Not all atheists are serial killers, but are all serial killers atheists?

[CplFerro]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm neither a serial killer or an atheist, but I'm going to say "no".

A serial killer is perhaps the most messed up kind of person (psychiatrically/psychologically speaking) you could meet (hopefully not in a dark alley). Not following any kind of logic is probably a requirement for them to do what they do.

This would have little to do with their religious beliefs.

[Lisa Simpson]

Dennis Rader was a Lutheran church member. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader)

[CplFerro]

Dennis Rader was a Lutheran church member. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader)

Reading his note to the police, does this sound like a guy who believes in God's judgement against the wicked?

[drkitten]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked?

Self-delusion. He's doing "God's will" by killing the wicked or whatever.

Remember Andrea Yates? She drowned her children so that they'd go to heaven?


One psychiatrist, featured on Mugshots, asked Andrea what she thought would happen to the children. She indicated that she believed God would "take them up." He reversed the question and asked what might have happened if she had not taken their lives.

"I guess they would have continued stumbling," which meant "they would have gone to hell."


Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

Well, since the empirical evidence seems to indicate that serial killers must be (c) psychotic, I have no problem deducing that they must be (a) or (b) or (c).

In the same way that I have no problem deducing that they all live on either Venus, Mars, or Earth.

[bokonon]

Reading his note to the police, does this sound like a guy who believes in God's judgement against the wicked?
God-oh God what a beautiful sexual relief ... There is no help, no cure, except death
Sounds like it to me.

What is it Christians say -- "Not perfect, just forgiven."?

[godless dave]

Reading his note to the police, does this sound like a guy who believes in God's judgement against the wicked?

Yes - in fact he thought he was helping God administer that judgement.

I would think most serial killers don't think of themselves as wicked. People who harm others often don't think they're doing anything wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

Serial killers are sociopaths. Sociopathic personalities of that degree do not feel empathy or guilt or even fear the same way that normal people do. They display a marked lack of concern for the long-term consequences of their actions. If anyone is capable of believing in eternal damnation without it making a difference in their actions, it would be a sociopathic serial killer.

But don't take my word for it. The next time you discover that a supposed Christian has lied or stolen or committed adultery; confront them and make them admit they're really an atheist. Then you'll know you're right.

On the off chance you have children and are a bit sociopathic yourself, please bear in mind I don't really want you to do this, I'm just making a point.

[Olowkow]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

Several years ago, I just happened upon a very interesting read, "My Shadow Ran Fast (http://www.enotes.com/my-shadow-ran-fast-salem/my-shadow-ran-fast)", and I wound up devouring every book I could find on the criminal mind, including everything on serial killers. Bill Sands knew some very strange folks.

It is surprising how little is known about the personality of the psychopathic killer. But, one thing that was clear to me was that they seem to be "unreflective on the matter" to a large degree. I cannot remember any one of them, off the top of my head, except for John List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_List) who was obsessed with religion. Of course, he does not really qualify as a "serial killer", strictly speaking.

Guys like Ted Bundy and Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) were much too busy for any religious activities. Yet, I'm going to guess that many of them, if asked, would not want to be included in the ranks of "atheist". If any of them happens to be "non religious", it just is not a salient feature of their makeup.

[bokonon]

I think Dahmer was an atheist. Richard Ramirez and Wayne Williams were Satan worshippers, so presumably not atheists. John Wayne Gacy was Roman Catholic. Ted Bundy was Mormon.

I dunno, the evidence for the original claim seems pretty shaky...

[Beth]

Yes - in fact he thought he was helping God administer that judgement. Where did you hear that? I've read quite a bit about him (I live in the same city) and my understanding is that he wasn't a church member when he was killing people. One psychology quoted in the paper at the time of his arrest stated that his participating in church activities may have helped keep him from killing more people. I'm not sure I buy that idea, but I've not ever heard quoted as saying he had any kind of sanction from God to do what he did.

[Burning Beard]

In my old band I used to look at serial killers as a topic of inspiration.

I wrote a song about Herb Mullin, who I found particularly fascinating. He was a paranoid schizophrenic who thought he could avert natural disasters by making human sacrifices.

It is reported that he used to have "screaming matches with God", had plans to be a Priest, but at the same time seemed to have a "fleeting malice" towards organised religion. He'd been a deeply religous child, according to his mother.

There's a lot more to it than that; strange ideas about reincarnation and receiving telepathic commands along with some very bizarre interpretations of the bible (he carried a bible with him often).

He certainly seemed to believe in a god and/or an afterlife.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Yeah, that Ed Gein sure was a secular humanist. :rolleyes:

[noreligion]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

This is just a failed and in my opinion extremely dumb attempt to make atheists out to be evil and immoral murderers. Guess the inquisition was led by atheists right? Guess when Mohamed the psychotic prophet beheaded those people in Mecca he was an atheist? Try better next time.

[Tricky]

Reading his note to the police, does this sound like a guy who believes in God's judgement against the wicked?
So not a true theist then?

[tsig]

Reading his note to the police, does this sound like a guy who believes in God's judgement against the wicked?

The No True Scotsman fallacy already.

ETA I'd curse you Tricky but you'd just take it as a compliment.

[John Jones]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

Maybe they're Satanists.

Nice try. Better luck next time. :)

[Olowkow]

I think Dahmer was an atheist. Richard Ramirez and Wayne Williams were Satan worshippers, so presumably not atheists. John Wayne Gacy was Roman Catholic. Ted Bundy was Mormon.

I dunno, the evidence for the original claim seems pretty shaky...

Are you sure about Williams? This is the first time I ever heard this.

[Weak Kitten]

Um, this kinda sounds to me like "Not all oranges are green, but are all green fruits oranges?" That, combined with an argument that those who are religious and also serial killers are somehow not really religious.

Am I getting this right?

[Puppycow]

The Rev. Jim Jones (people's temple) was a mass murderer.

[Wolfman]

This is obviously pointless. The OP is simply gonna' argue, "A person who believes in God will not be a serial murderer; therefore, all serial murderers are atheists." If you point out someone who was a Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) who was a serial murderer, he'll argue that A) they didn't really believe in god, and/or they were psychotic (and somehow this means they were an atheist, I guess?)

Not all theists use the "no real scotsman" tactic; but are all people who use the "no real scotsman" tactic theists?

[CplFerro]

This is just a failed and in my opinion extremely dumb attempt to make atheists out to be evil and immoral murderers. Guess the inquisition was led by atheists right? Guess when Mohamed the psychotic prophet beheaded those people in Mecca he was an atheist? Try better next time.

Next time, lay off the cynicism pill and try to understand the original question. The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.

[CplFerro]

So not a true theist then?

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it? Try to think of it from the perspective of a believer, like, I don't know, Reverend Fred Phelps, say. Here is a man who lives with the specter of a triumphant and vengeful God hanging over his head every day of his life. He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.

[noreligion]

Next time, lay off the cynicism pill and try to understand the original question. The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.

Nice to know the inquisition wasn't a bunch of murders in your opinion. Tell me, are the people they herded into synagogues and burnt alive dead or just warm?

[AdinDraco]

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it? Try to think of it from the perspective of a believer, like, I don't know, Reverend Fred Phelps, say. Here is a man who lives with the specter of a triumphant and vengeful God hanging over his head every day of his life. He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.

Unless he sincerely believes that's what god wants him to do, god does hate you-know-who's so if old Freddy and his crew start killing a few - well god's on his side right?

[Olowkow]

... He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.

How can you be sure? What if god "tells" him to do it?

[Horatius]

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it?



Have you ever considered the possibility that some people believe they deserve to be punished?

[m_huber]

Next time, lay off the cynicism pill and try to understand the original question. The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.

Wait..... Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church is ATHEIST????? Or is there some other point you are trying to make...?

[AdinDraco]

Next time, lay off the cynicism pill and try to understand the original question. The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.

Isn't there a saying about needing religion for good people to do evil things? This is the problem I have with religion - I agree whole-heartedly that the inquisition was a correct application of the faith/dogma.

[tsig]

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it? Try to think of it from the perspective of a believer, like, I don't know, Reverend Fred Phelps, say. Here is a man who lives with the specter of a triumphant and vengeful God hanging over his head every day of his life. He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.

He would happily kill gays all day.

[AdinDraco]

Um....isn't there a stereotype about the psychotic killer believing that god was telling them to kill all the evil fallen women/unbelievers/people-of-all-other-faiths-except-mine?

[CplFerro]

Nice to know the inquisition wasn't a bunch of murders in your opinion. Tell me, are the people they herded into synagogues and burnt alive dead or just warm?

Non sequitir. Please reread previous post and try your call again.

[bokonon]

The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion.
Ted Haggard.
Jimmy Swaggart.
Jim Bakker.

