Is their such a thing as an atheist terrorist?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2006-07-13 02:41am

No, really. Religious people often blame atheists for lack of moral values, eating babies and are identified as America’s most distrusted minority. It'll also be a cold day in hell when an atheist gets elected as US president.

Yet I never heared of atheists bombing a church or mosque because it was offensive to them, or an atheist killing someone because of what he read in Lord of the Rings or whatever.

Perhaps the closest thing are acts of racism but its not like religious people are exempt of that either.

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2006-07-13 02:48am

I don't know, I mean I don't think it's too common if it's happens, probably has some time in the past. I heard that Stalin wasn't an atheist actually, that was russian orthodox, or atheist just later in his life. That the only atheist tyrant was Pol-pot.

I tried looking it up on wikipedia, couldn't really confirm it, just heard of it through Angels and Demons, are the Illuminati really atheists?

Srynerson · Post by **Srynerson** » 2006-07-13 02:50am

I'm assuming you are asking about an atheist terrorist group that commits terrorism exclusively for the purpose of advancing atheism, in which case I'm not aware of any. However, if one counts terrorist groups whose ideology is officially atheistic and who include the destruction of organized religion as an item in their revolutionary plans, then there have been at least a couple dozen in the last century.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-07-13 02:58am

I do not doubt that there are terrorists out there who are atheists (like some ALF nutjobs or something to that effect), but they wouldn't be atheist terrorists, in that atheism is the main cause of their violence. An atheist in the ALF would be an atheist terrorist, he'd be an animal liberation terrorist.

One reason is probably due to atheism not having any tenets beyond "deities do not exist". By itself, it doesn't prescribe any sort of moral code or way of living.

Also, if you were to look, for example, at Islamic terrorists, a lot of the violence they commit is done with the belief that Allah will favor them and reward them for sacrificing themselves in His name. Now look at atheists. They do not believe in any deities. So if they were to go around blowing up places of worship, what would they get out of it? Nothing beyond a life of hard labor once they're caught (if they even make it to the prison before being lynched by some mob).

So, in the minds of religious terrorists, they have everything to gain, and very little to lose (especially considering that many of them are poor). For atheists, becoming terrorists give them absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-07-13 02:59am

Me correcting myself wrote:An atheist in the ALF wouldn't be an atheist terrorist, he'd be an animal liberation terrorist.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-07-13 03:08am

Shrykull wrote: I tried looking it up on wikipedia, couldn't really confirm it, just heard of it through Angels and Demons, are the Illuminati really atheists?

The Illuminati don't really exist, but I'm pretty sure the Bavarian Illuminati of bygone ages where they actually existed and pretended to do secrety stuff like the Masons do... eh, I'd call it 9 to 1 that they were Christians.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-13 03:10am

Shrykull wrote:I tried looking it up on wikipedia, couldn't really confirm it, just heard of it through Angels and Demons, are the Illuminati really atheists?

The Illuminati are generally reguarded as non-existant, except by conspiracy theorist nutjobs. It's hard for a non-existant organization to have a specific ideology.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-13 03:35am

At a basic level, terrorism requires an irrational ethics system; an atheist is less likely to be irrational, so he is less likely to be a terrorist.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-13 03:37am

Surlethe wrote:At a basic level, terrorism requires an irrational ethics system; an atheist is less likely to be irrational, so he is less likely to be a terrorist.

Besides just that, terrorism requires some kind of belief system to rally around at all. Since atheism is simply the lack of a belief system, or at least of belief in any gods, there's no core philosophy to rally around. If you have motivations, it's because of beliefs external to atheism, or at least ambivelent to it.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-13 03:41am

There are terrorists who do engage in terrorist activity for reasons other than religious - Timothy McVeigh is an example. His reasons for his crime were purported to be due to the FBI assault on the Waco cult, from what I found.

As athiesm is simply a lack of any religion, I would therefore say it is possible that a person could become a terrorist for a cause other than religious. However, I would also say it's not as probable compared to the number of terrorists who uses reasons of religion.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-07-13 03:41am

Atheists who actively hate religion do so because of its inherent qualities. Qualities like terrorism. It would be pretty damned hypocritical to blow up a congregation that worships an evil deity because said deity blew up a city in an ancient myth.

