Atheist Terrorism

[Jayhawker Soule]

The 'New Atheists' have pretty much said that Communists weren't "real atheists". I find the fact that Christopher Hitchens, himself was a Marxist in his youth, desperately trying to pass off the "well, Stain was trained as a preist" line as dishonest and cowardly. There is a video of Sam Harris explaining why communists aren't 'real atheists' and I am still seething with rage just thinking about it. Such........ ignorance. ahhh!

So I have great contempt for the "not real atheists" line. It's a disgrace. Communists were atheists- but they killed because theyre vision of a 'better' society had no religious people in it. Communists killed religious people because they thought they were the unwitting servants of the capitalist class so atheism was a means, not an ends for them. that's my argument.

You're more than welcome to say otherwise as it's a fairly weak distinction.

Dialectical materialism (vs idealism/theism) was seen as foundational by the early Communists from Marx/Engels to Lenin/Trotsky. Stalinism was a perversion, but militant antitheism was endemic.

 

[Laika]

Dialectical materialism (vs idealism/theism) was seen as foundational by the early Communists from Marx/Engels to Lenin/Trotsky. Stalinism was a perversion, but militant antitheism was endemic.

Spot on. [Hurrah someone knows what dialectical materialism is! ]

Are you saying that liberals cliam to have a monopoly on atheism and therefore get to say what (edit: it) can and cannot be held responsible for?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Spot on. [Hurrah someone knows what dialectical materialism is! ]

I've actually read Engels, Marx, and a good deal of Lenin (and Trotsky) - even Bukharin and Preobrazhensky.

 

[Laika]

I've actually read Engels, Marx, and a good deal of Lenin (and Trotsky) - even Bukharin and Preobrazhensky.

Prebrazhensky is a new name. I had to look him up on Wikipedia, but I have heard of 'primitive socialist accumulation' before referring to industrialisation in the USSR.

it's sad knowing someone else takes an interest in this stuff makes me so happy isn't it?

[cue shameless display of enthusaism]

(cough)... (tries to stay on topic)

As I recall, Trotsky wrote "Communism and Terrorism" in which he rejected indivdual acts of terrorism: he rejected it because he thought it was not compatable with collectivism and class struggle, instead representing the anarchist or liberal 'cult of the individual'. i.e. You can assasinate as many politicans as you want, there's always another one to take there place. I know he was more sympathetic to state terrorism but I can't remember just how fervernt it was. I know he reached his peak of pro-terrorist ferosity in the russian civil war and the red terror in wanting to introduce the "militarisation of labour" and subordinate trade unions to the state.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Prebrazhensky is a new name.

Think "NEP".

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

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Why? People make non-explicit connections between crime and a person happening to be a member of group X or having characteristic Y all the time. Why on earth should atheists get special treatment here? We can't ever allow individuals to be considered responsible for what they do. It always has to be the fault of some other thing or some other part of who they are!

Because unless you can identify which particular atheist doctrine(s) motivate people to commit terrorist acts then any claims regarding 'atheist terrorism' are bogus. That would be like saying somebody's motivation to become a serial killer was due to the fact they were an avid not-a-stamp-collector.

 

[Quintessence]

Because unless you can identify which particular atheist doctrine(s) motivate people to commit terrorist acts then any claims regarding 'atheist terrorism' are bogus. That would be like saying somebody's motivation to become a serial killer was due to the fact they were an avid not-a-stamp-collector.

Okay? You realize you're preaching to the choir, right? And that the point I was making was a flippant, sarcastic remark that since we do this kind of nonsense to other groups, why the hell should atheists get special exemption?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Okay? You realize you're preaching to the choir, right? And that the point I was making was a flippant, sarcastic remark that since we do this kind of nonsense to other groups, why the hell should atheists get special exemption?

So I was. Didn't even see the winkey face emoji you put in there. My mistake. Hopefully others who genuinely want to play the 'atheist terrorism' card will read my post and have a think about it.

 

[Marisa]

Did you hear about the blond terrorist? She hijacked a hang glider and flew it into Capitol Hill.