Maybe they do iff they have double consonants in their last name?

[noreligion]

Non sequitir. Please reread previous post and try your call again.

How was it a non sequitur? The conclusion you reached can only be made by one extremely large leap of illogic and faith.

[Olowkow]

Most serial killers were raised strict Christian. USA produces 80% of the world's serial killers, yet has only 5% of world's population. USA is 75% Christian.

I wonder if this is actually true. It's just one of those "Yahoo Answers" things, but it has a certain believability about it. I need to do some Google-ing.

[CplFerro]

He would happily kill gays all day.

If God told him to, sure.

[CplFerro]

Ted Haggard.
Jimmy Swaggart.
Jim Bakker.

Maybe they do iff they have double consonants in their last name?

I don't think they really believe what they preach. Such a racket must attract the con men like honey does flies.

[Redtail]

Next time, lay off the cynicism pill and try to understand the original question. The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.

Unless adultery stopped being wicked for Christians some time in the 80s I'm gonna have to say your point is flawed.

[bokonon]

I don't think they really believe what they preach. Such a racket must attract the con men like honey does flies.
Cool. I don't believe Dahmer was really an atheist either. He looks too much like a choir boy.

[Olowkow]

Here is what I think is relevant. "God telling someone to kill." Of course the religious will argue that god really didn't tell him to. Well, ok, since there is no god, but how do you make the distinction between loony tunes and religious fanatic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerVisionary

...serial killers suffer from psychotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) breaks with reality, sometimes believing they are another person or are compelled to murder by entities such as the devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_devil) or God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#cite_note-58) The two most common subgroups are "demon mandated" and "God mandated."[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#cite_note-Bartol-59)
Herbert Mullin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Mullin) believed the American casualties in the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) were preventing California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) from experiencing an earthquake. As the war wound down, Mullin claimed his father instructed him via telepathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy) to raise the amount of "human sacrifices to nature" in order to delay a catastrophic earthquake that would plunge California into the ocean.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#cite_note-60)
David Berkowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz) ("Son of Sam") is an example of a visionary killer. He claimed a demon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon) transmitted orders through his neighbor's dog, instructing him to commit murder.

[TraneWreck]

That was a hell-of-a-quick "one true scotsman."

"Are serial killers all atheists?"
"No, here's one who was Christian."
"He wasn't a real Christian, does it seem like he believes in God."

[AdinDraco]

I don't think they really believe what they preach. Such a racket must attract the con men like honey does flies.

Is this the No-True-Scotsman thing again? Is your only method of determining who's really following the dictates of their religion whether or not you find their actions good/bad? The christian dogma - for example - is such a contradictory, corrupt mess already that true believers can make it say almost anything. Genocide, slavery, sexism, racism...with only a tiny sprinkling of cognitive dissonance a sincere believer can justify god's support of any action they care to take. Whether they're lining their pockets or bashing gays to death, I have no problem accepting that they don't believe for a second that anything they're doing is wrong.

[Horatius]

I don't think they really believe what they preach. Such a racket must attract the con men like honey does flies.



So if going against the teachings of their professed faith means they're really "atheists", doesn't that mean that the vast majority of people are atheists?


We'll wait here while you go and tell them that.

[fossilhound]

Here is what I think is relevant. "God telling someone to kill." Of course the religious will argue that god really didn't tell him to. Well, ok, since there is no god, but how do you make the distinction between loony tunes and religious fanatic?

There's a difference?

[Ron_Tomkins]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

Ever heard of a group of religious fanatics and terrorists by the name of Al Qaeda? You should look them up. Did I mention they were Religious Fanatics and also killed a lot of people in the name of God?

Additional suggested topics of research:
-The Spanish Inquisition
-The Crusades
-The Witch hunting
-Mark Chapman

That should do for now.

[Derwoods]

according to a documentary my wife was watching last night Albert Fish was convinced that god would have stopped him if what he was doing was wrong like in the story of Abraham and Isaac.

[Wolfman]

CplFerro,

There are so many arguments against your contention that it is impossible to know where to begin. Let's confine ourselves to the Christian faith for the time being, as that seems to be where the majority of your own arguments are arising from.

First, yes, Christianity does teach severe consequences for sinning...an eternity of suffering and pain. Christianity also teaches that it doesn't matter what sin you commit, the penalty is exactly the same. Rape and murder a hundred women...or tell one small lie. Doesn't matter. You've sinned, therefore you go to hell.

Your first error is that you seem to have established "serial murder" as some sort of special category of sin, that entails a punishment worse than other sins. But, from a Biblical, Christian perspective, this is plainly wrong. As Jesus himself said, the person who lusts after a woman in his mind is just as guilty of adultery as the man who has sex with a woman other than his wife.

So let's ask ourselves the question, "If people know that the penalty for any sin is eternal damnation and suffering, would they sin?".

And the answer, very obviously, is yes. The Bible itself teaches that it is quite literally impossible for us not to sin, because of the influence of Original Sin.

So, despite the fact that they know what the penalty for such actions are, Christians still sin. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they commit adultery, etc. They also commit murder, rape, and a wide range of other such crimes.

The only way for your argument to make sense -- from your own perspective -- is for you to argue that A) serial murder is a 'special category' of sin that is different from all the others (completely contradicting what the Bible teaches, and what Christians generally believe), and/or B) that people who believe in eternal damnation will not commit any sin or break any law whatsoever (since the penalty for any of those is exactly the same -- eternal damnation).

And before you try to use the whole "forgiveness" thing...forgiveness applies equally to all sins, be it telling a white lie, or being a serial killer.

In fact, one might make the argument that a Christian, knowing that they can get forgiveness for their actions and escape eternal torment, might be more inclined to commit murder, than an atheist who does not believe in any such potential 'get out of jail free' card.

[arthwollipot]

And then there's Joshua, who killed millions.

[m_huber]

And then there's Joshua, who killed millions.

Allegedly.

[bozman]

First, yes, Christianity does teach severe consequences for sinning...an eternity of suffering and pain. Christianity also teaches that it doesn't matter what sin you commit, the penalty is exactly the same. Rape and murder a hundred women...or tell one small lie. Doesn't matter. You've sinned, therefore you go to hell.

Uhhh, until the whole protestant reformation thing, didn't Christianity teach a clear distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins? I think committing a mortal sin was a straight ticket to hell, whereas a venial sin might get someone stuck in purgatory (something like that).


Additional suggested topics of research:
-The Spanish Inquisition
-The Crusades
-The Witch hunting
-Mark Chapman

Bingo. It's all a matter of narcissistic self delusion. Even the KKK call themselves a Christian group and justify what they do by calling it God's work. I'd say faith inspires far more killing than atheism ever could.

[Accidental Martyr]

There is a difference between serial killers, spree killers and mass murderers. Some of the individuals mentioned so far are not serial killers. Groups (like al-qaeda) are not serial killers. Andrea Yates was not a serial killer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer
Then there was this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_John

[arthwollipot]

Allegedly.My point was that Joshua (according to the source material) was commanded by God to slay millions.

[bozman]

My point was that Joshua (according to the source material) was commanded by God to slay millions.

Allegedly...

Just kidding. :D

[Wolfman]

Uhhh, until the whole protestant reformation thing, didn't Christianity teach a clear distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins? I think committing a mortal sin was a straight ticket to hell, whereas a venial sin might get someone stuck in purgatory (something like that).
Well, first, I doubt that CplFerro is referring to Roman Catholic belief systems; however, if we're going to go that way, this is effectively how it works.

A "mortal sin" has three characteristics:

1) be of grave matter (breaking one of the commandments, etc)
2) committed with full knowledge (you know it's a grave sin)
3) committed with deliberate consent (knowing it's a grave sin, you do it anyway)

If it doesn't meet these characteristics, then it is a "venial sin".

If you haven't been baptized, mortal and venial sins really make no difference; you go to hell. If you've been baptized, then venial sins may cause you to spend time in purgatory, but not in hell. However, if you die with unconfessed mortal sins, you go to hell. You must therefore confess mortal sins to escape hell.

Even if we hold with this category, there are a whole slew of "mortal sins" committed by Christians every day; so the argument that "knowing it will make them go to hell will cause them not to do it" plainly doesn't hold water.

[bozman]

Well, first, I doubt that CplFerro is referring to Roman Catholic belief systems; however, if we're going to go that way, this is effectively how it works.

Ah, thanks. I see now

Even if we hold with this category, there are a whole slew of "mortal sins" committed by Christians every day; so the argument that "knowing it will make them go to hell will cause them not to do it" plainly doesn't hold water.

I couldn't agree more. I seriously doubt that a fear based belief system like Christianity is very effective when it comes to deterring its members from "sinning."

