Is their such a thing as an atheist terrorist?

[K. A. Pital]

Russia is a big country, there's plenty of room hide in.

Actually, a common misconception. Not only is Russia the coldest-in-the-world country, but it's also the one which houses most of uninhabitable territories. "Hiding" in Siberia without massive financial support and investment is impossible. Dying there? Damn sure. Most of Russia's lands are so bad that they only justify oil extraction and are totally unsuitable for human life otherwise. The european part of Russia harbored most of it's population.

Map

I'm sure the communists could do just that in the world's biggest country

And do what? With which resources?



Your map was a bit too large and was messing up my formatting (and therefore other people's as well), so I linked to it.

~Z~

[Lord Woodlouse]

Russia is a big country, there's plenty of room hide in.

Actually, a common misconception. Not only is Russia the coldest-in-the-world country, but it's also the one which houses most of uninhabitable territories. "Hiding" in Siberia without massive financial support and investment is impossible. Dying there? Damn sure. Most of Russia's lands are so bad that they only justify oil extraction and are totally unsuitable for human life otherwise. The european part of Russia harbored most of it's population.

Map

I'm sure the communists could do just that in the world's biggest country

And do what? With which resources?



Your map was a bit too large and was messing up my formatting (and therefore other people's as well), so I linked to it.

~Z~

How does any underground network gain resources? The same way. It's worth bearing in mind that the German army would be exhausted after such a campaign, and would be still having to worry about the rest of the world. Plus economic fragility. I can't see the Germans gaining 100% perfect control overnight.

*shrug* It's not essential to the point I made, in any case.

[K. A. Pital]

How does any underground network gain resources?

Someone pays them, or draw resource from the population. If no one pays, and most of the population is violently exterminated, the "networks" die out very quickly.

It's not essential to the point I made, in any case.

Well, yeah. The point is that atheism itself does not provide a sufficient goal for terrorism. So being atheist and terrorist is possible, but being a terrorist for atheism - hardly.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Someone pays them, or draw resource from the population. If no one pays, and most of the population is violently exterminated, the "networks" die out very quickly.

*shrug* The USA and the UK could quite possibly fund and help such an organisation.... and while Russia is clearly not as big as it seems, it's still pretty huge, even discounting that.

Well, yeah. The point is that atheism itself does not provide a sufficient goal for terrorism. So being atheist and terrorist is possible, but being a terrorist for atheism - hardly.

*nods* Absolutely. Atheism is more a statement of absense than a declaration of being and doing something. Atheism does not have a code of conduct. It's a bit like saying there are more political terrorists than a-political ones. *shrug* It's a fairly pointless statement of the obvious.

[K. A. Pital]

The USA and the UK could quite possibly fund and help such an organisation...

Unlikely. No gain. Besides, they didn't like Russia _that_ much.

It's a fairly pointless statement of the obvious.

However, it is good to show when religionists claim "atheism is also a religion" bullshit.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Unlikely. No gain. Besides, they didn't like Russia _that_ much.

They didn't like Russia one jot (though ironically, to begin with, the USA liked you lot a lot more than the UK), but they hated the nazis more. I imagine lend-lease would be adapted to work with the Soviet resistance.

However, it is good to show when religionists claim "atheism is also a religion" bullshit.

I might vaguely be described as "religionist" (first I've heard of the term ), but I quite honestly see atheism as essentially the opposite. As I heard once somewhere "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour".

[K. A. Pital]

They didn't like Russia one jot (though ironically, to begin with, the USA liked you lot a lot more than the UK)

It intervened during the Civil War just the same as UK did.

they hated the nazis more

Indeed they hated the Nazis, but at least the US was really wary of the situation and - from my humble POV - had the "whoever gains the upper hand is the winner" policy all the time ("Let them kill each other more, and we'll side with the winner", such was the quote, or?)..

I quite honestly see atheism as essentially the opposite

Most sane people do. How does an lack of belief become a belief? But you see religious leaders, especially fundies, scream out of all their holes "atheism is religion". And the favourite variant of the cretinists: "Evolution is religion!". So yes, most would regard atheism as a lack of religion, but for the sake of advancement it was branded another "evil religion" (sometimes atheists are also identified with satanists, and so on)... Religions just can't cope with the fact that their adversary - atheism - is kind of out of their little quarry playfield, so they try to "put it down" as just another religion.

[Lord Woodlouse]

It intervened during the Civil War just the same as UK did.

It was in neither of our interests for you to leave the war as our ally.

Indeed they hated the Nazis, but at least the US was really wary of the situation and - from my humble POV - had the "whoever gains the upper hand is the winner" policy all the time ("Let them kill each other more, and we'll side with the winner", such was the quote, or?)..

So long as the UK was in the fight you'd be getting at least some British support. Since America had joined the war it's very likely they'd continue it at least by proxy.

Most sane people do. How does an lack of belief become a belief? But you see religious leaders, especially fundies, scream out of all their holes "atheism is religion". And the favourite variant of the cretinists: "Evolution is religion!". So yes, most would regard atheism as a lack of religion, but for the sake of advancement it was branded another "evil religion" (sometimes atheists are also identified with satanists, and so on)... Religions just can't cope with the fact that their adversary - atheism - is kind of out of their little quarry playfield, so they try to "put it down" as just another religion.

People can be strange. I don't let it bother me much.

I'd not even call atheism the adversary of religion. More often than not they're "competing" for different brain types. I think religions have more to fear from other religions, usually.

[K. A. Pital]

It was in neither of our interests for you to leave the war as our ally.

Obviously, but by then (1918) the situation has progressed to the point of the allied duties being unperformable. The intervention just further harmed Russia, if anything. It was certainly not an act of goodwill.

So long as the UK was in the fight you'd be getting at least some British support.

I don't see a point supporting partisans - if they're not centralised, unsupported and thus easily exterminated. Especially given the Nazi are successful.

I think religions have more to fear from other religions, usually.

Oh well. That's the truth. Atheists won't kill "infidels", but some differently believen folks could and sometimes would, depending on the radicalism...

[Lord Woodlouse]

Obviously, but by then (1918) the situation has progressed to the point of the allied duties being unperformable. The intervention just further harmed Russia, if anything. It was certainly not an act of goodwill.

*shrug* More of a matter of our own national interest. Truth be told Russia proably would have been better off with the Whites in charge. The point remains, however, that supporting Russia was also in our national interest half the time.

I don't see a point supporting partisans - if they're not centralised, unsupported and thus easily exterminated. Especially given the Nazi are successful.

We can't really know how easy or hard these partisans would be to destroy. The UK did, however, support partisans where they could, and where it was in our national interest.

Oh well. That's the truth. Atheists won't kill "infidels", but some differently believen folks could and sometimes would, depending on the radicalism...

I'm talking more of the competition that arises within a peaceful society.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm talking more of the competition that arises within a peaceful society.

Well, that too. But I don't know precisely the drift statistics for religions. I would believe that the drift between the adepts of already established religions is mininal.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I'm talking more of the competition that arises within a peaceful society.

Well, that too. But I don't know precisely the drift statistics for religions. I would believe that the drift between the adepts of already established religions is mininal.

I've got no clue at all, just a suspicion.

[Gigaliel]

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.

The Bavarian Illuminati founder, Weishaupt, was actually a deist so I'd imagine the Illuminati itself was as well. The group never actually did anything, as the Bavarian government banned the society fairly quickly. A group you might be able to construe as an 'atheist terrorist' was a few groups in the French Revolution, as I seem to recall them fighting 'for reason'. Even then it's a bit of stretch.