See above.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The meaning of "atheism" and "terrorism"
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
More specific, but essentially the same meaning. I guess non-combatant targets should be in there.
The problem with "terrorism" as defined in the OP is that it is so broad it includes all instances of war. Now, you may consider war itself as terrorism; but, that creates the problem that it appears the OP is trying to avoid, a watering down of the term. This is what Jayhawker Soule is getting at. Using this definition, actual terrorists will claim a false equivalency.
Also, people should really look at how the Red Guards acted in China, especially in regards to organized religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism. That is actual terrorism.
Also, people should really look at how the Red Guards acted in China, especially in regards to organized religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism. That is actual terrorism.
A question: Was the Normandy invasion a terrorist act?
No, it is not.
Terrorism is, first and foremost, a strategy and a tactic aimed at destabilizing by inducing terror in a population at large.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Please see post #10....."religious aims" or religion for that matter is not part of any definitions of terrorism. Political and Social yes but not Religion
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think you made an excellent point. Non-combative targets included in the definition.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
No, religious terrorism is a valid concept.
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islamic fundamentalists regularly indulge in religious terrorism.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why do you feel that way? Just because it wasn't included in Wikipedia?
I think really it is the relationship between the two concepts that defines it. The idea of 'atheist terrorism' does not apply at all to weak atheists (those who lack belief) as it remains an individual belief. This is primarily a negative assertion that a person is not satisfied that a theist has provided adequate burden of proof to convince them. The line between weak atheist and agnostics is pretty blurred and is really about whether you can know for sure and how.
But the use of violence is more strongly connected with 'strong atheism' (there is no god) because it goes so far as to say that religion is an illusion. This implies not simply a rejection of religious belief, but the assertion of an alternative belief system in it's place, such as Communism or Anarchism. This assertion of positive gives the atheist justification to coerce believers into atheism, since the validity of belief is dismissed and atheism is established as 'fact'. It is therefore much more likely to be anti-religious, since in asserting that atheism is a fact/truth, it leads to the argument that by exposing the exclusionary nature of religion that a society or individual can achieve social emancipation.
An additional factor is that weak atheism is primarily secular and apolitical- as it is a rejection of belief it does not entail political action in response to belief; where as strong atheism is usually highly politicized as the rejection of religious belief entails a struggle against religious illusion. Weak atheism is therefore very liberal individualistic belief; strong atheism is debateably related to collectivist belief that the truth affects society and therefore entails social change- once the ilusionary nature of religion is revealed, it requires a change in people's beliefs and way of life to correspond to the new 'truths'.
The 'terrorist' aspect is tricky. Since 9/11 we've come to define terrorism more and more in terms of individuals using violence against the state and it's population, rather than the use of violence by the state against it's own populations. Strictly speaking, there are few if any instances where atheism has been used as a direct justification for political violence of either sort, but because atheism is so crucial to both communist and anarchist ideologies in rejecting established authorities, the violence used by these groups could be described as 'atheist terrorism' if we view atheism as the direct opposite to theism as being the motivation behind terrorism. Both Communism and Anarchism are often (but not always) atheist and anti-religious because they view religion as an instrument of oppression. But that's where it breaks down; When religious people use terrorism, they justify it in terms of fulfilling gods will, but atheists don't do this and instead attribute it to other forms of authority, such as the "proletariat", or "humanity". So there isn't really 'atheist' terrorism as equivalent to religious terrorism because atheists derive moral justification for their actions from sources other than their atheism.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
You obviously did not read post #10 and although taking the low road and going for the wiki attack to try and undermine my statement is an interesting one it is not true. I used Wiki to give a list of terrorist organizations to help clarify that there are domestic terrorist organizations as well as international
I go with definitions used my governments, law enforcement organizations, intelligence organizations and military and there is no use of the word "religion" in any of the definitions. Have a college cert in terrorism guys and an IT security job that requires me to keep up on some of it so if you want to spar this one out I am more than qualified to do so... your insistence to include religion in an accepted definition of any authority on the subject is just plain wrong.
JRMcC
Active Member
I'm not sure what you mean. Islamic extremists are Muslims, and so... They're Muslim extremists. It doesn't mean every Muslim is a terrorist. An anti-theist terrorist is an atheist, and so he or she is an atheist terrorist. It doesn't mean every atheist is a terrorist.
It's not like the "lack of a belief in deity" definition makes atheist terrorism impossible or even unlikely. Maybe you weren't saying that, but I don't have enough time to read all the posts here.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Yes it is a valid "Concept" but it is not part of any definition of terrorism used by Law enforcement, intelligence organizations, or military.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I mean, I think my definition was far too simplistic. But, I am not speaking towards legal definitions, but, rather, the commonly accepted definition among English speaking countries (as we are looking into the English term). And, while I should be more specific, there is a commonly accepted definition for the term as it is used in common language. It refers to acts or threats of violence toward non-combatants to further political or social goals (obviously, religious beliefs would be included in these). Would you disagree with this definition of the term? My point was that NoX claimed that any murder would qualify as terrorism, but she was confusing the word "terror", which all murder seems to be, and "terrorism" which, at the very least, can be agreed to be a far different classification.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I think that's unfair. If you look at the OP in the context of the thread he created it in response, the definition meets the need and is clear to everyone involved. Obviously it can be qualified and expanded on but that wasn't necessary for the purpose of the OP.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I was trying to say the same thing that you were. I agree. That was the whole point of this thread. Oversimplification of terms is extremely destructive. And, I was guilty of oversimplifying the term "terrorism" myself. But, that only works to strengthen my argument against NoX's claim that all murder was terrorism.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Thank you. My point in the post was that NoX seemed to have maliciously oversimplified the terms of "atheism" and "terrorism," disassembling the definitions in a way that basically invalidated the existence of the terms themselves, in order to substantiate her own erroneous claim. I just wanted to show the danger of oversimplification of this sort when trying to prove a point.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
And, sorry about the misread. I couldn't see the comment numbers on my phone, so i read the wrong one.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Legal definitions are often very different than common use language. I wasn't claiming to know the agreed upon legal definition, as that certainly does not exist.