[CMacDady]

@Wolfman I like your views and response on this topic. In the regard that you have taken time to look at this from a religious point of view to not only see the faults in the logic of the original post, but in the religious views themselves. Having knowledge in both aspects helps immensely in explaining the points fully in a respectful manner.

[Wolfman]

@Wolfman I like your views and response on this topic. In the regard that you have taken time to look at this from a religious point of view to not only see the faults in the logic of the original post, but in the religious views themselves. Having knowledge in both aspects helps immensely in explaining the points fully in a respectful manner.Thanks...that's greatly appreciated. I've long been a proponent of the view that if you really want to communicate with others -- and not just 'preach' at them, or mock them -- then it is necessary first to understand their beliefs. I see far too many people for whom such debates seem to focus more on "proving I'm right" and/or mocking the other person.

I've found that, in by far the majority of cases, one can demonstrate the errors in their beliefs/arguments within the context of their own belief system. Which is, in the long term, far more effective. Of course, there are those out there for whom, not matter what kind of argument you use, they're going to refuse to listen (this is just as true for atheists as it is for theists); but we can at least make the effort.

If I'm not going to make the effort to understand their beliefs, and the reasons for them...why should they make any effort to understand my beliefs, and the reason for them? In fact, I was once a fundamentalist Christian myself...and had the same attitude. I saw no point in simply preaching at others that they were wrong, and I was right...I needed to take time to understand their beliefs, and them demonstrate from their own perspective where they were wrong.

Ironically, it was (in part) that process of learning to understand what others believed, and why, that lead eventually to me becoming an atheist!

[arthwollipot]

Allegedly...Which is why I said "according to the source material"... ;)

[Dave Rogers]

The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion.

Even if this were true - which it is clearly not, from the merest glance at any period of history - the Achilles heel of your argument lies in the word "their". It's not only possible, but depressingly common, for someone to derive his or her own personal interpretation of a religion such that serial killing is virtuous. This may be done on an individual basis, - for example, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, claimed that God had personally instructed him to kill prostitutes - or on an institutional basis, of which the Spanish Inquisition is the classic example. This may not be an interpretation of any particular religion that you personally share, but both of these examples are motivated by a personal belief in a Judeo-Christian deity; neither Peter Sutcliffe, nor the members of the Spanish Inquisition, conform to any rational or useful definition of the word 'atheist'.

In fact, therefore, we can be completely certain that the answer to the question in the thread title is a simple 'no'.

Dave

[welshdean]

I do remember one particular serial/spree killer and mass murderer, but for the life of me I just can't remember his/her name. See if you can help me out with it CplFerro.
I remember (s)he lived a long time ago.
(S)he killed many, many, millions of people in total, sometimes 1 or 2 at a time, sometimes 1000's or even 1000000's in one fell swoop and it seems from the numbers, that drowning was his/her preferred m.o.
(S)he was a particularly sadistic bastard in as much that killing each and every adult member of a town/city wasn't enough, sometimes (s)he'd kill the kids and their livestock.
I'm pretty sure that this person holds the 'record' for the most killings and being the most sadistic person to have ever 'existed'.
I know (s)he has never been caught and is still at it. last I heard (s)he drowned 1000's in Pakistan and then went on to purposely collapse a mine in Chile trapping miners.
I remember that 1000's of people have killed 1000000's of others as an homage to him/her.
Hope you can help me with this persons name from the clues I've given, I'm not sure if (s)he's a christiantm or muslim or whatever denomination (s)he is though. But I do know (s)he is the most evil prick of all time.


God! What is his/her name?

[Professor Yaffle]

The Yorkshire Ripper:

At his trial, Sutcliffe pleaded not guilty to 13 counts of murder, but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The basis of this defence was his claim that he was the tool of God's will. Sutcliffe first claimed to have heard voices while working as a gravedigger, that ultimately ordered him to kill prostitutes. He claimed that the voices originated from a headstone of a deceased Polish man, Bronislaw Zapolski,[5] and that the voices were that of God.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe

And I believe Harold Shipman was a Methodist.

[Resume]

Somewhere, a bridge is lacking something.

[Dave Rogers]

Going back to the OP, I think the 'logic' referred to is something like this:

P1: Only atheists do not believe in divine retribution against the wicked.
P2: Those who believe in divine retribution against the wicked never commit wicked acts.
P3: All those who believe in divine retribution against the wicked also classify serial killing as a wicked act.
C: All serial killers are atheists.

Thus formulated, clearly the conclusion follows from the premises. Unfortunately, experience tells us that P2 and P3 are both false, and P1 is at best unestablished. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be supported as the premises are false. The fact that even the OP is able to identify two trivial cases in which serial killers need not be atheists is itself enough to overturn the proposition.

Dave

[Nancarrow]

CplFerro, your OP is a strange mix of good and confused logic.

How could a serial killer not be an atheist?

Well, you actually answer your own question in your next two sentences.

If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked?

Indeed. Surely there's no way he could NOT count himself among the wicked. Well... except for the two ways you go straight on to identify.

Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?

Yup. Logic definitely tells us that one of those three possibilities is the case. It does not, of course, tell us which one. Having correctly identified the three* mutually exclusive** possibilities, you seem to have jumped unjustifiably to option (b). I cannot see that you have provided any good reason for doing so in your subsequent posts.

[Tip for would-be Vulcan religious apologists... don't invoke logic unless you're really serious about it... you'd be playing with fire.]

Presumably the possibility that represents the actual facts of the case, can be different for each serial killer. But you have already been provided with cites for option (c). How many real-world cases can you identify for which option (b) is clearly in evidence?




*I suppose there might be others you and I haven't thought of
**well (a) and (b) might not be, but they're certainly independent

ETA: doh, near simulpost, and I think Dave does a better job of it. oh well

[Cainkane1]

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it? Try to think of it from the perspective of a believer, like, I don't know, Reverend Fred Phelps, say. Here is a man who lives with the specter of a triumphant and vengeful God hanging over his head every day of his life. He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.
Serial killers don't see it that way. Like many of us have pointed out to you serial killers often believe god is on their side and even if what they are doing is wrong this god of theirs will forgive them.

The overwhelming majority of all criminals will usually believe in a religion of some kind.

[Bikewer]

Serial killers are not monolithic; there are a number of different scenarios that result in such people.
Some are indeed sociopaths, but sociopathy in itself does not indicate a person who is even violent. Sociopaths lack empathy. They are also often charming and manipulative. They make good used-car salesmen...And politicians.
Only when coupled with the sort of mental problems that result in a certain type of serial killer do they become dangerous. (and often quite dangerous, as they are often very clever)
Other serial killers are suffering from schizophrenic delusions. As in John Gacy, who thought that God was speaking to him through his dog....
Yet others, the "disorganized" type of serial killer, suffer from gradually-building psychotic obsessions and rage.
They often end up as suicides, as in between killings they feel extreme guilt. The "catch me before I kill again" type.
None of these things have much at all to do with religion or one's religious background, though in the case of schizophrenics they may seize upon some religious aspect in their delusions and hallucinations.
John Money, the sex researcher, said that the "organized" type of serial killers were in fact a form of paraphilia; very similar to the type of extremely violent serial rapist.
They just carry it a step further and murder the victim.

[joobz]

I do remember one particular serial/spree killer and mass murderer, but for the life of me I just can't remember his/her name. See if you can help me out with it CplFerro.
I remember (s)he lived a long time ago.
(S)he killed many, many, millions of people in total, sometimes 1 or 2 at a time, sometimes 1000's or even 1000000's in one fell swoop and it seems from the numbers, that drowning was his/her preferred m.o.
(S)he was a particularly sadistic bastard in as much that killing each and every adult member of a town/city wasn't enough, sometimes (s)he'd kill the kids and their livestock.
I'm pretty sure that this person holds the 'record' for the most killings and being the most sadistic person to have ever 'existed'.
I know (s)he has never been caught and is still at it. last I heard (s)he drowned 1000's in Pakistan and then went on to purposely collapse a mine in Chile trapping miners.
I remember that 1000's of people have killed 1000000's of others as an homage to him/her.
Hope you can help me with this persons name from the clues I've given, I'm not sure if (s)he's a christiantm or muslim or whatever denomination (s)he is though. But I do know (s)he is the most evil prick of all time.


God! What is his/her name?

give Cplferro a break. You can't expect him to consider fictional stories of mass murderers as evidence.

