Anyway, in Pekka-Eric Auvinen's own words, the reason he went into a school in Finland and killed 8 people (and then himself) is because:
I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.Yup. All those Christian values corrupted this guy for sure. After all, it is Christian teaching that says the "human race is not worth fighting for or saving... only worth killing" and that "the truth is that I am just an animl [sic]".
He does tell us not to blame others for his actions, so at least we know he wasn't a Liberal. If only he had rid himself of his Biblical worldview! "No mercy for the scum of the earth! HUMANITY IS OVERRATED! It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!"
Ironically, he does end his diatribe with the statement "Justice renders to everyone his due." Which I'm sure he is finding out at this very moment...
[sarcasm]
ReplyDeleteHow unchristian of you to "judge" this man!!!
[/sarcasm]
"No Can Legally Drive" says:
ReplyDelete"Ironically, he does end his diatribe with the statement "Justice renders to everyone his due." Which I'm sure he is finding out at this very moment..."
HAW HAW HAW!!!!
Priceless!!!!
That is SOOOOO scary to think about him getting crispy in hell....
HAW HAW HAW!!!
As I discuss here, it appears the latest school gunman was an atheist inspired by his atheistic ideas and some of his atheist hero serial killers.
ReplyDeleteIf true, that makes two atheist school gunman in one month.
Sorry, but the second hyperlink is to an article about the more recent shooter. I meant to reference this discussion of the atheist Cleveland shooter from last month.
ReplyDelete"When I Committed Apostacy I Raised The Average IQ of Both Christians AND Atheists Simultaneously" said:
ReplyDelete---
HAW HAW HAW!!!!
Priceless!!!!
That is SOOOOO scary to think about him getting crispy in hell....
---
Thank you for contributing your precious pearls of whizdumb. You can go play outside now and let the adults have a conversation in peace.
Layman said:
ReplyDelete---
If true, that makes two atheist school gunman in one month.
---
This is nothing but consistency in an atheistic universe.
Seriously, I would like to have one of our atheist readers give the moral argument that he could use to convince someone like Auvinen why he SHOULDN'T kill a bunch of people. Where is the moral imperative behind the atheist's argument?
I'm opening this up to any of the atheists who think they can give an argument (that rules out Uncle Haw Haw) for morality against the nihilist.
Peter said :
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I would like to have one of our atheist readers give the moral argument that he could use to convince someone like Auvinen why he SHOULDN'T kill a bunch of people. Where is the moral imperative behind the atheist's argument?
I'm opening this up to any of the atheists who think they can give an argument (that rules out Uncle Haw Haw) for morality against the nihilist.
I'm not an "atheist," although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that term, as it can be many things to many people.
I'm not a believer in the Christian story, if that is what you're looking for.
I would point out to Auvinen that it is in his own best interest (self interest) not to kill other 'innocent' people. However, ultimately that may not have convinced him.
I'm not sure that if I told him I "read it in a holy book" that he shouldn't kill innocent people that it would have much more weight.
Thanks for your response, Anton. It is somewhat important whether or not you believe in God in regards to my challenge for atheists to provide a morality. Even most (there are some exceptions) of those who believe in a false God have a reason that springs from their worldview to stipulate morality that is universal. This is something that atheism lacks.
ReplyDeleteYour response was similar to those I've heard put forth by atheists before, so I'll address it below.
You said:
---
I would point out to Auvinen that it is in his own best interest (self interest) not to kill other 'innocent' people.
---
But this presumes that you have a universal knowledge of what is best for Auvinen. Furthermore, it provides no reason why refraining from killing others is better than not refraining.
Remember, Auvinen had no qualms killing himself when it was all over. It's not like the threat that "they might fight back and harm you" had any meaning. When someone is set on death and is not only willing but also eager to die, how is it in his best interest to not kill others?
Certainly one could argue it is in their best interest...but why should Auvinen care about that? His own self-interest cannot take into account their self-interest unless it impacts his self-interest in some way, and in this case it certainly doesn't.
You said:
---
I'm not sure that if I told him I "read it in a holy book" that he shouldn't kill innocent people that it would have much more weight.
---
But of course that isn't the point. We're dealing with why his actions were actually wrong here. If you play the self-interest card, Auvinen's actions weren't immoral.
But if the Bible is true, they certainly were immoral. Biblical morality isn't based on self-interest--it's based on a transcendent God. Just because Auvinen could violate these principals and sin does not mean Christians must say, "Well he must have been moral after all."
Again, I'm asking for the arguement that will convince this person that he shouldn't murder people; not necessarily the argument that succeeds in keeping him from that behavior. I realize now there could be some ambiguity in that phrase, so let me clarify a bit.
Based on Biblical princiapls, Auvinen would know he shouldn't murder anyone at all, even if he then goes and murders people; the same is not true for the idea of self-interest. If it is not in his self-interest (because he's already decided that it is in his self-interest to die) then there is no "You shouldn't do this" at all.
