Should Atheists commit to Terrorism?
Offline DISCLAIMER TO THE F.B.I WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS: 100% hypothetical, I love mankind, America, and the F.B.I. ;o
I can see only three possible outcomes for out future in regards to theism:
1. Religion slowly dies away.
2. We kill each other. Boom.
3. THROUGH killing each other, we unite and reshape humanity without religion.
I would hope number 1 is the most likely outcome, but I was wondering if people sped up the process for number 3, if that might save us from number 2. Now, you could say it might speed up number 2, but I think that depends on how you do it. Let's consider the details:
- NO ACTS OF TERRORISM would be in the name of ATHEISM. In fact, they would be masked as one of the major religions. The last thing Atheism needs is religious people uniting against it.
- Limiting human casualities would be a priority. Now of course, people would have to die to send forth a message, but (as bad as this sounds) keeping the number high enough for outrage, but low enough to avoid retribution would be the goal.
- Targets would have to create a sense of futility and frustration. For example, when terrorists bomb UN stations, that's expected and doesn't really shape the minds of those in the country. However, blowing up a church in the same country while claiming to be terrorists FROM that country could cause those living there to speak up and fight back. People at this level wouldn't be able to do any MAJOR damage like nuclear holocaust, but they would be able to dissolve the efforts of terrorist cells in their respective countries.
- Targets in countries like the United States would be very similar. Say for example, abortion clinic bombings. The citizens would be made to believe it was from fundamentalist christian networks instead of islamic radicals. Now, unlike arabic countries, the terrorist threat is imaginary here. Meaning, the people in the United States wouldn't have to fight back against specific militants but instead against religious parties. Since no one group would specifically be blamed, it would lead to verbal discourse and a loss of interest in the church. It's possible christian leaders or their members could become targets for retaliation in isolated incidents, but I don't think so. If you keep the number smaller in the United States than say Pakistan, I think people could actually live with the losses without feeling obligated to commit violence. After all, we watch the news every day and see small numbers of people getting killed domestically while barely flinching.
- The number and locations of the attacks would be planned, but appear sporadic. No need arising suspicion of a secular terrorist network. The terrorist networks would infilitrate the media in all outlets (have people inside for spin control) to help send the message home without deviation.
- In congruence with the efforts of these terrorists, respected worldly nonbelievers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris would speak up not against religion SPECIFICALLY, but the violence associated with irrationality and faith-based society. Careful attention to detail would be prudent. No mention of atheism, ever. It's important to remember that people are naturally atheistic and that labels make targets.
- Lastly, the act of KILLING people doesn't necessarily have to be the method used in this attack. I mention it, because it seems to be what best communicates worldwide. Not to sound cheesy, but if you could use landmarks (like in V for Vendetta) or strategical attacks on important logistical facilities (like when the pentagon was attacked during 9/11) that would obviously be the best course of action.
Let it be known, I hate violence but we shouldn't ignore the reality that countless lives have been lost FOR NOTHING. You could easily write a history book with ONLY the details of murder, rape, pillaging, intolerance, and suffering that we've committed on ourselves. CAN we enlighten people through understanding? I hope so, but if our primal instincts are too overbearing for reason, does this really sound THAT ridiculous? That classic adage, "the pen is mightier than the sword," will certainly be put to the test in our near future.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
I know! i totally keep saying that ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
I'm really going to have to do a point by point to your reply to me, but I've got work tomorrow, and tomorrow is alot closer over here than over on your side of the atlantic.
But let me just say that I had a feeling this was going to be a good debate. Sorry if I sounded a bit too outraged in the beginning. I still stand by my points, and I'll defend them at length sometime tomorrow, but for now I'll just say, both of us want clearly have the same end-goal, which is stabilty for humanity in the LONG TERM.
I still just think you are misjudging how best to get there.
Turning the other cheek might sound frigthfully futile, and alot of the time it is. Or rather, it always is, but what you do BESIDES turning the other cheek might not be.