That said, it isn't impossible to imagine acts like assassinations or vandalism. Attacks on religion without collateral damage. But that's hardly terrorism.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-07-13 06:28am

Communist ideology is officially atheist (although individual communists may be religious). Back during the early part of the 20th Century some communists (also referred to as "Bolsheviks" post Russian revolution) engaged in acts that today might be labeled terrorism. There was also an anarchist movement around the same time that engaged in things such throwing bombs into crowds. Basically, these were people influened by the writings and philosophy of Karl Marx who referred to religion as the opiate of the people and advocated abolishing it and various other trappings of the society he lived in through a variety of means, including violence.

Note to history fanatics: Yes I know that's a simplification, but I'm trying to write a paragraph, not an entire treatise.

So it's not only possible, it's probable there has been an atheist terrorist. It just happens that the terrorism we see today is justifed/propelled by a form of religion rather than, say, a struggle between an impoverished labor underclass and the wealthy upperclass, or between serfs and nobility.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-07-13 06:38am

It's possible that you can get an atheist terrorist in the sense that someone commits acts of terrorism who is also an atheist. However this is semantics, since when we use the term Islamic terrorism, we are implying someone who commits terrorism motivated by Islam. I am willing to bet some terrorists motivated by political idealogy may have some atheists among their number.

However an atheist terrorist in the usual sense the combination of words are meant to be a terrorist who commits his acts motivated by atheism. This is again possible, but it would be hard to justify atheism as his reasoning, since atheism merely is an absence of belief. It doesn't have any tenets advocating spreading itself, nor tenets decreeing violence. If we assume some nutjob using incredible leap of logic to justify terrorism by atheism, then yes, in that sense it can exist. However I suspect such people would be rare, since a) atheists who hate religion usually do so for rational reasons b) its harder to motivate someone using a lack of belief, as opposed to a belief.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2006-07-13 07:17am

Wouldn't the anarchists a century ago be classified as aethist terrorists then?

Jaepheth · Post by **Jaepheth** » 2006-07-13 09:37am

Would Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) count? I can't seem to find any reference to his belief/disbelief in God, but his motivation seems to be unrelated to any religious beliefs.

Along those lines, would dictators like Stalin or Mao qualify as terrorrists?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-07-13 09:46am

Jaepheth wrote:Would Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) count? I can't seem to find any reference to his belief/disbelief in God, but his motivation seems to be unrelated to any religious beliefs.

Along those lines, would dictators like Stalin or Mao qualify as terrorrists?

Kaczynski's attacks were motivated by his extremist anti-technology
mindset. I can't imagine a highly irrational fear of modern progress being the result of atheism.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-07-13 10:04am

So it's not only possible, it's probable there has been an atheist terrorist.

Even Ivan Kalyaev, one of the most famous revolutionary terrorists, who murdered Knyaz Sergey Alexandrovich, Moscows Governor-General, wasn't an atheist. But perhaps he was the closest to it.

Kalyaev did not murder him at the first terrorist act, seeing that he was with wife and children, and even though he endangered himself, he waited for a second chance and eventually killed the Knyaz, but was caught himself. He met the wife of Sergey Alexandrovich and sought forgiveness and peace with her.

When she came to the prison, she was crying and said to Ivan "I am his wife". He was silent (later he wrote a poem about meeting with her).
After a long silence he said: "Do not cry, mylady. It had to happen... (Would've happened anyway)"
She replied: "You must have suffered so much to become so determined..."
He said: "I do not care for my own suffering, but for the suffering of millions of people. Too much blood is being shed, and we have no other means of speaking out to the government... But why, why am I spoken to only after I commited murder? You know, mylady, as a little boy I thought that there's so many tears and injustice in the world, that if I cried it all out, evil would be destroyed... But if I came up to the Knyaz and told him all about his evil acts, I'd be thrown to prison... why are people not allowed to speak out?"
"I am sorry. You should've come earlier..." - she said with repenting tones.
"But you do know what happened to the workers on 9 January when they went to the Tsar?"
"Do you think that we don't suffer? Do you think we don't wish good for the people?"
"Yes, - replied Ivan Kalyaev harshly, - now you suffer..."

When the Priest came to him before execution, Kalyaev claimed to believe in God, however, he said that the does not recognise the Churchian lore, so he could be seen as a deist. He said that the priest was a "good man" and kissed him.

10 may 1905 he was executed.