[Professor Yaffle]

Serial killers are not monolithic; there are a number of different scenarios that result in such people.
Some are indeed sociopaths, but sociopathy in itself does not indicate a person who is even violent. Sociopaths lack empathy. They are also often charming and manipulative. They make good used-car salesmen...And politicians.
Only when coupled with the sort of mental problems that result in a certain type of serial killer do they become dangerous. (and often quite dangerous, as they are often very clever)
Other serial killers are suffering from schizophrenic delusions. As in John Gacy, who thought that God was speaking to him through his dog....
Yet others, the "disorganized" type of serial killer, suffer from gradually-building psychotic obsessions and rage.
They often end up as suicides, as in between killings they feel extreme guilt. The "catch me before I kill again" type.
None of these things have much at all to do with religion or one's religious background, though in the case of schizophrenics they may seize upon some religious aspect in their delusions and hallucinations.
John Money, the sex researcher, said that the "organized" type of serial killers were in fact a form of paraphilia; very similar to the type of extremely violent serial rapist.
They just carry it a step further and murder the victim.

You seem to be relying on the whole "criminal profiling" area as being valid. Some studies suggest otherwise. For example here is in relation to the organised/disorganised typology:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/ccir/documents/pdforganised.pdf

[Robert Oz]

The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion. The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.


Theism is not defined by a fear of God or any particular theological doctrine. It is defined as 'a belief in a god'. If a serial killer believes in God, but does not believe in hell or doesn't care what happens to him/her or plans on asking for God's forgiveness on his/her deathbed or has absolutely no knowledge or interest in God's will, he/she is still a theist.

With even the most basic, hazy belief in a god, a person cannot be defined as an atheist.

[Robert Oz]

How could a serial killer not be an atheist? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in divine retribution against the wicked, how could he not count himself among the wicked? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) atheists, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking they are doing heaven's work?


How could a serial killer believe in the existence of prisons? If he (and it's almost always a he) believed in incarceration of murderers, how could he not count himself among murderers? Doesn't logic tell us that serial killers must either be (a) unreflective on the matter, (b) believe that prisons don't exist, or (c) psychotic in the direction of thinking their cause outweighs their punishment?

[drkitten]

There is a difference between serial killers, spree killers and mass murderers. [...] Andrea Yates was not a serial killer.
That is correct, but she still serves to illustrate how someone can commit murder out of explicitly religious motives.

[noreligion]

give Cplferro a break. You can't expect him to consider fictional stories of mass murderers as evidence.

Nah, too easy.

[tsig]

I don't think they really believe what they preach. Such a racket must attract the con men like honey does flies.

So they're not True Christians then? If religion attracts con men what does that say about religion?

[CplFerro]

Thanks for the responses. I can't gainsay them; it does now seem reasonable that a serial killer could be a theist. I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

[tsig]

Thanks for the responses. I can't gainsay them; it does now seem reasonable that a serial killer could be a theist. I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

You get a gold star for that answer! Nothing wrong with being wrong we all do it.

[NoScotsman]

I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

What about Muslim terrorists, who believe in a heaven for unrepentant serial killers?

[iknownothing]

I would think most serial killers don't think of themselves as wicked. People who harm others often don't think they're doing anything wrong.

This. I think people -- serial killers and everyone else -- find ways to justify to themselves the things they do.

But don't take my word for it. The next time you discover that a supposed Christian has lied or stolen or committed adultery; confront them and make them admit they're really an atheist. Then you'll know you're right.

CplFerro: This point has been brought up a couple times here & you've ignored it. What, in the context of your post, makes serial killers any different from people who commit other sins? Do you ever commit sins? Do Christians in general commit sins? You know that "the wages of sin is death" -- that means all sin, not just serial murder.

The point is very simple: people who live in fear of almighty judgement don't do wicked things as defined by their religion.

Is that your attempt at an answer? You think theists don't do things they believe God is against? So sinners automatically are atheists. By that standard, everyone is an atheist.

[aggle-rithm]

Thanks for the responses. I can't gainsay them; it does now seem reasonable that a serial killer could be a theist. I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

It is still possible for someone who believes unrepentant serial killers will go to hell to be an unrepentant serial killer. All he has to do is deny that "unrepentant serial killer" describes him accurately, even if he clearly is one.

Some may actually WANT to go to hell. It doesn't make much sense, but the kind of people who habitually kill others are not generally rational thinkers.

[aggle-rithm]

One of the most important principles of the Fundamentalist Christian philosophy is that no authority can tell you what the Bible means. You have the freedom to study it on your own and come to your own understanding. This was a reaction against the Catholic practice of revealing tenets of the faith through the clergy instead of giving everyone his own copy of the Good Book.

The only problem is, if someone reads the Bible and concludes from it that it's alright to kill people, the fundy church has no rational basis for telling him he's wrong. If he pastor tries to tell him he is interpreting the Bible incorrectly, then he has become just another Pope, imposing his interpretation on his followers instead of letting them come to their own conclusions.

One of the inescapable paradoxes of fundyism, I'm afraid.

[grayman]

The God of the Old Testement should be considered history's biggest mass-murderer. An entire planet's population save for a few on a boat.

Not sure his theological belifs, though.

[NoScotsman]

Hmmmm ... Schizophrenics don't kill people because Elvis told them to.

[luchog]

In fact, one might make the argument that a Christian, knowing that they can get forgiveness for their actions and escape eternal torment, might be more inclined to commit murder, than an atheist who does not believe in any such potential 'get out of jail free' card.

While I found the rest of your post quite well done; this last comment is rather off. In fact, a Christian would not be more likely to commit any sin simply because they do not have a "get out of jail free card". There have been heretical sects who taught that, but they did so in direct violation of what scripture actually teaches.

[Mark6]

While I found the rest of your post quite well done; this last comment is rather off. In fact, a Christian would not be more likely to commit any sin simply because they do not have a "get out of jail free card". There have been heretical sects who taught that, but they did so in direct violation of what scripture actually teaches.
Well, Wolfman did say "one might make the argument..." Evidently these heretical sects made this very argument. Even if ultimately unsuccessfully.

[luchog]

Uhhh, until the whole protestant reformation thing, didn't Christianity teach a clear distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins? I think committing a mortal sin was a straight ticket to hell, whereas a venial sin might get someone stuck in purgatory (something like that).

Wolfman already covered this, but it needs a little more elucidation.
I'd say faith inspires far more killing than atheism ever could.
Adolph Hitler*, Hermann Goering, Josef Goebbels, Iosef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the Viet Cong, and many others would disagree with that.

*Although many claim Hitler was religious, since he was born a Roman Catholic, he renounced religion later in his life. He did use religion publicly at first, as long as it suited his immediate political purposes; but in private he denounced all religion, and later did so openly. "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." He also claimed that "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."

Well, first, I doubt that CplFerro is referring to Roman Catholic belief systems; however, if we're going to go that way, this is effectively how it works.

Keep in mind, also, that Roman Catholic dogma derives from many centuries after the time of the Christ, and is based at least as much on tradition and deuterocanonical works as on scripture; and is at times contradictory of scripture. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever for the separation of mortal and venial sins; nor is there any basis for the existence of purgatory.

[luchog]

Well, Wolfman did say "one might make the argument..." Evidently these heretical sects made this very argument. Even if ultimately unsuccessfully.

Yes, I realize that. But of course, "one might" make any number of arguments if one ignores or distorts context, as so many heretics did. It was that distortion that demonstrated them to be heretics.

Or, to put it more simply, it's not an argument one can make from scripture, it's an argument one would make in spite of scripture.

[gph]

I'd say faith inspires far more killing than atheism ever could.

Adolph Hitler*, Hermann Goering, Josef Goebbels, Iosef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the Viet Cong, and many others would disagree with that.

Nonsense. Please provide evidence that these men, or anyone else, were inspired by atheism.

[gph]

*Although many claim Hitler was religious, since he was born a Roman Catholic, he renounced religion later in his life. He did use religion publicly at first, as long as it suited his immediate political purposes; but in private he denounced all religion, and later did so openly. "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." He also claimed that "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."

I'll see that and raise you this (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm).

[NoScotsman]

Nonsense. Please provide evidence that these men, or anyone else, were inspired by atheism.

This is the tired old argument that Dinesh D'souza brings to every debate ....

Dictators are inspired by irrational self interest ... they'll follow whatever path allows them to achieve their ends ... religious or secular. Dictators are often secular because they are fighting against an existing religious power structure.

In other words, a true megalomaniac believes that no other person/god should come before them. Dictators, therefore, are a religion onto themselves.

[Bikewer]

Although as a police officer I'm familiar with the essentials of "profiling" (which as noted are under some dispute), that was not the basis of my post.
It was merely that serial killers come in different varieties. One cannot make blanket statements about their motivations or state of mind.

Note that in this context, "serial killer" is a particular type. Not "spree" or "rage" killers of the going-postal type. A different animal altogether.
Likewise, soldiers in war who have killed large numbers of the enemy are not referred to as serial killers.
Serial killers may enjoy killing (sexual sadists...similar folks), may feel compulsions to kill, or may be suffering delusions which lead them to kill.
All have different psychological underpinnings.

