Atheist Terrorism

[Smart_Guy]

Neither.

Atheist terrorism would not be that just because it is done by atheists. Otherwise we could legitimally talk about "dwarf terrorism", "blond terrorism", or whatever.

You would need, at a minimum, some sort of ideological group that condoned violent acts and that had atheism as a core value of its ideology.

And because terrorism needs an ideology of some sort, atheism as a lack of such is simply not enough.

There has probably been, say, nihilist or anarchic terrorism in some scale at some point. And of course, there were violent acts by the Cuban, Soviet and Chinese governments. But it is arguable at the very best whether they qualify as terrorism (as opposed to state actions), let alone as atheistic (as opposed to communist).

Thank you for the heads up. It came out wrong actually. I was wondering which is it this threads means in its opinion.
I also think you didn't have to say "we", since in bad acts one is judged as an individual, not groups. What that guys called Roof did, does not justify atheism.

 

[Laika]

Think "NEP".

BTW: I think we've trashed the thread ...

Lol. Not really. Given Communists used terrorism as a political weapon against their enemies and were atheists, if you classed that as 'atheist' terrorism it would make a really drastic effect on the result. The distinction between the 'liberal' atheists who tolerate religious beliefs and the more 'militant' ones who try to use force or compell people to accept there beliefs is an important distinction.

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you for the heads up. It came out wrong actually. I was wondering which is it this threads means in its opinion.
I also think you didn't have to say "we", since in bad acts one is judged as an individual, not groups. What that guys called Roof did, does not justify atheism.

I think it is sufficient to say that atheism was not the subject of Roof's terrorism, as he explicitly stated that his actions were based on racism. Since atheism is not related to racism in any real way, I fail to see how anyone could claim that this was "atheistic terrorism".

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think it is sufficient to say that atheism was not the subject of Roof's terrorism, as he explicitly stated that his actions were based on racism. Since atheism is not related to racism in any real way, I fail to see how anyone could claim that this was "atheistic terrorism".

Looks like I misunderstood then. Sorry about that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is it? Does it exist in any meaningful way? Or is the attribution little more than a desperate instance of tu quoque?

I can't think of a single time there has been a death caused by a terrorist acting in the name of anti-theism. I at least assume that is what you mean by atheistic terrorism. Not believing in a god won't make you blow something up. I could see how someone could resonantly (well as reasonably as any terrorist reasons) that they should target religious organizations or individuals in order to rid the word of the disease of religion. I don't condone it and I think it would be a terrible terrible thing to do but at least I could understand what motivated them. Atheism itself I don't think could work as that kind of motivation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't think of a single time there has been a death caused by a terrorist acting in the name of anti-theism.

Your inability to think of something is evidence of very little indeed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Your inability to think of something is evidence of very little indeed.

Can you list a few for me?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you list a few for me?

Did you see post #13 and those that referred to it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What about the anti-religious violence of Spain's Red Terror, perhaps motivated by such Stalinist front groups as The League of Militant Atheists proclaiming ...

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself.​

and ...

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.​

How is a program of terror "permeated by the spirit of militant atheism" not "atheistic terrorism"?

The Spanish Red Terror, which is far less known than the Russian one, had to do with a huge back-lash against the clergy and political agenda's of the Catholic church. I have not seen anything tying it to atheism or even anti-theism in general but rather anti-Catholicism.

And as far as the USSR is concerned I have already debated this till I was blue in the face. It is yet again another Fascist faction that meant to wipe out religion in order to remove potential political threats against the state. It was not an "atheist" philosophy backed movement. Anti-theist for sure. That I grant but it wasn't in the name of non-religion. It was in the name of Communist Russia.

 

[Penumbra]

I think the less critical factor is what a person believes, compared to how they arrived at that belief. Dogmatism of any sort vs open-minded rationality.

Any sort of irrational extremism, whether it's a theocracy or something more like what happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or present day North Korea, can lead to problems. Sometimes there is secular deification of an ideology or a leader, and this essentially becomes a secular dogmatic religion.

