Bob with Evan Todd, shot at Columbine

[Jefferson]

Bob with Evan Todd, shot at Columbine

Tuesday April 6th, 2004. This is show #74.

 

[JoyfulRook]

Good Show. Have you met Evan? He's a neat guy

 

[Jefferson]

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

If we look at biblical Christianity vrs. atheistic evolution, from which foundation can we condemn Harris and Klebold? Can we condemn them from biblical Christianity? Yes. What they did was evil. Can we condem them from atheistic evolution? No. There's no God. You're just a freak, an accident of nature, you're just molecules and atoms and if the stronger organism kills and eats or destroys another, if a fish eats another fish, that's not wrong, it's just an animal. It doesn't matter.

 

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Jefferson

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

If we look at biblical Christianity vrs. atheistic evolution, from which foundation can we condemn Harris and Klebold?

Well, let's see, a god which requires the brutal murder of an innocent simply to forgive you, verses evolutionary pack mind, evolutionary parent-offspring empathy, verses...natural empathy and sympathy which develops intra-species.

Can we condemn them from biblical Christianity? Yes.

That really depends on what view you are taking of this religion. Christianity has basically taught brutality through Trinitarianism and the lack of tolerance of other faiths up through the centuries. During the theocratical reign of the Church of Rome some of the greatest attrocities imagined took place while science and evidence driven reality behind the scientific method fought to exist.

What they did was evil.

They murdered.
From our human perspective that is a wrong action, and that is backed whether you are a christian or not, an atheist still holds to the desire of life but does not hold to the unevidenced "enforcement" of this ideology through that of any god, gods, or God. This ideology/morality system can exist simply through evolutionary pack mindedness.

Can we condem them from atheistic evolution? No.

Sure you can.

There's no God.

Atheism makes no claims for nor against God.
Atheism claims there is no evidence for a (any) deity.
What the author of this quote is doing is trying to setup a strawman argument against Atheism because this author lacks the intelligence to defend his faith on a scholarly and well developed level of argumentation, so he goes and makes theists look like uninformed idiots who only follow a morality because "a God" commanded us to.

If "your God's existence" or the "morality system of a given theological set" is the only reason you do not go out and kill innocent people then you are psychologically marginal.

You're just a freak,

I would think that to an evolutionary atheistic mindset, life is not a freak, it is an incredible development of an unplanned happenstance which is extra-ordinary and precious which gives us even more reason to cherish every moment of it.

Let me put it another way, for any christian, you have "eternal life" under your belief set, to an atheist they have come to a world view inwhich they understand within that world view that this life (good or bad, up or down) is all there is, and they should do as much as they can to make this realm as good as they can (leads to humanism) because this is all there is. If anything, the atheistic principles make a people more tolerable of other people's differences and in doing so does not lead to fanaticism lightly, and most certainly it leads to preservation of life over the killing of another over invisible fairy men.

Please understand, even as a theist, I attempt to realize and not degrade an atheistic standpoint because it is a rational evidence driven viewpoint of this reality.

...an accident of nature,

Depending upon whether you side with quantum uncertainty or would rather side with Einstein in the belief that there is purpose to the mechanism of the universe (course Einstein believed that there was a "type" of "God" which did not play dice with creation) but that is for another thread....anyways, just because we would be concidered an "accident" or "happenstance" of a natural process does not degrade life in the least, if anything it makes it even more rare and precious.

...you're just molecules and atoms...

Ah, I hate to tell you, but this part of your argument is not a theory per se, it is evidence driven, you are just molecules and atoms....but that we find a preciousness to our given "matter pattern" is simply that we have developed to a point to have sentience and develop social systems which link back to the primitive packmindedness of our ancestors.

...and if the stronger organism kills and eats or destroys another, if a fish eats another fish, that's not wrong, it's just an animal.

Animals without reasoning and acting souly upon instinct this is an acceptable statement, for it is natural selection.

But when humanity began to reason enough to realize self, to develop a system of empathy and sympathy with those like us, and to develop social systems which limit our actions, then natural selection breaks down into a social order, for natural selection does not operate within packs per se. Natural Selection is many times limited greatly within a given pack and the more a given species can control the environment and/or genetics or health of the members of it, then the more natural selection is reduced. As humanity has medical invention, social orders, and great developments, we are no longer relational to the basic animal order....however, we are still under the rule of the might wins, that is just the way this realm works. If you doubt that, look around a bit.

It doesn't matter.

Again, your argument is a load of horse manure, is an attempt at a strawman, and although I am a theist I take insult to your statements because it reflects poorly on us that you are a member of my belief set. You would be doing all theists well to convert to atheism and draw up strawman arguments against theism.

 

[Jefferson]

Joseph, are you aware that, at the time of the murders, Harris and Klebold were wearing t-shirts with the words, "Natural Selection" imprinted on them?

 

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Joseph, are you aware that, at the time of the murders, Harris and Klebold were wearing t-shirts with the words, "Natural Selection" imprinted on them?

And the Crusaders wore crosses.
And the Nazi's wore the "good luck symbol" of the swastica (which now is a symbol of racism and hate due to their useage of it).

And...the people wore Nike's when they all died to go join the comet...

...get my point yet, man has a tendency to rationalize his murderous acts by mis-using either science or religion, it neither makes them correct in their ideology/rational nor does it in actuality justify their actions.

