http://denver.rockymountainnew...

You claimed:

The Columbine shooting was in April 1999.

Natural Selection was released in October 2002.

Now we know why Klebold and Harris were neoNazis and thought they were superior to eveyone else: they had Hitler's time machine.

Problem is:

When he died, Harris was wearing a white T-shirt with the inscription "Natural Selection" on its front. He also wore black combat boots and a black glove on his right hand with the fingers cut out.

It is not clear what the shirt's inscription referred to, but there is a video game with the same name. The game's World Wide Web site says it encompasses a "realm where anything can happen," a place for the "bravest of the brave and the fiercest of the fierce."

"It is a place where survival of the fittest takes a very literal meaning. … it's the natural way, it's Natural Selection," the game's makers wrote.

…

Additional reporting by staff writer Lynn Bartels.

June 25, 1999

Please note the dateline. So when was Natural Selection released again?

Jehu also claimed that they were "anti-Christian"; by implication, that that was their motivation for the killings, no doubt relying upon the legend of Cassie Bernalls. The problem is that your second cite (to which I will refer later) included the quote:

"We deal with facts; we present facts," Kiekbusch said. The final report will likely run a few hundred pages and contain "a fair amount" of Harris' texts, but few if any theories, he said. "We'll make a diligent effort not to include a bunch of conclusions. Here are the facts: You read it and make your own conclusions."

But individual investigators are drawing conclusions, and not all of them agree. Some sources focused on the killers' belief in their own superiority, as though they constituted a two-man master race. Some point to the fact that as the killing began, Harris tore off his trench coat to expose a white T-shirt reading "Natural Selection." Their writings stress their bond, including statements like "We're the only two who have self-awareness," "Nobody else is like us" and "We're the only two people who seem to understand the meaning of life."

"They do consider the human race beneath them," one investigator said. Harris "talks a lot about natural selection and that kind of leads into his admiration of Hitler and Nazism and their 'final solution' — that we, the human race have interrupted or disrupted natural selection by inventing vaccines and stuff like that. In one of his writings, he talks about that: 'It would be great if there were no vaccines, because people who should have died would have died, and we wouldn't be perpetuating this kind of stuff.'"

Following the tragedy, students widely reported Harris' fascination with Hitler and Nazism. But sources said that Harris adopted Hitler's concept of a master race in a general sense, without his particular distaste for Jews or blacks. To Harris, the master race seems to have consisted only of himself and Klebold, though they set out to kill themselves in the attack as well. He stated explicitly that while Hitler's "final solution" was to kill the Jews, his was to kill all mankind.

Kiekbusch would not comment on any superiority or master-race theories, but said the writings showed "they put themselves above everyone else." And while Battan acknowledges that superiority themes appeared in Harris' writings, she does not consider those ideas central to his motive for the killings. "A lot of it is just ramblings," she said. "It's just ranting of kids. And they contradict themselves. So what is real? What do they really feel? Who knows."

One thread running consistently through the texts is the desire for glory, the expectation of fame. "Like many of the school shooters, they seem to be expecting some sort of notoriety, in addition to wanting the vengeance," one source said. "Because they felt they have been mistreated by a number of people, they're going to strike back at the human race.

"But they also kind of expect notoriety." Harris' writings contain statements like "When you [the media] write about this … When you read about this … We were planning this before the kids in Jonesboro, and we're going to die in there," the source said.

Battan actually believes fame was the single biggest reason Harris and Klebold ultimately went through with the plan. "That's my personal opinion," she said. "And all the rest of the justifications are just smoke." Other key investigators backed that assessment.

The texts were littered with comments about their expected glory, Battan said. "They certainly wanted the media to write stories about them every day. And they wanted cult followings. They're going to become superstars by getting rid of bad people. And you know, it worked. They're famous."

So your two cites didn't really help Jehu's original claim; and far from being falsified, my comments on the cites are demonstrated accurate. For the record, perhaps you could identify "one of numerous kneejerk atheist websites" from which I supposedly took my "boilerplate" response. I actually simply read the cites you produced…

Then you employ your second sight (told you I'd refer back to it) to claim that Harris and Klebold killed in the name of "[my] ideology". Unlikely as it may seem, my ideology isn't based upon any hero-worship of two murderous little shits who considered that they were entitled to end the lives of so many of their classmates. Your second sight is apparently on the fritz, but perhaps you could tell me what it suggested my ideology actually is.

As for the suggestion that I was trying to rehabilitate the killers - where you get that from my statement that

In fact, they were equal opportunity haters, considering themselves a two man master race.

I would love to know. Perhaps you could take me down the twisted byways of the logic that got you to that conclusion from that rather unpromising start.

You wrote…

On numerous occassions you have randomly taken pot shots at Christianity in threads that, prior to your comment, had nothing to do with Christianity.
These usually occurring in the form of a snide comment.

Would you consider this thread and my comment in it an example of what you are talking about?

If you do, allow me to address your other comments in that light.

I wrote… "My "ideology" is based on thinking for myself and being able to understand (via internally consistent logic) the things I believe in."

Since I was talking about my ideology, I don't see how this was a snide remark or a pot shot. You responded with…

Couldn't your thinking still be incorrect across the board? If your internally consistent logic is consistently wrong how would you notice (internally) that your thought process was providing you an accurate reflection of reality?

I don't know the Truth, do you?

I wrote… "Most of all, I focus [on] trying to refrain from lying to myself."