 

[JFish123]

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Yeah, I'd call that terrorism lol

 

[Laika]

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000

Yes. Definetely Atheist.

Mao Zedong - 37,828,000

Yes. There are some suggestions he believed in an afterlife.

Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000

Probably Not. It is highly debated as there are significant gaps between his public pronouncements and private comments but he never offically declared himself an atheist. The Nazi regieme was hostile to religion only in so far as it conflicted with the doctorine of racial superiority and many aspects of Nazi ideology contained mysticism and the occult. (Hence the Indiaina Jones Franchise).

Mussolini was however an Atheist, but obviously he's not going to have such a high death count and the fact he got along with the Catholic Churxh doesn't make him so spectacular.

Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000

No. (Christian) Methodist.

Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000

Yes.

Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000

No. His Religion was Shinto which is an indigenious religion to Japan. If I'm not mistaken the Japanese reverred the emperor as a god.

Pol Pot - 2,397,0003

Yes, although there is suggestion of Buddhist influences.

So far the only examples you've got are Commies (and Mussolini), but most atheists here don't think that counts [which is absolute b******ks]. Also, trying to attribute millions of deaths to single individuals is absurd- they aren't gods, they cannot be held responsible for every death that occured under their rule but they were responsible for deaths by signing execution orders, even if they didn't actually kill people in person. Ideas alone don't kill people; people kill people. That applies both to atheism and religion.

 

[Stevicus]

So far the only examples you've got are Commies (and Mussolini), but most atheists here don't think that counts [which is absolute b******ks]. Also, trying to attribute millions of deaths to single individuals is absurd- they aren't gods, they cannot be held responsible for every death that occured under their rule but they were responsible for deaths by signing execution orders, even if they didn't actually kill people in person. Ideas alone don't kill people; people kill people. That applies both to atheism and religion.

To be sure, they were terrorists, but as far as labeling it "atheist terrorism," then that would suggest that atheism was the primary goal and the reason for the acts of violence and murder attributed to the individuals in question. There's also the question of whether it's valid to fight terror with terror. Stalin, for example, had to go up against the forces of the Romanov Dynasty and later on, Hitler's Third Reich. If your enemies are already pretty nasty, is it justified to get even nastier? It was similar for Mao, since he was up against both Chiang and Tojo, two others on the same aforementioned list. (By the same standard, would Tsar Nicholas or Kaiser Wilhelm be examples of "Christian terrorists"?)

I would say their goals were more nationalistic and economic in nature, not really religious. That doesn't make it any better, nor does it mean that they weren't terrorists. But to label it as "atheist terrorism" would seem quite inaccurate and misleading.

On the other hand, it could be said that the personality cults which grew up around the individuals listed might be quasi-religious. But then it wouldn't really be "atheist" anymore, but just a new religion.

 

[Laika]

To be sure, they were terrorists, but as far as labeling it "atheist terrorism," then that would suggest that atheism was the primary goal and the reason for the acts of violence and murder attributed to the individuals in question.

I would say their goals were more nationalistic and economic in nature, not really religious. That doesn't make it any better, nor does it mean that they weren't terrorists. But to label it as "atheist terrorism" would seem quite inaccurate and misleading.

On the other hand, it could be said that the personality cults which grew up around the individuals listed might be quasi-religious. But then it wouldn't really be "atheist" anymore, but just a new religion.

Communism was Athiest. The nature of Communist ideology as a worldview meant that atheism was inextricably linked to Marxian forms of Communism. it is not however a form of atheism consistent with secularism, the individual right to free thought and rational scepticism. It represents a much older form of atheism derived from 19th century philosophical materialism and is much much stronger in terms of the level of certianty and conviction that it demands. it could well be described as a dogma particuarly by its critics. in so far as it is dogmatic, it is not consistent with the philosophical scepticism of most atheists these days, but it remains atheist. it has alot of similarities to religion in terms of the way its adherents behaved, but that says more about the nature of strong convictions than what those convictions are, religious or otherwise. it started out as a democratic and internationalist movement but evolved in more tryannical directions as it developed.