[aggle-rithm]

Serial killers may enjoy killing (sexual sadists...similar folks), may feel compulsions to kill, or may be suffering delusions which lead them to kill.
All have different psychological underpinnings.

I found it interesting to learn that Jeffery Dahmer found both killing and dismembering his victims to be extremely distasteful. He just couldn't think of any other way to get their body parts in his fridge, I guess.

[aggle-rithm]

While I found the rest of your post quite well done; this last comment is rather off. In fact, a Christian would not be more likely to commit any sin simply because they do not have a "get out of jail free card". There have been heretical sects who taught that, but they did so in direct violation of what scripture actually teaches.

It depends on the brand of Christianity. Many of them teach that your works, good or bad, are irrelevant. It's your faith in Jesus Christ that gives you salvation.

The possibility that someone could be "saved" and also be a serial killer is a little of a sticky issue for these denominations. Supposedly, it's possible to know, with 100% certainty, that you're going to heaven, because when you're saved, you're permanently saved. Not even a deal with the devil can derail your fast-track to the Pearly Gates (not according to Jack Chick, anyway).

Except that people who are believed to be "saved" often are caught committing grievous sins (Jimmy Swaggart, anyone?). Supposedly, if you're saved, you're free from sin, even though sin supposedly has nothing to do with it. So that means the person sinned wasn't really saved.

However, he THOUGHT he was saved. In fact, he was CERTAIN of it!

So in fact, it's not possible to be certain of your salvation.

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for the responses. I can't gainsay them; it does now seem reasonable that a serial killer could be a theist. I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

Good form!

[Jeff Corey]

...Other serial killers are suffering from schizophrenic delusions. As in John Gacy, who thought that God was speaking to him through his dog....
That was David Berkowitz. Sam was a neighbor's dog. Gacy's lawyers claimed he had a multiple personality disorder.

[I Am The Scum]

Well, I think this topic has been beaten to death... by atheists, no less.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where is the evidence of the OP's underlying premise that fear of eternal hell actually motivates anyone?

[bokonon]

In fact, one might make the argument that a Christian, knowing that they can get forgiveness for their actions and escape eternal torment, might be more inclined to commit murder, than an atheist who does not believe in any such potential 'get out of jail free' card.

While I found the rest of your post quite well done; this last comment is rather off. In fact, a Christian would not be more likely to commit any sin simply because they do not have a "get out of jail free card". There have been heretical sects who taught that, but they did so in direct violation of what scripture actually teaches.

I disagreed with Wolfman's inclination index because the atheist (regarding the "jail" as a myth) has no need to believe in a potential "get out of jail free" card.

I don't see how you can label such a belief as heretical, though. Jesus on the cross purportedly granted deathbed absolution to one of the criminals being executed alongside him. He also purportedly said to another sinner "Neither do I condemn you -- go and sin no more," which, on your way out life's door, would seem to be easy to accomplish. It doesn't seem to me that the "get out of jail free" card is in direct violation of what these passages actually teach.

[noreligion]

Yes, I realize that. But of course, "one might" make any number of arguments if one ignores or distorts context, as so many heretics did. It was that distortion that demonstrated them to be heretics.

Or, to put it more simply, it's not an argument one can make from scripture, it's an argument one would make in spite of scripture.

It is an argument one can make based on their interpretation of scripture. The RCC is not infallible. If they were, explain all the damn child molesters that make believe they are men of the cloth. I suppose according to the RCC it's possible to fool god.

[noreligion]

That was David Berkowitz. Sam was a neighbor's dog. Gacy's lawyers claimed he had a multiple personality disorder.

He was a postal employee so that was normal :)

[edge]

They are doing a study on them and found that people that commit murders/mass murders are lacking function in their frontal lobes.

[bokonon]

A pre-frontal lobotomy? I thought he said a free bottle in front a me.

[Robin]

If God told him to, sure.
So you are saying that a Christian could kill gays all day, but couldn't be a serial killer?

Yes?

It is a new wrinkle on the True Scotsman fallacy

- No True Scotsman puts salt on his porridge
- Jock is a True Scotsman and he puts salt on his porridge
- But the salt doesn't count as salt if he is a True Scotsman.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Wolfman already covered this, but it needs a little more elucidation.

Adolph Hitler*, Hermann Goering, Josef Goebbels, Iosef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the Viet Cong, and many others would disagree with that.

*Although many claim Hitler was religious, since he was born a Roman Catholic, he renounced religion later in his life. He did use religion publicly at first, as long as it suited his immediate political purposes; but in private he denounced all religion, and later did so openly. "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." He also claimed that "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."


Keep in mind, also, that Roman Catholic dogma derives from many centuries after the time of the Christ, and is based at least as much on tradition and deuterocanonical works as on scripture; and is at times contradictory of scripture. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever for the separation of mortal and venial sins; nor is there any basis for the existence of purgatory.

Well, I was going to debunk your post, but you did it yourself, so thank you for saving me some effort.

The point of these leaders was to replace religion/religious figures with themselves and their nations as objects of veneration and worship from the general public, thus creating personality cults. They wanted to make sure ALL their fanatical faith was directed towards the state and its leaders, not towards other objects of worship (like religion) which would compete.

That is completely different than wanting to destroy religion because you don't believe in God.

Being an atheist does not mean that any act you take is inspired by atheism, just as being a theist does not mean that any act you take was inspired by religion.

When one directly SAYS they are doing something in the name of their beliefs, at that point we can attribute their actions to their belief system. Otherwise, if a Christian murders someone, or an atheist does, I see no reason why I should assume this was done in the name of their beliefs/lack of beliefs unless they directly express this sentiment.

Pablo Escobar was a very public Catholic. He used his wealth to build many churches, and was a huge supporter both in words and deeds of the Catholic Church.

That doesn't mean Catholicism inspired him to be a drug lord.

[Dr. Keith]

Keep in mind, also, that Roman Catholic dogma derives from many centuries after the time of the Christ, and is based at least as much on tradition and deuterocanonical works as on scripture; and is at times contradictory of scripture. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever for the separation of mortal and venial sins; nor is there any basis for the existence of purgatory.

I see that as one of the logical strengths of the RCC: they claim to pre-date the bible and therefore their teachings are not bound by scripture, only enlightened by scripture. It seems more logically sound than relying on a set of works that are clearly contradictory and a cherry-picking of a far broader range of works.

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks for the responses. I can't gainsay them; it does now seem reasonable that a serial killer could be a theist. I was conflating "belief in a hell reserved for unrepentant serial killers" with "belief that a god exists".

I love posts like this because you are not saying "I give up" but instead "I think I may have learned something here." Even if what you learned this time was semantic in nature, the openness to learning is inspiring.

Thank you for taking the time to say it.

[luchog]

It depends on the brand of Christianity. Many of them teach that your works, good or bad, are irrelevant. It's your faith in Jesus Christ that gives you salvation.
Untrue. Scripture itself says that one's works are supremely relevant. Those who claim otherwise are, in the words of C.S. Lewis "deluded or devilish", that is, misled or heretics.

There are many passages that illustrate the relationship between faith and works. It is true that salvation is by grace alone, acceptance; but if salvation truly exists, then it will be noticeable in one's actions and works. "Faith without works is dead." "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." That doesn't mean the saved are perfect; but that they will consistently work toward the good.

Almost no denominations teach that works are irrelevant, those that do are heretical. The debate is whether salvation is through faith alone, or whether human effort is required to ensure salvation. But all denominations agree that works are crucial to a Christian life. They are the evidence of the existence of one's salvation, just like smoke is the evidence of the existence of fire.

The possibility that someone could be "saved" and also be a serial killer is a little of a sticky issue for these denominations. Supposedly, it's possible to know, with 100% certainty, that you're going to heaven, because when you're saved, you're permanently saved. Not even a deal with the devil can derail your fast-track to the Pearly Gates (not according to Jack Chick, anyway).

That is a gross misunderstanding; and is widely considered a heretical belief among nearly all denominations. And Jack Chick is hardly representative of Christianity; if you're relying on his nutcase theology for your ideas of Christianity, you will be consistently wrong.

It is not possible to be "saved" and still remain a serial killer. It is possible to be saved, and still be tormented by the urge to kill; but a truly saved person would take actions against being controlled by those urges, including turning himself over to the authorities, getting medical help, even self-isolation if necessary. Taking responsibility for themselves and their choices.

Serial killers are not mechanistic automatons with no will of their own. They are not alien beings. They are people like any other, who have a choice to act on their baser urges. Anyone can become one. Interestingly, a psychologist who worked with "The Iceman" Richard Kuklinski (I forget which one, might have been Dr. Dietz), said that mass murderers and those who are commonly referred to as "heroes" have very similar psychologies; that the main difference between them is the choices they make.