Anyone with a firm understanding of Natural Selection would realize that their actions do not fall under such a rule of nature, in fact, due to their lack of pack-mind and their lack of pack-empathy, they violated the very concept of natural selection outright, natural selection has very defined rules and is not exactly easily reduced to "anarchy" as you might believe.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Anyone with a firm understanding of Natural Selection would realize that their actions do not fall under such a rule of nature, in fact, due to their lack of pack-mind and their lack of pack-empathy, they violated the very concept of natural selection outright, natural selection has very defined rules and is not exactly easily reduced to "anarchy" as you might believe.

Even if Harris and Klebold learned about this "pack-mind" myth you have foolishly been brainwashed into believing, they would have been consistent with it by slaughtering the "weak" from the pack thereby eliminating the weak links and making the pack stronger. This was Nazi Germany's logic when they "thinned the herd" by killing the retarded and people in mental institutions.

 

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Even if Harris and Klebold learned about this "pack-mind" myth...

A myth (to help you from ignorance toward enlightenment) is:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

The idea of the "pack-mind" far from being a myth is easily documented within various types of species. From the wolf to the dingo, from the elephant to the human.

That you wish to attack good scholarly terms in this discussion with stupidity and/or ignorance only makes you a waste of my time.

...you have foolishly been brainwashed into believing,...

The pack-mind is easily demonstrated and is easily referenced, if you actually want me to go into the ordeal of giving you reference of this social development I would do so, but I fear such information and my time would be wasted upon you in your current world view.

...they would have been consistent with it by slaughtering the "weak" from the pack...

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of pack-mind, social empathy. Many instance the pack defends the weak, this is evident in herds of elephant which will stand together to defend offspring. There are so many examples here that I simply decide here-in to stop for I do believe you are not wanting a scholarly discussion but simply to remain in your ignorance to what "pack-mind" means and the inherent development of social order over time.

You also would probably not grasp that humanity has evolved to a point to be separate from the animal nature our ancestors once had because we have sentience and reasoning capacity beyond other life forms that we know of at this time, and our social order has evolved to even greater complexities than basic "pack-mind" or "pack-empathy" due to the development of our social order.

But again, I really do not care what you want to believe it is my personal take that you shall remain in your blissful existence which you love instead of actually research anything about evolution and adaptation, or perhaps some anthropological research of the development of human social structure over the centuries, because you like bliss over truth.

...thereby eliminating the weak links and making the pack stronger.

"Weak links" would be those that are perhaps sick but not our young. Now, if you would like to enter into a debate about end-of-life wishes then we have a completely different argument. You see, those of whom you are presently speaking did not kill due to deformity or sickness (as you so ignorantly attempted to remove this line of discuss to below in one of the poorest strawmen I have ever seen) but they killed due to belief upon anarchy, ego, and racism. They took innocent life because they had lost the value of their own existence and in doing so they did not do what they did because of scientific reasoning in the least, for if science teaches us anything it is that life is rare in this universe (at least so far it is) and that it is precious and unique and to be protected whenever possible.

Your decision to change the argument from "young members of the pack" (schoolchildren) to "weak/sick" members of a group is quite cleavor and the weaker person would not have been quick enough to catch it, sorry to disappoint you.

This was Nazi Germany's logic when they "thinned the herd" by killing the retarded and people in mental institutions.

"Thinned the herd" is not an internal undertaking. Such ideology would be self destructive. Social pack order normally operates through false threats which end in mock battles but where no lasting damage is done. This is true in wolves, deer, and other mammals which operate in packs or herds. Elephants have very developed social orders and are the few creatures that we know of which have an understanding of death unlike few animals have (elephants stay near elephant bones and kick them and demonstrate a longing, they do not do this with other animal bones).

"Thinned the herd" is what a predator would do, such as it would zero in on either a young, older, or weakened member of the herd, but again your argument in flawed in vast amount for those of whom you are talking about were not "thinning the herd" they were not predators but members of a given social order who rebelled against social norms, they were deviants which would be pushed outside the pack or destroyed to maintain the peace/safety of the pack.

Nazi Germany is another discussion entirely inthat it was practicing genocide which directly conflicts with natural selection (it is not natural but imposed selection based upon human reasonings/hatred) and it is a false type of selection (normally race or other false reasons are used not in actuality dealing with what a given person's worth is to the "pack").

So, your entire argument is a waste of my time.

However, just for kicks, I do support the end-of-life wishes of a person to be what they decide, and if they decide they no longer wish to live in pain then so be it, and I say this from personal experience in watching two grandmothers die in pain and understand that only the person who is suffering knows when enough is enough.

So now you get to go off on a tangent and strawman about suicide being "murder" and stuff and save face from having to answer from your ignorance in bringing up the "pack-mind," the mislabeling of "pack-mind" as "mythos" when in fact it is evidenced research, and the misuse of "thinned the herd" inthat you attempted to say that when this happens within a social order it is labeled such when it is not, "thinning a herd" is used when something outside that given social order "thins" a herd.

So, care to try again?

I am beginning to enjoy this too much...as a theist I find it hard for you to not admit that it is not only the concept of God or God's morality request that makes you not wish to go out murdering people, and if you can not make such a statement (inthat you have a social order of thinking which most modern people should have) then I would say you are marginal in world view and I am glad you have your faith in whatever god you serve (real or imagined) because without him you would be those of whom you ridicule.