There's also the question of whether it's valid to fight terror with terror. Stalin, for example, had to go up against the forces of the Romanov Dynasty and later on, Hitler's Third Reich. If your enemies are already pretty nasty, is it justified to get even nastier? It was similar for Mao, since he was up against both Chiang and Tojo, two others on the same aforementioned list.

It is rational to respond like for like, and is broadly consistent with a nihilistic interpretation of communism, but it is debatable whether the methods were really consistent with the humanity of the ideals they were fighting for. I'm not sure either way.

By the same standard, would Tsar Nicholas or Kaiser Wilhelm be examples of "Christian terrorists"?

Yes. I would have thought so.

 

[LuisDantas]

To be sure, they were terrorists, but as far as labeling it "atheist terrorism," then that would suggest that atheism was the primary goal and the reason for the acts of violence and murder attributed to the individuals in question. There's also the question of whether it's valid to fight terror with terror. Stalin, for example, had to go up against the forces of the Romanov Dynasty and later on, Hitler's Third Reich. If your enemies are already pretty nasty, is it justified to get even nastier?

Not really, unless one accepts nihilism.

It was similar for Mao, since he was up against both Chiang and Tojo, two others on the same aforementioned list. (By the same standard, would Tsar Nicholas or Kaiser Wilhelm be examples of "Christian terrorists"?)

I don't think so. I read a bit on WW 1 last year and I never got the sense that either was particularly motivated by Christian beliefs, although far as I understand both were Christians.

Their motivations could much more properly be attributed to nationalism, monarchy and/or ethnic separatism.

Also, terrible as WW 1 was, I don't think either the Tzar or the Kaiser would qualify as terrorists of any kind to begin with. Their war declarations were very open and went through a lot of diplomatic effort.

War is not that much better than terrorism, but the distinction is still significant and worth of making.

(...)

On the other hand, it could be said that the personality cults which grew up around the individuals listed might be quasi-religious. But then it wouldn't really be "atheist" anymore, but just a new religion.

It would not be atheist anymore, indeed. A "religion" is not a simple absence of atheism, however. There is considerable confusion running around about what atheism is and what it is not. Atheism may be a component of ideologies both good and bad (although it is far less dangerous in that regard than its opposite, theism), but it is not an ideology in and of itself.

Yes. I would have thought so.

What makes them terrorists as opposed to, say, warmongers?

Do you feel that Christianity was a significant component of their motivation for military violence?

 

[LuisDantas]

How is a program of terror "permeated by the spirit of militant atheism" not "atheistic terrorism"?

It all comes down to whether atheism is a significant part of the ideological motivation and whether the violence is considered terrorism.

It is generally understood that officially declared war is not to be called terrorism, and atheism is by its very nature a poor motivator for violence, particularly when compared with theism, so of course atheist terrorism will be remarkably rare.

I think we all tend to want to excuse the excesses of religion a bit too much and end up tempted by the desire to underplay its role in the motivation for violence. Otherwise we would very quickly notice that atheist terrorism is very nearly a contradiction of terms.

Anti-theism, being more of a motivation as opposed to a simple stance, will be far more fit for that motivational role. But even that is rare, in part because it can (naturally) only fly when there is a well-settled feeling of hostility towards theism and/or theistic religion. But anti-theistic violence is very difficult to inflict without the power of state behind it, which tends to disqualify it as terrorism proper.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Does it exist in any meaningful way?

No, it doesn't, except as a lame attempt to distract from theist terrorism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It all comes down to whether atheism is a significant part of the ideological motivation and whether the violence is considered terrorism. ...

No, it doesn't, except as a lame attempt to distract from theist terrorism.

^ Must have been a slow night.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I can't think of a single time there has been a death caused by a terrorist acting in the name of anti-theism.

Me neither. I haven't heard any reports of people shouting things like "Death to God" before blowing themselves up or machine-gunning civilians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Red Terror (Spain)