And I still insist, that because of human nature: specifically revenge, fear and tribalism, using violence as a tool to ANY means, neccesarily perpetuates feudalistic culture: strong men taking weaker mens women and wealth. No matter how noble the goal, violence as a political tool is a continuation of human behavior as it has been since the invention of agriculture.
And if we are SMART about how we approach the future, turning the other cheek won't be neccesary in the future, because there won't be any slapping (of note) going on.
Like David Brin says: I'm a short term pessimist, long term optimist.
I completely agree that the world is full of shitty things, and we either find ways to get rid of them, accept the shitty status quo, or perish.
I just think we'll have to contend with the fact that enlightenment is a very slow process, and that's just the way it is.
If you wan't to speed up the process that's fine, but you have to use the tools that do so, and violence is not one of them, because I'm convinced it always does the opposite.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That's a lot of assumptions based off of one thread. Be careful you don't make yourself out to be a fool
Ironically, I donate a large portion of my free time to charity, not that it really matters since I feel no need to defend myself. I can promise you that I'm not the one here who's misguided. You're also jumping to conclusions since the Government would do criminal background checks before even attempting to come to my doorstep. Anyone can tell this was hypothetical and nothing was incited.
Excactly!
So you DO get it.
I'll elaborate tomorrow.
But there is actually a serious point there.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Heres the deal Niko...
We hold humanity together just long enough to meet an alien culture.
If they turn out to be peaceful, we'll build your lil Star-Trek utopia.
If they turn out to be warlike, we'll go with my 40k version instead.
Sound fair?
What Would Kharn Do?
Haha, that poll is from 2002 and polls are bullshit. That's why I usually use something like nationmaster.com that has more sources and information.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want someone who's posing the question to me of whether or not I should engage in terrorist activity to think that I'm a fool. That seems like it would be a black mark on my record that I couldn't afford. Perhaps I should engage in some philanthropic work to balance out the equation.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Again, it wasn't a serious suggestion. I see no one noticed my italicized assertion. Try reading: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html and you'll better understand the point of this thread.
And I welcome any debate. Ttyl
After all that has been said, do you seriously not understand this was a satire? An Atheist Terrorism Cell? Seriously? Ugh.
Doom rarely posts a complete sentence. I've never seen him start a whole thread asking people if they should be terrorists.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
That doesn't matter. You're being irresponsible to the people who run the server, and to us. And if you don't give a shit about that then you could at least care about yourself. And if you don't care about yourself and you want to be irresponsible then be irresponsible somewhere else.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So Canada was in moral anarchy in 2002? Must have slept through that.
Curious, how do you know Sweden and Denmark are predomintly atheist?
What? You really need to lighten up. Most political debates are more detailed than anything I mentioned in this thread and could be considered a greater risk to national security. This being an Atheist website poses a greater threat to the government than this single thread, anyway.
post
something
recent
http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/the-latest-gallup-poll-on
People don't want to hear excuses and empty rhetoric.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Oh just fuck off. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of the thread was lost on you, you had nothing to contribute, and if it's that displeasing - leave.
I fully expected you to regress further into your puerile behaviour. When someone confronts you, you respond with excuses, pointing to the activity of others as if that somehow absolves you of responsibility. Then when your excuses aren't accepted you lash out with profanity. I've literally dealt with children who've progressed beyond that point socially.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You do realize you're trolling a reaction out of me, right? You're no longer confronting me, but purposefully antagonizing me. Profanity isn't an indication of puerile behavior, you pseudo-intellectual, it's an indication of annoyance. I haven't made any excuses. I wrote a satircal piece on fixing the world's problems, you didn't get it, I explained it, you still didn't get it, and now you're hanging around trying to get a rise out of me because you're displeased with how foolish you look.
Anyone who would judge the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and responsibility of another person based off of a satirical piece of information they didn't understand is extremely pathetic. Save yourself what little dignity you have left and just leave.
I'm not judging you based on your poorly written OP. I'm judging you based on your naive assumption that your actions bear no consequences, your defense of those actions by pointing to the behavior of others, and your profanity laden, frustrated responses.