Except that people who are believed to be "saved" often are caught committing grievous sins (Jimmy Swaggart, anyone?). Supposedly, if you're saved, you're free from sin, even though sin supposedly has nothing to do with it. So that means the person sinned wasn't really saved.

That is profoundly ignorant. Being saved doesn't mean one is incapable of committing further sin, it merely means that one is forgiven of any and sins. A Christian can make a mistake and sin like anyone else. The difference is that someone who is truly saved will, because of the nature of their salvation, work toward perfection and away from sin, no matter how many times they fall.

Furthermore, simply because one claims to be saved, doesn't mean they are. "Many will come in my name, appearing as sheep, but inside they are ravening wolves, seeking whom they may devour." People like Popoff and Baker were warned against in scripture; but too many Christians simply don't pay much attention to scripture.
So in fact, it's not possible to be certain of your salvation.
Nope, you are compounding fallacies here; most notably the the fallacies of the false dilemma, suppressed correlative, and undistributed middle.

[luchog]

I don't see how you can label such a belief as heretical, though.
Because it is in direct opposition to scripture. You can prove anything if you take passages out of context; but doctrine must be supported by all relevant context. The majority of these sorts of doctrinal debates are agenda-drive, and ignore any context which is inconvenient to the argument.

It is an argument one can make based on their interpretation of scripture. The RCC is not infallible. If they were, explain all the damn child molesters that make believe they are men of the cloth. I suppose according to the RCC it's possible to fool god.
Completely aside from the fact that the RCC does not claim infalliability, I shouldn't have to point out the clear and obvious logical fallacies here.

[tsig]

Because it is in direct opposition to scripture. You can prove anything if you take passages out of context; but doctrine must be supported by all relevant context. The majority of these sorts of doctrinal debates are agenda-drive, and ignore any context which is inconvenient to the argument.


Completely aside from the fact that the RCC does not claim infalliability, I shouldn't have to point out the clear and obvious logical fallacies here.

You might want tell that to the pope.

[bokonon]

Because it is in direct opposition to scripture. You can prove anything if you take passages out of context; but doctrine must be supported by all relevant context. The majority of these sorts of doctrinal debates are agenda-drive, and ignore any context which is inconvenient to the argument.

I provided the scriptural references which supported my argument. You provided no "relevant context" which would have modified the interpretation.

From what I've seen, these "out of context" claims amount to this:

The Bible contradicts itself. I choose to believe those things which support my philosophy; those who quote passages which say something different are taking such passages out of context.

In other words, the context in question always seems to come down to "what I want to believe."

[luchog]

That is completely different than wanting to destroy religion because you don't believe in God.

Being an atheist does not mean that any act you take is inspired by atheism, just as being a theist does not mean that any act you take was inspired by religion.

That is true; but that was not really the context of the original comment. The original comment was claiming that it was not possible for atheists to use their atheism as a justification for mass murder the way that religious people use their religion; which is demonstrably wrong. Many officially atheist regimes have, in fact, done so. The Great Leap Forward, in it's principle of the Destruction of Four Olds, officially encouraged the suppression of religion and the murder of the religious; which was widely practiced by the Red Guard. The Stalinist government officially banned and violently suppressed all religion, as being inherently dangerous to an ideal society; not out of paranoia, but as an extension of Marxism-Leninism, which taught that religion and communism were antithetical, and only atheism was compatible with ideal communism. Unlike Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, who believed education would be sufficient, the Stalinists believed that a more active purging of the religious was necesssary. They imprisoned and killed tens of thousands in gulags for the simple fact of being religious; and incarcerated many others in mental hospitals to "treat" them of their religion, after officially declaring religion a mental illness. The Khmer Rouge officially banned religion and murdered many religious people, particularly Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims; for the same reasons as the Stalinists. The Vietcong used ostensibly religious cover organizations, typically Buddhist, for some of their terrorist actions in order to discredit religion.

When one directly SAYS they are doing something in the name of their beliefs, at that point we can attribute their actions to their belief system.

And, as has been pointed out, atheistic regimes have, in fact, done so.

There is nothing in atheism that makes it more or less likely to be used as a justification for mass murder than any religion.

[luchog]

You might want tell that to the pope.

Again, you don't understand RCC doctrine. Infallibility applies only to matters of doctrine when speaking ex cathedra; and even then the "infallibility" is provisional. You're engaging in a fallacy of definition. In this context, the term -- like most religious terminology -- has a very specific meaning in its context. You are effectively re-defining a term out of context.

Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated how this doctrine of infallibility has anything to do with child-molesting priests or any of the rest of what is being discussed.

[noreligion]

Completely aside from the fact that the RCC does not claim infalliability, I shouldn't have to point out the clear and obvious logical fallacies here.

You shouldn't have to but you will have to point out what is false. Just because you think the RCC is the best thing in the world doesn't mean it is. You have swallowed their bs hook, line and sinker. You are what is commonly called a lemming.

[tsig]

Again, you don't understand RCC doctrine. Infallibility applies only to matters of doctrine when speaking ex cathedra; and even then the "infallibility" is provisional. You're engaging in a fallacy of definition. In this context, the term -- like most religious terminology -- has a very specific meaning in its context. You are effectively re-defining a term out of context.

Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated how this doctrine of infallibility has anything to do with child-molesting priests or any of the rest of what is being discussed.

Actually it's faith and morals:

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.

Now it seems to me that if an organization has an infallible leader proclaiming its' faith and morals then the organization itself can be said to be infallible as far as its' teaching on faith and morals.

[Wolfman]

Actually it's faith and morals:

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.

Now it seems to me that if an organization has an infallible leader proclaiming its' faith and morals then the organization itself can be said to be infallible as far as its' teaching on faith and morals.Not equivalent at all, since the RC Church does not say that all its teachings on faith and morals are infallible. At best, you could say that they claim some teachings to be infallible, but many other to be wrong.

I could make numerous statements that I consider to be effectively infallible. I will die. 1+1=2. Bush is a moron. Etc. The fact that I may state these claims to be infallible does not mean that I am claiming to be infallible; and, in fact, I could quite consistently and logically claim that despite making individual claims of infallibility, I myself am not infallible.

[Wildy]

How could you commit serial murder if you genuinely believed that you would be tortured for eternity as a result of it?

That depends on how your religion or denomination believes in salvation.

If the person belongs to a denomination where, essentially, all you need to do to get into heaven is just believe in Jesus then it's quite easy to become a serial killer.

Try to think of it from the perspective of a believer, like, I don't know, Reverend Fred Phelps, say. Here is a man who lives with the specter of a triumphant and vengeful God hanging over his head every day of his life. He is the last person who is going to commit serial murder.

Actually to Phelps he has a loving and caring God hanging over his head, and the heads of those in his church, but over everyone else is the vengeful God.

I'm sure that if he wanted to Phelps could go around killing as many people as he wanted and would believe that in the eyes of God he is doing nothing wrong.

[mutile]

there are no serial killers in foxholes.

[Mojo]

The Inquisition, et cetera, was not defined as wicked by the Roman Catholic Church, much to the contrary, so your criticism is what is failed and extremely dumb.


As your point about the Inquisition shows, religious beliefs are used to justify acts (including torture and killing) that would be considered wicked by any rational person. There's no reason whatsoever to think that this would only apply to activities that the church approves of.

[Dave Rogers]

There is nothing in atheism that makes it more or less likely to be used as a justification for mass murder than any religion.

Except that atheism is not a belief system, but an absence of a specific subset of belief systems, and is therefore highly inconvenient to use as a justification for anything at all. In the examples you quote it was not atheism, but communism, that was used as a justification for mass murder. You even touched upon this yourself in pointing out that atheism was enforced because it was compatible with communism, not the other way round. It's the old guilt-by-association fallacy again; just because the communist regimes were atheist, this doesn't mean that atheists are communists, or that their atheism was in any sense used as a justification for their actions.

Dave

[llwyd]

Untrue. Scripture itself says that one's works are supremely relevant. Those who claim otherwise are, in the words of C.S. Lewis "deluded or devilish", that is, misled or heretics.

Well, does that mean that deathbed conversion is not enough? If someone, after a lifetime of debauchery and violence, genuinely repents and rejoins the church on his deathbed, he would still go to hell? I'm sorry but I believe that at least my native Lutheran church does not teach this version of Christianity. Anyway, I would otherwise agree that surely atheism or anti-religious ideologies have been a motivation in the mass killings of the 20th century dictatorships. It a complicated issue, and also religion has motivated awful acts of brutality and violence throughout the history, and often neither of these motives have been uppermost in the minds of the elites. If one studies the history of the 16th and 17th century religious wars one quite quickly realizes that the kings and princes (and often popes, cardinals and bishops) were more concerned about the mastery of Europe than the Christian faith (as, among countless other examples, the French-Turkish alliance against the Hapsburgs testifies). Likewise, I'm sure the churches were seen as rival power centres by the dictatorships and had to be destroyed perhaps primarily for that reason. It is on the grass roots levels were the most fanatic and blind faith is found whether it is directed towards religion or political ideology.