Obviously, I was talking about myself, since I used the word "myself". However, you responded with…

Juxtaposed with those who believe in those very old writings?
You might not be lying to yourself, but you're kidding yourself to think that those who adhere to the teachings in those writings are being any less logical and consistent than you are.

I didn't say you, or Christians in general, were. However, angryoldfatman had indicated that he would be "pretty upset" if someone killed in the name of his ideology. It appeared to be an inconsistent position if angryoldfatman did, in fact, base his ideology on a collection of writings that contain plenty of examples of people killing the the name of their ideology.

I wrote… "One of the biggest problems with being hypocritical is that it is a form of lying. If one makes a habit of it, the lies become accepted as unquestioned Truths by the perpetrators themselves."

Is this too in reference to those old writings that were collected together?

I was explaining why I have an aversion to hypocritical thought. I think it is unhealthy for individuals and societal groups to engage in it. But I could be persuaded to think otherwise.

But since you have asked, I think the collection of writings commonly called the Bible has many inconsistencies that would require liberal interpretation to make sense of it as a whole. Since you asked.

I wrote… "One of the best ways to guard against such self-delusion is to open up closely held beliefs to challenge. The more closely held the belief to more imperative it is to have it questioned."

How closely do you hold your belief that you are a open-minded individual who values 'not lying to himself' most of all?

"Open-minded" needs to be quantified. I am not open-minded in that I am willing to embrace any suggestion as being true, but I am open to being persuaded through logic and evidence. I am also open-minded in that I accept that I don't know the ultimate Truth for anyone else.

As for lying to myself, all I can do is my best.

If I believe deeply that Jesus loves me, that he is 'the Son of Man'"¦ is this the type of belief that it is imperative for me to question?

I believe it is. But that is my opinion, I suspect it is probably not yours.

I wrote… "One of my most closely held beliefs is that I don't know the Truth."

So with all of your focus on not lying to yourself and you admitting that you don't know the Truth - how do you know when you're lying to yourself and not lying to yourself?

This comes down to that tricky little nuance between a lie and a falsehood. One can be honestly incorrect without lying.

I could be incorrect in my presumption that I exist, but I am pretty sure I am not being dishonest with myself to think that I do exist.

I would rather do science, but people seem to be interested in "ideology"

TP,
On numerous occassions you have randomly taken pot shots at Christianity in threads that, prior to your comment, had nothing to do with Christianity.
These usually occurring in the form of a snide comment.

What made you think I was reacting emotionally? You are the one with "angry" in the screen name. I was being provocative.

You claimed…

I haven't spoken of my ideology. It was not the subject I was discussing.

However, earlier you wrote…

If they killed in the name of my ideology I'd be pretty upset too.

That is why I was talking about the referenced "ideology", namely yours.

This is a very strange reaction from someone who constantly chides others with the phrase "Let's do science!" whenever they offhandedly mention ideology…

I would rather do science, but people seem to be interested in "ideology", so I am offering my spin on things in an attempt to keep things balanced.

BTW, here is the link to the science-focused thread if you would like to contribute there.

I'm sorry your emotions are getting the better of you. I have not called you any names, though if you think it lends credence to one's arguments I can certainly begin doing so. As you can probably tell from my initial choice of screen names, I'm not all that sensitive to it.

I haven't spoken of my ideology. It was not the subject I was discussing.

Jehu had made some statements about the Columbine shooters, and Robin asked for cites (presumably because he/she didn't believe Jehu was telling the truth). Since Jehu was delayed in responding and apparently citing from memory, I provided the cites after some fairly uncomplicated Googling.

Robin defensively provided excuses for Klebold and Harris, one of which was easily falsified, and another that was obviously boilerplate from any one of numerous kneejerk atheist websites. After addressing them, I stated my supposition that his/her defensive reaction was due to a perceived insult to his/her ideology.

Now you have weighed in, TP, and you're very emotional and defensive. This is a very strange reaction from someone who constantly chides others with the phrase "Let's do science!" whenever they offhandedly mention ideology, and implies that he is the one who is rational, even-keeled, open-minded, and "thought-provoking".

Instead of projecting, TP, perhaps you should be more introspective and deduce why you have reacted this way.

How about this then: for his comment PZ should be declared an enemy combatant.

Like I said…

My "ideology" is based on thinking for myself and being able to understand (via internally consistent logic) the things I believe in.

Couldn't your thinking still be incorrect across the board? If your internally consistent logic is consistently wrong how would you notice (internally) that your thought process was providing you an accurate reflection of reality?

Most of all, I focus trying to refrain from lying to myself.

Juxtaposed with those who believe in those very old writings?
You might not be lying to yourself, but you're kidding yourself to think that those who adhere to the teachings in those writings are being any less logical and consistent than you are.

One of the biggest problems with being hypocritical is that it is a form of lying. If one makes a habit of it, the lies become accepted as unquestioned Truths by the perpetrators themselves.

Is this too in reference to those old writings that were collected together?

One of the best ways to guard against such self-delusion is to open up closely held beliefs to challenge. The more closely held the belief to more imperative it is to have it questioned.

How closely do you hold your belief that you are a open-minded individual who values 'not lying to himself' most of all?
If I believe deeply that Jesus loves me, that he is 'the Son of Man'… is this the type of belief that it is imperative for me to question?

One of my most closely held beliefs is that I don't know the Truth.

So with all of your focus on not lying to yourself and you admitting that you don't know the Truth - how do you know when you're lying to yourself and not lying to yourself?

Amazing. There was more well reasoned condemnation of PZ's comment on his own website than there is here at TT.

How about this then: for his comment PZ should be declared an enemy combatant.