As for really hardcore atheist terrorists, I believe they could be found among Russian revolutionaries, but it is certainly hard. In the time of revolutionary terror (189x-1917) most of the known terrorists were believing in some form of a god.

outcast · Post by **outcast** » 2006-07-13 10:38am

to be honest i do occasionally have fantasies about a co-ordinated 'atheist' terrorist attack against the vatican city, jerusalem, and mecca. down with all those holy sites!

but that's only after a few hours worth of debating fundies.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-07-13 10:50am

outcast wrote:to be honest i do occasionally have fantasies about a co-ordinated 'atheist' terrorist attack against the vatican city, jerusalem, and mecca. down with all those holy sites!

but that's only after a few hours worth of debating fundies.

I think this is a fair point. Rationality aside, we're still human. The more rational minded and logical Americans might believe in Atheism or other beliefs that barely speak to a God or controlling force, but can still get frustrated and angry at people who just don't see the logic. Now, suddenly make the general population Athiest, give them the weapons of the world's only superpower, and suddenly little has changed between the two, with a quest only to spread atheism rather than christianity. After all, if rationality and logic tells us religion is wrong, and religion is a negative factor on country or life in general, then the removal of such systems seem within the best interests of said country (America, in this example).

Indeed, atheism itself doesn't TEACH logic and morality, just a lack of faith in any supreme being, as has been mentioned. People's opinions are just as strong about this as they are about a deity's existance, and some people, regardless of "logic" would still find it necessary to teach others their views through violence. Atheism itself wouldn't change that, I wouldn't think.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-13 11:09am

Broomstick wrote:So it's not only possible, it's probable there has been an atheist terrorist. It just happens that the terrorism we see today is justifed/propelled by a form of religion rather than, say, a struggle between an impoverished labor underclass and the wealthy upperclass, or between serfs and nobility.

This is true, but I think the point the OP was getting at is that there is no demonstrable case where atheism motivates terrorism as religion does.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-07-13 11:23am

Athiesm is not really a unified system of belief in the same way religion is, so it's not surprising that there's far less who motivate themselves to things like terrorism on account of it. Indeed, athiesm does not have any codes or rules. The huge majority of athiests barely even think about themselves being athiests at all, they just are and that's it. Those who are bothered enough about it to wear their athiest status as some kind of badge are, I should imagine, a minority.

Terrorism can and does arise for secular reasons, however. Terrorism will happen whenever a weaker party is driven to desperation. Had the Germans conquered the Soviet Union, for instance, I'm sure you'd see a whole lot of communist terrorists around Germany in the aftermath. They'd be athiest terrorists, certainly, but they'd not really be terrorists because they were athiest.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-07-13 12:53pm

Had the Germans conquered the Soviet Union, for instance, I'm sure you'd see a whole lot of communist terrorists around Germany in the aftermath.

Oh really? With the genocide tempos, in 10 years you would have virtually no one to be a "terrorist" there. What's so good about the Reich is that it's exterminative abilities are simply staggering... they murdered every 3rd person in Belorussia in just a few years...

Which means they could exterminate the entirety of USSR's european population in just a decade or so.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-07-13 01:22pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Had the Germans conquered the Soviet Union, for instance, I'm sure you'd see a whole lot of communist terrorists around Germany in the aftermath.
Oh really? With the genocide tempos, in 10 years you would have virtually no one to be a "terrorist" there. What's so good about the Reich is that it's exterminative abilities are simply staggering... they murdered every 3rd person in Belorussia in just a few years... Which means they could exterminate the entirety of USSR's european population in just a decade or so.

Possibly. More likely they'd try and turn them into a kind of slave race, I think. Either way the principle remains the same, and for a period at least I'm sure terrorism would be a tactic used by what remains of the communist regime.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-07-13 01:26pm

what remains of the communist regime

If Germany won, there'd be nothing remaining. Nor from the power, neither from the state and the population. A total destruction and abolition of Russian state and the ethnic cleansing of Eastern territories was the final goal. So I guess the Germans would've coped with anything resembling terrorism real fast should they've won.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-07-13 02:35pm

Stas Bush wrote:
what remains of the communist regime
If Germany won, there'd be nothing remaining. Nor from the power, neither from the state and the population. A total destruction and abolition of Russian state and the ethnic cleansing of Eastern territories was the final goal. So I guess the Germans would've coped with anything resembling terrorism real fast should they've won.

Russia is a big country, there's plenty of room hide in. If Osama and co can hide from the US in Afghanistan I'm sure the communists could do just that in the world's biggest country.