If you feel that you're being antagonized I suppose you could always lodge a complaint. Of course that wouldn't make me or any reasonable person accept your excuses but I would expect it based on what I've seen from you so far.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
What actions? Are you talking about the riot of hate that has been brought together because of this thread? Yeah, we're practically marching on Washington. XD
You're in no position to judge me. Since you obviously want the last word (given the fact I've already told you to leave twice), you can have it. Your stupidity is transparent.
Yeah, concession for you is probably advisable at this point. But since you're offering the last word I'll take it gladly. Je nique ta mère, salope.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Aaaww, Gauche doesn't like the satire. Maybe he's the kind of guy that would submit an essay to the ALA complaining about Mark Twain being racist.
Edit: Oops, were you supposed to have the last word?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own, which is the chief reason so few are offended by it. It's also witty, which this is not.
And fucking Samuel Clemens knew the difference between "transparent" and "apparent".
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
...Wat.
Weren't you the guy telling me how morally repugnant it was for a dude to cut up some orange barrels to make a sculpture?
Well, whatever. Let's see...
This is, even from a strictly pragmatic angle, such a shit idea. You'd have to assume, firstly, total incompetence on the part of investigators, and secondly, unwavering and lifelong loyalty to your organization. A few leaks or moles (and there are always plenty of both) and you'd be finished.
Putting that aside... you're kidding me, right? You'd just be inventing problems caused by religion. Now, religion does cause problems, but this would only be (at best) perpetrating a fraud. You know about Piltdown Man, right? Very bad idea; there was no need to 'invent' evidence in that instance, and there isn't a need to do so in any arena worth defending.
Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors of their own accord without us needing to 'top up' their numbers. If people aren't already disgusted and appalled by ancient traditions leading down such roads, then there's a problem that obviously needs to be addressed; framing Christians for crimes that they haven't committed is not addressing a problem, it's blindly lashing out (even if your methods themselves are well prepared). I mean, who's to say that a regular series of doctor shootings and clinic bombings would even swing the zeitgeist the way you intended? Maybe it would instead just further embolden the indoctrinated and sweep your country into the 'good old days' of lynching and burning heathens.
...Poe?
...Christian posing as an atheist in a misguided attempt to get us to agree that blowing people up is a good idea?
...Garden variety sadist nihilist?
That's really fucked-up stuff, dude. Again, your underground network would quickly become obvious enough to the authorities anyway (believe it or not, it's rather difficult to set off explosives and murder people while remaining under the radar. People have eyes, ears and mouths, afterall, and love to use all three - the latter in particular), and... isn't it rather ass-backwards to be doing to the things we don't want religious fanatics to be doing in order to get them to stop doing them? I mean, what's the point then? There's no ethical different between an atheist flying a 747 into a building and a muslim extremist doing the same thing.
Well, what about the lives lost in this ridiculous campaign you propose? They don't count, I guess?
Sure, the pen is only mightier than the sword until we're both standing face to face and one of us has a sword and one of us has a pen. Diplomacy isn't going to be a successful solution to every single problem (the Enterprise has photon torpedoes and phasers for a reason
), and members here have repeatedly made it clear that they aren't so naive. But violence is usually the best solution only when it achieves a very obvious objective and when immediate action needs to be taken.
Look at the American revolutionaries; they knew that talking alone was not going to net them a constitution and that if they did not act right then, they would be pressed beneath the bootheels of British colonialism for centuries to come (perhaps forever). If I heard that Obama suddenly declared a crisis of faith in America and was sending the secret service around to round-up atheists, communists and homosexuals, sure; I'd get on a bike and head to the border (yeah, you'd have to give my sorry ass a month before the cavalry would arrive
) and be game for guerrilla warfare against the fascists.
But we're miles and miles for being anywhere near that kind of climate in North America right now, and we're trending in the right direction. Terrorism would achieve nothing because, right now, there is nothing to be achieved by it.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I do not think we need to go on a "Crusade" or "Jihad" in a physically violent sense. I think the species has had far to much of this politically and religiously and especially when the two are combined.