See? Atheist terrorists.

Why is it always a she? Dudes have blond hair too.

 

[columbus]

Why is it always a she? Dudes have blond hair too.

Because wirey is far too politically correct to use the English default masculine pronoun.

Obviously.
Tom

 

[Marisa]

Because wirey is far too politically correct to use the English default masculine pronoun.

Obviously.
Tom

Wimey PC . . . .

 

[oldbadger]

Terrorism: a person who uses violence and intimidation for political purposes..............
Atheistic Terrorism.......... look, who cares about the terminology. If somebody was to blow up a place of worship because they hated the worshipers, or the building, or memories associated with the religion, or because they just despise the whole group, who gives a damn whether the crime is classed as terrorism, or hate crime or whatever? It's quite simply a serious crime!

Serious criminal offences have been carried out against religious groups, religious buildings etc etc since the beginning of Law, I expect...... it's just that such crimes might increase with the rise of atheism in our countries. Crimes on religious buildings have definitely risen in recent decades, although Henry VIII's efforts would be hard to surpass as far as the UK is concerned.

I don't give a toss whether the crimes are committed by other religions, or atheists or who-ever, I just don't think that atheists should believe that their world would be any more wonderful than before......... we need to watch humanity, all of it!

 

[leibowde84]

Why? People make non-explicit connections between crime and a person happening to be a member of group X or having characteristic Y all the time. Why on earth should atheists get special treatment here? We can't ever allow individuals to be considered responsible for what they do. It always has to be the fault of some other thing or some other part of who they are!

Can you provide an example of this. My point is this:

An Islamic Terrorist is a terrorist committing acts of terror in the name of Islam. A person who committs acts of terror in the name of racism is a white supremicist terrorist. Shouldn't an "atheistic terrorist" be someone who committs acs of terror in the name of atheism.

I don't think it's special treatment, as that seems to be the norm. I feel that it is an attempt to associate atheism with something it has nothing to do with.

Btw, in this specific case, atheism did not have anything to do with Roof's actions. He explicitly attributed them to racism. Thus, referring to him as an "atheistic terrorist" shows an obvious prejudice against atheism in general.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is it?

It would be violence motivated by atheism as a motivator, a cause, as an ideology.

Does it exist in any meaningful way?

No, it does not. It probably never did.

Or is the attribution little more than a desperate instance of tu quoque?

If even that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you hear about the blond terrorist? She hijacked a hang glider and flew it into Capitol Hill.
See? Atheist terrorists.

We Revoltistanians gave up terrorism.
I kept throwing dynamite at Wireyania, but they kept lighting the fuse & throwing it back.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does atheist terrorism mean terrorism done by atheists or terrorism that's done for no religious cause?

Or both or neither?

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).

 

[leibowde84]

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"?

I agree that this is a great example. Has there been any more recent examples, though? This was 80 years ago.

 

[Quintessence]

Can you provide an example of this. My point is this:

An Islamic Terrorist is a terrorist committing acts of terror in the name of Islam. A person who committs acts of terror in the name of racism is a white supremicist terrorist. Shouldn't an "atheistic terrorist" be someone who committs acs of terror in the name of atheism.

I don't think it's special treatment, as that seems to be the norm. I feel that it is an attempt to associate atheism with something it has nothing to do with.

Btw, in this specific case, atheism did not have anything to do with Roof's actions. He explicitly attributed them to racism. Thus, referring to him as an "atheistic terrorist" shows an obvious prejudice against atheism in general.

Please read post number twenty-seven.

That is all.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay? You realize you're preaching to the choir, right? And that the point I was making was a flippant, sarcastic remark that since we do this kind of nonsense to other groups, why the hell should atheists get special exemption?

In my opinion, it is accurate to use terms like this when the perpatrator of the specific terrorism explicitly claims to be acting on behalf of said system of beliefs. It doesn't make any sense unless the actor makes the claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you keep making sense I'm reporting you!

If you do, you risk destroying the universe.
Why?
If staff take action against other staff, it's like a snake eating its own tail.
The universe is a fragile thing.