Christ -
Although Atheists try to claim Christianity has been nothing but a negative influence on society, the truth, as usual, is quite different from what Atheists claim
From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ, cites many examples of Christianity’s positive influence on the world. Here are just a few: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life “, I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
bornagain77_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply