Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheists blocked Not Ashamed trailer from YouTube

arroba Email

I'm not ashamed For eleven months.

From Stoyan Zaimov at Christian Post:

The atheist criticism against the movie reached such intensity that the film’s trailer was blocked on YouTube for 11 months because it was flagged by members of the community who were seemingly upset with its representation of what happened.

The issue was allegedly the claim that a key conversation, in which Rachel dies for affirming her Christian faith, never took place.

The filmmakers are standing by the story, however, and say the conversation in question is found in later statements made by witness Richard Costaldo, who says he was near Scott when the killers opened fire. More.

So many people worldwide die for affirming their Christian faith, one wonders to whom it would be an issue and why.

Could this be a hidden issue? It is a matter of historical record that Darwinism was a key motivator of the Columbine shooters. And Darwinism has long functioned as naturalist atheism’s creation story.

As our president, Barry Arrington, has said,

…  I am one of the world’s leading experts on the facts of the Columbine case. You see, I am a lawyer and in the months and years after the shootings I represented several families of the slain students. In the course of my investigation of the case I spent hundreds of hours in a detailed review of every page of the journals Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold left behind. I also listened to countless hours of their audiotapes and viewed over and over the many videotapes they left behind, including the infamous “basement tapes.” Finally, I spent a week in a closed room in the Denver federal courthouse deposing under oath Harris’s and Klebold’s family members.

In the course of that exhaustive, painstaking investigation I learned a great deal about the killers and their motivations, and those motivations were clear. Eric Harris especially was quite vocal about what he was thinking in the months prior to the shootings.

And there cannot be the slightest doubt that Coyne is completely, utterly, indisputably wrong — there was evidence that Darwinism motivated the shooters. In fact, Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and specifically saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles.

Here, we had said, Let the spin begin.” But the YouTube block turns out to be more like plain old censorship, an increasing resort these days.

The film is currently rated 7.5 out of 10 at IMBD.  At Rotten Tomatoes, predictably, it scored only a 4 but 94% of audiences liked it. Expect it to be trashed by the remaining film critics of dying formerly mainstream media. That’s started already at the struggling Guardian.

Note: Computer issues prevented posting religion news yesterday. The (fairly short) religion news queue will run today, to be followed by regular Monday news.

See also: Columbine film actually addresses Darwinism as the mass murderers’ motive

Jerry Coyne’s Statements Turn Out To Be Uninformed Blithering


Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters

The trailer is back up: Watch it in principle:

Follow UD News at Twitter!

All, Considering that rvb8 won't provide a straight answer to repeated questions about the moral grounds of his refusal as an atheist to consider using a certain highly nutritious animal protein for food even if it meant keeping starving children from dying, what makes you think that he'll give you anything but an evasive one to yours? -Q Querius
I visit lots of creationist web sites just to make sure of what I already have had confirmed umpteen times before; they have no research! Do you visit science sites as regularly as I visit creationist ones?
You must have a very peculiar definition of the word research! Either that, or your list of creationist web sites is unique, or you have very poor reading comprehension skills! Here's a quick test: Question 1: Which of the following count as "research", and which don't: 1) Creating a computer application that models potential rates and times of evolution of genes and DNA 2) Conducting measurements of C14 levels in gas wells and coal mines to determine age 3) Performing gene comparisons between chimp and human DNA 4) Research on comparisons of astronomical positioning based on red-shift and luminosity 5) Testing dinosaur fossils for extant biological material 6) Testing mathematical models of earth's age based on various hypothetical measurements (ocean salinity, mineral deposits, etc.) Question 2: What criteria are you using to determine which count as "research"? Question 3: Of the above list, which are valid "evolution" research", and which are invalid "creation" not-research? (Hint: this is a trick question) Look, you want to argue for evolution as being superior to creationism - fine, knock yourself out. But don't lie to make your point. And if you aren't lying, if you honestly believe that creationists don't do research, well, you've just completely discredited yourself as to having any knowledge of creationists at all. Not that you aren't aware of these already (since you've visited "lots of creationists websites"), but I suggest you Google CSRQ, International Creation Conference, ICR, Journal of Creation, etc. and then come back and explain why measuring the amount of differential lead retention in zircons between deep and shallow core drilling doesn't count as "research". Face it - when you say stupid stuff like "creationists have no research", you just resemble a spoiled brat hunched in a corner with your eyes squeezed shut, your fingers in your ears, yelling "la la la I can't hear you!" drc466
Codon Degeneracy Discredited Again by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - 2016 Excerpt: One of the main themes of evolution is the belief that certain types of DNA sequences freely mutate and develop new functions that allow for new creatures to evolve. This mostly mythical concept was applied to the protein-coding regions of genes, but in recent years this idea was discredited by the discovery of multiple codes imbedded in the same sequence—because the disruption of these codes is typically harmful, mutations are not tolerated. And now another critical imbedded code was discovered, further discrediting the idea of pervasive mutable DNA in genes.1,,, We have three different types of codes specified by codons that not only overlap each other, but play key roles in diverse types of cellular function. To sum things up, full codon utility (all three bases, besides specifying which amino acid is produced) controls: 1) transcription factor binding, 2) protein production rate and protein folding, and 3) gene transcription rates and levels. While human generated computer code is linear with only one meaning, the genetic code created by an Omnipotent God has multiple complex meanings and functions—all in the same sequence. The complexity of the genetic code points directly to a Divine Engineer instead of random purposeless evolution. http://www.icr.org/article/codon-degeneracy-discredited-again
rvb8- You mentioned a lack of creationist research and evidence , Just so you are aware its the same evidence, we are all working with the SAME EVIDENCE.The fossil record is the evidence , certain scientist see evolutionary change over long periods of time , some see stasis as all the fossils found are fully formed creatures so you have to interpret change , its not actually evident from the record itself. The Miller Urey experiment , the evidence is if you do this experiment you get some amino acids in a goo like substance some people like you interpret this to say you can create life from non life , many scientists when being honest say this experiment failed to show life can come from non life as no life was produced or has ever been produced by these experiments .So the evidence is the same evidence how you choose to view this evidence now thats a different matter. Marfin
rvb8-Lets stick to the fossil record for now. The late Colin Patterson head of the natural history museum in London made this statement, "is archeoptryx the ancestor to modern birds perhaps yes perhaps no as there is NO way of putting this to the test".So please once again I ask how can you test if any given fossil is ancestral to any other given fossil. Gould and Eldridge came up with their theory on the pace and method of evolutionary change called punctuated equilibrium ,why? its because all the fossil they say are fully formed there are no transitional fossils. So what you don`t grasp is there is a difference between evidence and interpretation of that evidence, The evidence is fossilised bones the interpretation is evolutionary change.If every single creature alive today has come about by millions of small changes why do we not see this in nature or the fossil record why did Gould say that its common knowledge that there are no transitional fossils.So to be really scientific where is that test on fossil ancestry.You say I don`t look at creationist site enough at at their lack of evidence , but you by the same token have you bothered to read any book that cast any doubt on evolution , have you looked at the great number of scientist who doubt science orthodoxy , you need to be more sceptical , and more honest. Also I dont need to find the perpetrator of a crime to prove that someone accused of it did not do it ,just as I do not need an alternative to evolution to know it was not responsible for creation. Marfin
Marfin, I'm not sure I scream science, but I am a fan of simple explanations of observed phenomenon. 'The evidence', you say? I don't know how to answer this, other than to say, I have none of the problems you seem to have in finding this evidence. When Neil Shubin lead his team to the arctic to discover their predicted transitional Tiktalik the evidence of their methodology was made public, and is still easily discovered by using a computer mouse; difficult research I agree. I visit lots of creationist web sites just to make sure of what I already have had confirmed umpteen times before; they have no research! Do you visit science sites as regularly as I visit creationist ones? The 'fossil record', is conclusive evidence of slow change in structure over vast time; I'm sorry if you tut tut that, but it is an accepted (for very good reasons) scientific fact. This is not arrogant mockery of your non-evidence, it just is. It is so indescribably easy to find this stuff that I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring your demands for evidence; find it yourself! I find and understand the creationist position on the net, easily and some of its important proponents reside here, and yet they still can not get beyond, "it looks complicated therefore.." This is simply not a presentable scientific position, and if you can not understand that then your constant goading of me to 'come up with the beef', will not be helpful, as 'the beef, the fossils, the DNA, redundent and vestigal organs, blind cave fish, flightless birds, penguins, biogeography, resistant bacteria etc etc, prove you to be simply and completely, wrong! rvb8
rvb8 @ 8 'But really? To hang this around Darwin’s neck is where my guffaws begin.' What response is open to you, other than this grandiose affectation of superiority, which merely tells us about yourself, indeed, what we already knew about you and your obstinately-blind and callow worldview ? Your guffaws carry as much authoritative heft as the guffaws of someone who scoffed at quantum mechanics as, 'all sorts of stuff abut unicorns and pink pixies!' Axel
The atheist criticism against the movie reached such intensity that the film’s trailer was blocked on YouTube for 11 months because it was flagged by members of the community who were seemingly upset with its representation of what happened.
Please note, neither the OP nor the article it cited, were movie reviews. I have not seen the movie so I have no idea whether it is good or bad or somewhere in-between. However, even if it was the worse film ever made (which I doubt) that doesn’t justify an organized effort on the part of atheists to suppress it. Whatever it is that motivates the modern atheist it should be clear that it is not logic, reason, honesty or good will towards your fellow man. john_a_designer
RVB8, Nope, that's not a what ifs issue if you know scripture and God's declared attitude to the proud vs the humble. Never forget that David was the overlooked, misunderestimated -- that laughed off word mashup is actually powerful -- eighth son. And, here is Paul to the Corinthians:
1 Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God.
My old Thompson's Study Bible speaks of "God's Tool Kit." And of course Sophia in Prov 1:20 - 33, has somewhat to say, too. KF kairosfocus
rvb8- How much did Dawkins and Krauss take in at the box office with their movie "unbelivers". I am as fundamental a christian as you get and would not go to see this movie for the reasons you stated , but like most non blockbuster movies, movies like this are done on a budget and reflect this fact.I would prefer a documentary on the subject. So how does this change the fact that you screem science but wont answer any scientific questions,eg fossil ancestry, or enter into any real debate on the evidence . Is mocking movies made on a budget the strongest evidence at your disposal. Marfin
That's a lot of 'what ifs' D_f_O. There is a particular film genre that unfortunately is becoming more common. That is the Christian inspired genre. Books such as 'Left Behind' are their inspiration and I know many atheists who actively search these out and buy as DVDs; I have a few. However, the inspirational message is simply not there. What I see is a load of absolutely gorgeous teens (and the occasional minority) poorly acting (because they are actually not acting) stories of survival, that outside the USA look patently absurd; Kirk Cameron as a survivalist? Please! Why do they all have perfect hair, homes, teeth, and parents? Why is there always a 'Doubting Thomas' character that miraculously sees the light? Why are they all middle class or above? These are unintentionally funny. I'm not being nasty, or smug, or elitist, I simply laugh at the premise of these movies. Rapture, or Biblical Armageddon, or in this csae, Perfect Sacrifice. This girl probably did give her life in the way depicted, I will not cast aspersions on her sacrifice. But really? To hang this around Darwin's neck is where my guffaws begin. rvb8
I'm sure this unfortunate girl's faith was real, and her story enobling. However, $950,000 at the box office suggests others are less impressed. Me for example. Is this going to be another 'Expelled' moment. Where everyone in the world (except for people), see its importance. Like 'Darwin‘s Doubt', 'Darwin's Doubt 2', 'The Continuing Adventures of Doubtful Darwin'? I watch the 'Left Behind' movies, but not for the reasons the writers and producers intended. The danger with these movies is that they become unintentional laughing points. rvb8
I'm not the first to say this but the progressive march and takeover of communications and entertainment has created huge opportunities for talented people. Any group producing quality movies that don't push the same old cr*p - polluted by the cultural smokestacks of Hollywood - will do very well for themselves. With alternative movie making, quality is key. No corniness or over-sentimentalizing. There's a difference between heart-warming and heartburn! (I haven't seen this movie but I'm very much looking forward to viewing it.) steveO
The atheist criticism against the movie reached such intensity that the film’s trailer was blocked on YouTube for 11 months because it was flagged by members of the community who were seemingly upset with its representation of what happened.
More evidence that atheists are part of the problem not the solution. john_a_designer
spoiler alert:
"In 1998 she (Rachel Joy Scott) drew a collage of images that included a rose growing up out of a columbine, with several dark drops spiralling it.,,, On the morning of the shootings, she doodled a reprise of the picture: a pair of eyes crying 13 teardrops onto that same rose - the same number of victims the shooters would kill during the massacre just hours later." http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/dead/rachel/eyes99.jpg http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/rachel.html
Censorship by accusation and projection. If there is a demonstrable falsehood, demonstrate it. Censoring what you agree with which is not specifically defamatory is very unsafe action. Don't assume that you will always have the power of censor, if you are tempted to impose in effect viewpoint discrimination against those whose message you dislike. kairosfocus

Leave a Reply