I think religion's fantastic comic book claims are absurd enough that when exposed more and more people will be forced intellectually(not physically) to backpeddle or to give up the position.
"Ridicule is the best weapon against unintelegable propositions" Thomas Jefferson.
Knowing what DNA and that it takes TWO SETS i puts claims of virgin births propery under the definition of "Rediculous".
Knowing what rigor mortis is puts claims of surviving death properly under the definition of "Rediculous".
Violence is the dogmatic game plan, used by both those who worhip the state or worship a god or worship both. Reason is the ability to go where the evidence leads and the use of appeal without violence to SHOW others what is proven.
Atheists do not, nor should they want to become what they say they hate. We should no more want to become like Kim Jong Ill, or an Iatola. We can and should use our voices to ridicule fantastic claims and SHOW people how absurd they are. But in all that, we still cannot ignore human empathy in that there will always be differences and in the end we are still all humans.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No, I said it was against the law. What could possibly be morally repugnant about cutting up barrels? Come on, dude.
Terrorism operates even more smoothly with less sophistication. Plus, there's ways of limiting information.
Now I think THAT is a stretch. When there's no media outlet praising the acts, nobody is going to be emboldened to help "sweep the country," with lynching and burning heathens. Even people in the deepest of the South aren't going to give up their lives when they don't even know who's responsible in the first place. And no, this isn't blindly lashing out when something as simple as Cancer creates doubt in the minds of believers every day.
You live in a fantasy world. Scientology has gotten away with countless murders. With enough money, you could allow people to "leak" information, then just pay their lawyers off later.
What lives lost? Believe it or not, people outside the desert can build bombs without attaching them to their bodies.
The Enterprise doesn't turn it's phasers and photon torpedoes on...the Federation. And the objective here is obvious. You have to understand, success wouldn't result from a world-wide immediate, unanimous withdrawal from religion. Success would be by changing the atmosphere and allowing people to change on their own. Whether or not everyone was "converted" or not, wasn't the objective.
Again, you live in a privileged existence. Local news doesn't accurately display the world's problems, bud. Considering our last CHRISTIAN president declared war on an entire country while PRAYING (openly admitted) that it was the right decision, should be flashing lights in your head, immediately. You think just because we got Saddam Hussein that no innocent Iraqi's died in the process? That none of our soldiers died in this process? Rofl.
I said you could have the last word, not that you could continually preach your bullshit afterwards. Again, the content of the thread is lost on you. For an Atheist who is tired of religious fanatics killing each other to volunteer an idea where Atheists can join them in an exaggerated way is of course satircal. Whether you consider it witty or not doesn't really matter since I don't hold your opinion to be even slightly intelligent. Also, it's hypocritical to call someone puerile for using profanity, when you follow up your argument by...telling me you fuck my mom, "bitch." I mean, I think it's awesome how you openly own yourself in front of everyone by cheapening your own logic, but I thought you would know that just because it's in another language, it doesn't give you a license to be stupid. : /
So.......
Are we starting a terrorist cell or not?
This might surprise you but I don't actually need your permission to have the last word or preach bullshit. If someone wants to defend you then I have no problem with that. But if they want to defend you by suggesting that I'm a humourless dick who doesn't recognize sarcasm then they would just be wrong.
If I thought you were serious then I would have just reported you. I'm telling you that you can get yourself and other people in trouble regardless of whether or not it's serious, and that as an attempt at satire it lacks the vital component of being clever.
Now if you want to continue down this road of taking a pissy little aggressive attitude that if someone challenges you then you'll make them look stupid even though you don't even know how to use spellcheck then yeah, I'm going to point out your obvious shortcomings and curse back at you when you curse at me. Even a person in your state should be able to understand that.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
XD He's still posting. Dude, just let it go. By the way, attacking someone's grammar is the tell-tale sign you have nothing left.