[tsig]

there are no serial killers in foxholes.

I thought all soldiers were supposed to be serial killers.

[tsig]

Not equivalent at all, since the RC Church does not say that all its teachings on faith and morals are infallible. At best, you could say that they claim some teachings to be infallible, but many other to be wrong.

I could make numerous statements that I consider to be effectively infallible. I will die. 1+1=2. Bush is a moron. Etc. The fact that I may state these claims to be infallible does not mean that I am claiming to be infallible; and, in fact, I could quite consistently and logically claim that despite making individual claims of infallibility, I myself am not infallible.

Yes it does. Here's the quote again.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.


Since the pope is infallible on faith and morals and the church follows his teachings it follows that what the church teaches as faith and morals is also infallible.

[Wolfman]

Yes it does. Here's the quote again.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.


Since the pope is infallible on faith and morals and the church follows his teachings it follows that what the church teaches as faith and morals is also infallible.tsig,

I'll tell ya' a little secret here. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it magically true.

Nowhere does the RC church teach that all Papal pronouncements on faith and morals are infallible; nor that all church teachings on faith and morals are infallible. You seem to be rather seriously guilty of selective reading. From your quote:
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of errorThis seems to be the part that you are focusing on...but what about the part that immediately follows it:
when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelationSo...it is only when this specific condition is met that a papal teaching is considered to be infallible. How often is this condition met? Extremely rarely...most popes very, very rarely make such pronouncements. The vast majority of their teachings are not made under such a condition, and are not considered infallible. To whit:
There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement.
I'm not defending the RC church...its a bunch of hookum...but at least if we're gonna' criticize them, it should be based on actual facts, and not on a biased interpretation that presents them in a manner that is not connected to reality.

[tsig]

tsig,

I'll tell ya' a little secret here. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it magically true.

Nowhere does the RC church teach that all Papal pronouncements on faith and morals are infallible; nor that all church teachings on faith and morals are infallible. You seem to be rather seriously guilty of selective reading. From your quote:
This seems to be the part that you are focusing on...but what about the part that immediately follows it:
So...it is only when this specific condition is met that a papal teaching is considered to be infallible. How often is this condition met? Extremely rarely...most popes very, very rarely make such pronouncements. The vast majority of their teachings are not made under such a condition, and are not considered infallible. To whit:

I'm not defending the RC church...its a bunch of hookum...but at least if we're gonna' criticize them, it should be based on actual facts, and not on a biased interpretation that presents them in a manner that is not connected to reality.

So the pope could teach a point of faith or morals that was false?

[Wolfman]

So the pope could teach a point of faith or morals that was false?
Certainly. So long as a teaching doesn't fit the requirements stated above (and the vast majority do not), then nothing he says is considered infallible, and can be disagreed with, contradicted by others, changed, etc.

For example, there's never been an 'infallible' decree from any pope regarding women being ordained priests. It is certainly a standard teaching of the church, and one that the Pope and most senior leaders would uphold; but there are also many Catholics, including some leaders in the church, who actively call to allow ordination of women. Since it is not an issue of an infallible proclamation, such debate, discussion, and disagreement is allowed (even if the top leadership is not going to actually change it).

ETA: Every time a new Pope takes over, it is fairly common for him to promulgate teachings and policies that contradict those of the Pope before him; this implicitly indicates that the previous Pope's teachings and policies were not infallible.

[Wolfman]

tsig,

Here is a quite informative article (http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp) about papal infallibility, written by Catholics. It covers the topic in quite extensive detail. A few interesting or relevant points:

1) Infallibility does not apply to the Pope only:
Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.

2) Not everything the Pope says or believes on issues of morality and faith is infallible:
A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

3) Many issues of morality and faith have not been subject to infallible declarations by a Pope:
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

[ponderingturtle]

While I found the rest of your post quite well done; this last comment is rather off. In fact, a Christian would not be more likely to commit any sin simply because they do not have a "get out of jail free card". There have been heretical sects who taught that, but they did so in direct violation of what scripture actually teaches.

Damn catholics not being true christians.

[ponderingturtle]

Note that in this context, "serial killer" is a particular type. Not "spree" or "rage" killers of the going-postal type. A different animal altogether.
Likewise, soldiers in war who have killed large numbers of the enemy are not referred to as serial killers.
Serial killers may enjoy killing (sexual sadists...similar folks), may feel compulsions to kill, or may be suffering delusions which lead them to kill.
All have different psychological underpinnings.

Or they simply profit from their killings.

[ponderingturtle]

I found it interesting to learn that Jeffery Dahmer found both killing and dismembering his victims to be extremely distasteful. He just couldn't think of any other way to get their body parts in his fridge, I guess.

I thought he wanted to find a way to inject acid into their brains to turn them into living dolls.

[aggle-rithm]

I thought he wanted to find a way to inject acid into their brains to turn them into living dolls.

yeah, that didn't work out so well.

[drkitten]

Yes it does. Here's the quote again.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.


Since the pope is infallible on faith and morals and the church follows his teachings it follows that what the church teaches as faith and morals is also infallible.

But the pope isn't infallible on faith and morals; your own quote points that out.

The pope is infallible only when "he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation." The only time since the establishment of this doctrine that this has happened was in 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility), when the Assumption of Mary was declared to be an article of faith.

For all that JPII wrote on faith and morals, and for all that the church holds his writings in high regard and tends to believe them accurate, nothing that JPII wrote is "infallible."

[drkitten]

Well, does that mean that deathbed conversion is not enough? If someone, after a lifetime of debauchery and violence, genuinely repents and rejoins the church on his deathbed, he would still go to hell? I'm sorry but I believe that at least my native Lutheran church does not teach this version of Christianity.

Nor does Roman Catholicism. Repentance in articulo mortis is always valid and always accepted. Dante has quite a bit on this in Purgatorio.

[TimCallahan]

Nor does Roman Catholicism. Repentance in articulo mortis is always valid and always accepted. Dante has quite a bit on this in Purgatorio.

This is rather amusing. One of the popular myths circulated in evangelical circles involves the death of Voltaire. Supposedly, as he lay dying, Voltaire, his eyes staring out at something only he could see, cried out in terror, "He's coming for me!" His friends, alarmed, asked him, "Who's coming?". He answered, "It's Satan, and he has chains!"

I've always wondered, hearing this popular fiction, why Voltaire didn't at that point cry out, "Save me, Jesus!" The story seems to have been a calumny spread by a Catholic priest. On the other hand, a number of years ago, when I was perusing what was on sale at a local Lighthouse Book Store (they're a chain of evangelical book stores), I came across a book asserting the Darwin had made deathbed conversion. I didn't look closely at it, but I assume said conversion would also have included a recanting of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

[aggle-rithm]

On the other hand, a number of years ago, when I was perusing what was on sale at a local Lighthouse Book Store (they're a chain of evangelical book stores), I came across a book asserting the Darwin had made deathbed conversion. I didn't look closely at it, but I assume said conversion would also have included a recanting of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I were having lunch with my father-in-law when he suddenly started saying "there's no way we came from monkeys" and, "you know, Darwin recanted the Theory of Revolution on his death bed."

I gritted my teeth and repeated to myself silently: "Don't say anything, don't say anything..."

[kedo1981]

This attitude amongst Christians in particular and theists in general is the major failure of faith.
The idea that a person can believe virtually the same thing I believe, have what appears to be the same moral guideposts, and still commit acts of evil, is probably one of the most terrifying concepts to a “person of faith”. This requires them to look in a dark abyss that points to only one thing, the non reality of God.
Dennis Rader claimed to be a Christian the whole time, he did at his sentencing, but what if he was the “atheist in Christian clothing” does that mean the other members of the church were also, why didn’t their faith lead them in the right way, uncovering a sadistic killer in their midst.
Hitler wrote many of his religious quotes in Mien Kampf, written while in prison years before he was leader of Germany, so how likely was it that he wrote that with the notion that he would be leader and had better use it to fool people, even if he was, again, the “atheist in Christian clothing” what about the members of his army, the battalion chaplains, the common soldier, the population in general.
So it’s easier to make any body who don’t the Jesus litmus test an atheist.

[GrandMasterFox]

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I were having lunch with my father-in-law when he suddenly started saying "there's no way we came from monkeys" and, "you know, Darwin recanted the Theory of Revolution on his death bed."

I gritted my teeth and repeated to myself silently: "Don't say anything, don't say anything..."