I'm asking for where the atheist gets his moral imperative. I hope that makes the distinction clearer.
Hi Peter...
ReplyDeleteyou said:
Even most (there are some exceptions) of those who believe in a false God have a reason that springs from their worldview to stipulate morality that is universal.
1. Your God could be 'false' too.
2. A "reason" of "I read it in a book" is hardly a binding or universal reason not to murder.
you said:
But this presumes that you have a universal knowledge of what is best for Auvinen. Furthermore, it provides no reason why refraining from killing others is better than not refraining.
I grant you this...I do not have universal knowledge of what is best for Auvien. I doubt that anybody does have this, for ANYONE, including themselves. So what? Ultimately, there may be no reason why refraining from murder is better than not refraining, outside of self-interest. In the cosmic scheme, the activities of us humans don't really add up to much. We'll all soon be gone anyway (cosmically speaking), along with these silly arguments.
you said:
We're dealing with why his actions were actually wrong here. If you play the self-interest card, Auvinen's actions weren't immoral.
I didn't claim they were 'ultimately' wrong. Just based on my perspective, and most other human's perspectives I've encountered. However, I don't know that there is anything 'ultimately' immoral about what he did.
you said:
But if the Bible is true, they certainly were immoral.
The Big If.
you said:
I'm asking for where the atheist gets his moral imperative. I hope that makes the distinction clearer.
I'm not sure there is one. If a person wants to survive, its in their best interest not to murder other people. If they don't want to survive, that obviously doesn't matter to them. For the atheist (or anyone) that doesn't want murder going on, self interest would seem to be enough moral imperative.
I don't know that "some things are always wrong and some things are always right." I guess that is where we differ.
Anton said:
ReplyDelete---
A "reason" of "I read it in a book" is hardly a binding or universal reason not to murder.
---
Except that's not the reason given. It doesn't matter whether I've read it in a book or not; what matters is whether or not the book is true.
I believe the Bible is true. As such, I accept that what it says is true. And if it is true, it is true for everyone--for you as well as for me. Therefore, the validity of "the book" says that the moral judgements it makes are binding for you just as much as they are for me.
Now you can certainly disagree that the Bible is true, but that's not the point I'm dealing with. Again, my faith in the Bible gives me a reason to assert that murdering eight people is actually wrong. I believe it is true, and because of that morality follows. Now my belief could be false, but that false belief still enables me to make a moral judgement based on my beliefs about the universe.
Your alternative of self-interest cannot provide a reason to assert that murdering eight people is actually wrong. Even if your position is true.
You said:
---
I doubt that anybody does have this, for ANYONE, including themselves. So what? Ultimately, there may be no reason why refraining from murder is better than not refraining, outside of self-interest.
---
Here's the "so what?"
A. Morality is determined by self-interest.
B. You claim no one can know what is best for anyone else (including themselves).
C. As such, morality cannot be determined by self-interest because no one can know whether any action actually is beneficial to his own self-interest.
Do you see the problem with that?
You said:
---
I didn't claim they were 'ultimately' wrong. Just based on my perspective, and most other human's perspectives I've encountered. However, I don't know that there is anything 'ultimately' immoral about what he did.
---
So why are you arguing with me? You've simply admitted what I stated in the first place: atheists cannot provide a moral reason that what Auvinen did was wrong.
You said:
---
If a person wants to survive, its in their best interest not to murder other people.
---
If a person wants to survive, it's in his best interest to murder anyone who would threaten that. Of course, the idea of what constitutes a threat is quite fluid. Does the fact that Farmer John has wheat and I have none mean I can kill Farmer John so that I can make bread and not starve?
Further, if self-interest isn't really known by anyone, then how do I determine whether it's in my self-interest to kill Farmer John in the first place?
Finally, you said:
---
If they don't want to survive, that obviously doesn't matter to them.
---
Which was another one of my points. Namely, since Auvinen didn't care if he died, then his murdering eight people wasn't a violation of his self-interest and, therefore, not evil in any sense (i.e. not just in the ultimate sense).
Another point regarding self-interest...
ReplyDeleteIt's within my self-interest (as I see it) for me to have lots of money. Therefore, I ought to be able to take as much money as I want from Anton. It is for my self-interest that I ought to be able to have sexual pleasure whenever I want it, therefore I should be allowed to rape any woman I wish to. It is within my self-interest for me to have as much power as I can, therefore I can create monopolies, crush the minorities, and do whatever I wish with no repercussions.
If self-interest is our guide to what is right and wrong, then everything is permissible as long as we decide we want it that way....
Just a response to your little aside. You said, "By the way, is anyone else tired of newspaper articles that use the phrase "not uncommon" as if that were profound instead of just improper English?"
ReplyDeleteThe term "not uncommon" isn't improper English. It's an example of the rhetorical device litotes which is a form of understatement. I would agree, though, that the author, in this case, uses the device to no great effect. ;)
where did you find out he was christian?
ReplyDelete