Well, like I said if you're going to catch a pissy little aggressive attitude and call people stupid you might want to use good grammar while you do it. Otherwise you look like kind of a twat. I'm sure you take offense to the comment that you're not intelligent, thoughtful, and responsible but let's face it, if you were intelligent and thoughtful then your writing would be compelling but it's not. If you were thoughtful and responsible then you would've considered that you can cause trouble for other people by writing this drivel, but you didn't. Of course neither of those things makes you a bad person. It makes you an irresponsible person and a bad writer, but not a bad person. Your attitude is another matter but I find it amusing in a way so I won't necessarily fault you for it. And "salope" doesn't necessarily mean bitch. I know that's what google translate probably told you but it's not very precise.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
First one to suicide bomb the others house, gets a cookie!
Doom, no offence but if the day ever comes when I need the input of a sociopath, I'll let you know.
I mean the funny thing is that if this guy got in trouble, you'd laugh your fucking ass off. But he's going to come in here and suck your dick anyway.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Its good to know im wanted ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
I don't take offense to anything you type because I don't consider you intelligent. By the way, spellcheck isn't a word you fucking moron. Talk about irony. XD
"Spellcheck" actually is a word. It's the name of a function in several programs written in c++ and a class in the .net framework class library.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Wouldnt that just fall under a "name" and not a word?
After all, i could create an object, and trademark it as "Skhsei" doesnt mean Oxford dictionary's gonna allow it to be an offical word of the english language
What Would Kharn Do?
Well. I mean he's going to suck it figuratively. But you would never try to stop a person from talking about terrorism in public, not because you think there couldn't be any consequences but because you don't care if they suffer any consequences. You're the best friend of the reckless and ill-informed.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I don't think there is an official English language. It's not like French where there's L'Académie française that decides what is part of the language. If it's in the common usage it's a word I think.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
No. It's spell-check or spell check, depending on what part of speech you're using. Also, if you were referring to a specific program it would be "Spellcheck," not "spellcheck." Also, most of these programs call it Spellchecker. Even Microsoft Word's "Spellchecker" says you're wrong:
Quit back-paddling, you're embarrassing yourself.
I don't use Microsoft Word, but I can see that you have a lot riding on this.
Alright, this is what my computer says. Now admittedly maybe the people who made OpenOffice don't know how smart you are, or that they can't put the words "spell" and "check" together in such a vulgar fashion, or that it has to be capitalized. But if you want to claim some sort of victory here I don't mind.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Words are important.
No, I'm pointing out how pathetic you are to equate spelling errors to a person's intelligence. Considering I don't spell-check and wrote 10X more than anyone else in this thread without making THAT MANY errors should say something. Honestly, spell-checking isn't a sign of intelligence, anyway - it's a sign of habit. If you spell-check your posts than you're letting a program think for you.
I hope you're sitting down for this, but when I'm typing late at night on a website that will most likely be taken down very soon, I don't care about minor spelling errors. Next.
Clock, please! I'm trying to engage in a serious discussion here.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
...Over whether or not spellcheck is a word?
..eh what?
taken down very soon?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Look, I never said spelling has anything to do with intelligence. I said if you're going to insult me you should use spellcheck when you do it. I mean I'm literally giving you advice on how to insult me, while you're insulting me. That's how cool of a person I am. I understand your anger okay? I insulted you, and nobody likes to be insulted but that's no reason for a flame war.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
No, man. About appropriate ways to discuss sensitive matters. And whether or not spellcheck is a word I guess. That's kind of in the air really.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Oh don't start sounding pious now. We both know that you were the one who started the hate speech. You'll make the argument that it was I who did with my opening post, but considering it wasn't meant to be taken seriously and you didn't understand, you are the one who started this. I even sincerely apologized to those who thought I was serious, yet you continue.
And again, I told you to leave twice. If you're THAT disgusted by the nature of the thread you would, unless you wanted to antagonize me. I even offered you the last word which was going to be the end of this so-called "flame war," you're referring to, yet you couldn't resist to keep talking shit.