I recall Dawkins once said when he's time would come, he would make sure to record every single thing he says so that people won't make that stuff up on him.

[Xephyr]

Hmmm... "are all serial killers atheists"... hmmm...

:eusa_think:

Well, I'm thinking the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) were definately no atheists...

So would that qualify them as serial killers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer) or not ?

[I Am The Scum]

The original comment was claiming that it was not possible for atheists to use their atheism as a justification for mass murder the way that religious people use their religion; which is demonstrably wrong.

In all of this post, you have not demonstrated the claim as wrong.

I can easily demonstrate that, for example, Christianity can be used to justify murder. It says so write in the Bible that God commands us to kill adulterers.

However, the same cannot be said about atheism. Most people like to quibble about atheism being a "lack of belief", but I'll be more generous than that. I'll grant you the most liberal definition of atheism you'll find: Atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods whatsoever. Given that, how can I lead this premise to the conclusion that I ought to kill others?

[drkitten]

However, the same cannot be said about atheism. Most people like to quibble about atheism being a "lack of belief", but I'll be more generous than that. I'll grant you the most liberal definition of atheism you'll find: Atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods whatsoever. Given that, how can I lead this premise to the conclusion that I ought to kill others?

Easy.


There is no God whatsoever
Therefore, there is no reward for living a virtuous life or punishment for living a sinful one
Therefore, as long as I avoid punishment in this world (i.e. as long as I don't get caught) I can act as I see fit
Therefore, if it would give me pleasure to kill someone else, and I can do it without getting caught, I should do it


The number of reasons that it might give me pleasure to kill someone else are too numerous to list -- I refer you to any decent bookstore with a well-stocked mystery section. "Not getting caught" is a mere matter of technique -- and the same mystery section will provide lots of suggestions in that regard.

[I Am The Scum]

Easy.


There is no God whatsoever
Therefore, there is no reward for living a virtuous life or punishment for living a sinful one
Therefore, as long as I avoid punishment in this world (i.e. as long as I don't get caught) I can act as I see fit
Therefore, if it would give me pleasure to kill someone else, and I can do it without getting caught, I should do it


2 does not follow from 1. An absence of a deity does not rule out the possibility of any judgmental afterlife. There is no inconsistency between atheism and reincarnation, for example.

Furthermore, you're only concluding with a conditional statement, and even then, not a very good one. You're failing to demonstrate that the avoidance of punishment is a realistic possibility, that killing leads to pleasure (speak for yourself), and that even if they did, that one would conclude that these are things one ought to do. There are plenty of things that will not yield punishment, while deriving pleasure, and you still shouldn't do them.

[tsig]

Easy.


There is no God whatsoever
Therefore, there is no reward for living a virtuous life or punishment for living a sinful one
Therefore, as long as I avoid punishment in this world (i.e. as long as I don't get caught) I can act as I see fit
Therefore, if it would give me pleasure to kill someone else, and I can do it without getting caught, I should do it


The number of reasons that it might give me pleasure to kill someone else are too numerous to list -- I refer you to any decent bookstore with a well-stocked mystery section. "Not getting caught" is a mere matter of technique -- and the same mystery section will provide lots of suggestions in that regard.

The hilited part would seem to be a problem. How can the killer ensure he/she won't get caught.

[drkitten]

The hilited part would seem to be a problem. How can the killer ensure he/she won't get caught.

As I said, that's a mere matter of technique. Given that most people consider themselves to be above-average drivers, I have no problem believing that some people believe themselves to be sufficiently smarter than the police that they will not get caught.

Given the number of unsolved murders out there, they may well be right.

[drkitten]

Furthermore, you're only concluding with a conditional statement, and even then, not a very good one.

Actually, it's a quite good one.

You're failing to demonstrate that the avoidance of punishment is a realistic possibility,

I don't need to. Look at the "cold case" files of any major metropolitan area and that will demonstrate it for you.

that killing leads to pleasure (speak for yourself),

Again, I don't need to. Any mystery aisle will demonstrate that for you. If I inherit two million dollars from my Aunt Prunella whom I never liked much at all, that will make me happier than if I don't have two million dollars.

and that even if they did, that one would conclude that these are things one ought to do.

Certainly, one would conclude that. All else being equal, having two million dollars is better than not having two million dollars. You can't prove that all else wouldn't be equal.

There are plenty of things that will not yield punishment, while deriving pleasure, and you still shouldn't do them.

Such as? (I.e. now that's your claim, and I expect you to prove it.)

[I Am The Scum]

I don't need to. Look at the "cold case" files of any major metropolitan area and that will demonstrate it for you.

...

Again, I don't need to. Any mystery aisle will demonstrate that for you. If I inherit two million dollars from my Aunt Prunella whom I never liked much at all, that will make me happier than if I don't have two million dollars.

No, you really do need to prove those points. What you are ending with is called a conditional. It has two parts: the consequent, and the antecedent. Conditional statements are claims that the truth of the consequent inextricably leads to the truth of the antecedent. If you wanna go anywhere with that, you have to demonstrate that the consequent is true.

I need to remind you that you are attempting to prove an "ought" claim. You are showing that the ought is true under certain conditions, but you have yet to show those conditions have any basis in reality. Even then, I don't accept the conditional. Can you give me a reason why I should?

Such as? (I.e. now that's your claim, and I expect you to prove it.)

Suppose for a moment that I had the desire and capability of murdering you and your entire family, and not getting caught. Should I do this, or should I not?

[drkitten]

No, you really do need to prove those points.

And I have done.


Suppose for a moment that I had the desire and capability of murdering you and your entire family, and not getting caught. Should I do this, or should I not?

According to the argument I have just made, you will be better off for having done so and therefore should do it.

Prove me wrong.

[tsig]

Actually, it's a quite good one.



I don't need to. Look at the "cold case" files of any major metropolitan area and that will demonstrate it for you.



Again, I don't need to. Any mystery aisle will demonstrate that for you. If I inherit two million dollars from my Aunt Prunella whom I never liked much at all, that will make me happier than if I don't have two million dollars.



Certainly, one would conclude that. All else being equal, having two million dollars is better than not having two million dollars. You can't prove that all else wouldn't be equal.



Such as? (I.e. now that's your claim, and I expect you to prove it.)

Most people have empathy, this prevents them from being serial killers. Empathy seems to be hard-wired in us. Those who lack it are called sociopaths.

Empathy is the capacity to, through imagination rather than literally, share the sadness or happiness of another sentient being.
By the age of two, children normally begin to display the fundamental behaviors of empathy by having an emotional response that corresponds with another person.[28] Even earlier, at one year of age, infants have some rudiments of empathy, in the sense that they understand that, just like their own actions, other people's actions have goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

[MG1962]

I've always wondered, hearing this popular fiction, why Voltaire didn't at that point cry out, "Save me, Jesus!" The story seems to have been a calumny spread by a Catholic priest. On the other hand, a number of years ago, when I was perusing what was on sale at a local Lighthouse Book Store (they're a chain of evangelical book stores), I came across a book asserting the Darwin had made deathbed conversion. I didn't look closely at it, but I assume said conversion would also have included a recanting of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Well I think we have to put death bed statements into the context they occured. The person is possibly extremely frightened, we are after all hardwired to survive. Regardless of their religious dispositon whatever is coming is the great unknown. Anything from the end of all things, to a judgement of your whole life.

To expect either rational statements or logical processes is (to me any way a little beyond reality)

[sadhatter]

This is rather amusing. One of the popular myths circulated in evangelical circles involves the death of Voltaire. Supposedly, as he lay dying, Voltaire, his eyes staring out at something only he could see, cried out in terror, "He's coming for me!" His friends, alarmed, asked him, "Who's coming?". He answered, "It's Satan, and he has chains!"

I've always wondered, hearing this popular fiction, why Voltaire didn't at that point cry out, "Save me, Jesus!" The story seems to have been a calumny spread by a Catholic priest. On the other hand, a number of years ago, when I was perusing what was on sale at a local Lighthouse Book Store (they're a chain of evangelical book stores), I came across a book asserting the Darwin had made deathbed conversion. I didn't look closely at it, but I assume said conversion would also have included a recanting of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Occams razor would seem to say that he was screwing with his friends.

( assuming this happened at all.)

I mean death is the one time you have that you could pull off an insane amount of chaos ( not that you would be able to see it. ). And regardless of how tasteless it is, no one is going to complain, your dying.

I honestly would find it pants wettingly funny to do the whole " i see the light, it is beautiful, i am seeing the face of god..." till i attracted the attention of someone who said " really?" then reply " no, not really" and go back to watching television.

Not that i want to rush to this state so i can make these kinds of jokes. But it is nice knowing there is some kind of pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. A tangible , real reward at the end of one's life.