The answer to this question may seem obvious, but apparently not!
So someone watched my video “why there will never be atheist terrorists” in which I explain that atheism – a non self-justifying, nothing commanding disbelief in god – could never motivate terrorism because atheism in itself doesn’t prescribe anything, it is simply a statement of belief that is derived from a person’s pre-existing ideology, and if an Atheist does anything it will be due to his ideology and not because he also happens to be an atheist.
To be fair the video title wasn’t exactly accurate even though I tried to make it as concise as I could. But then, not my fault maybe the idiot didn’t even watch the video and merely saw the title and decided “gotcha!” (typical internet behavior), which would explain why he basically said “you are wrong, because atheists DO commit acts of terrorism [for self gain]!”
So I said, “there is a difference between a criminal and a fanatic, everyone can be a criminal but only fanatics can knowingly commit atrocities that benefit nobody but god”, and then I said “pretty much all religions are fanatical, they have to be in order to say alive in the information age.”
So obviously, what I really meant was “all religious people are violent fanatics who do no good and should be rounded up in concentration camps and gassed”.
The guy says that because I, an atheist, called religion fanatical, therefore atheists are Nazis (heil)
But the thing is, that is all baseless inference. I
never said all religious people were violent fanatics, nor did I say that fanatics should be rounded up and shot. The first statement is patently false true, and the second makes no sen… hmm.
Can someone please help me out with a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of rounding up and gassing fanatics? All I need are a few really good talking points or some evidence I can use to justify this
glorious final solution ehm atrocious idea! I’m just interested in the logistics of it for… atheist reasons. Heil.
Transcript below, highlight to show:
commenter: Discarding belief also discards the capacity for ruthless ambition? The capacity to commit atrocity? Newsflash: Humans will continue to lust for for wealth and power. They will continue commiting acts of terrorism to achieve these things. This will remain true regardless of what world views are fashionable. Swallowing this ridiculous Kool Aid is the atheist version of magic sparkle ponies.
me: There is a difference between a criminal and a fanatic. Everyone has the capacity to commit crime for personal gain, only fanatics have the capacity for acts of terrorism that benefit nobody aside from their imaginary sky-gods. You threaten a criminal’s life, and they will yield because they are selfish and susceptible to reason. Threaten a fanatic and they go right ahead with blowing themselves up. It is not to say that atheists cannot also subscribe to other fanatical ideologies, but pretty much all religions are fanatical – they have to be in order to stay alive in the information age.
commenter: I’m a Catholic who regularly donates to Catholic schools, charities to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless as well as hospital and prison ministries. In your insane world view that makes me a fanatic that wants to kill people. What? Do you want to round up people like me and place us in concentration camps? Gas and/or incinerate us? In this very thread we can see atheists falling into the same pattern as other fanatics who have tried to make a certain segment of the population scapegoats for the world’s problems. If you’re looking for dangerous, xenophobic fanatics, I suggest you look in a mirror.
me: lets pretend that catholic schools, catholic charities and catholic hospitals have no alterior motives aside from their intended functions. lets pretend for a moment these catholic organizations are perfectly benign schools, charities and hospitals that are catholic in name only. ask yourself, why would you want to help out? why would you care about education, healthcare or the wellbeing of the downtrodden? If your answer is: because an educated society progresses quicker and better thus benefits my wellbeing, because a healthy society is more efficient and happier which creates a better environment for me, because charities prevent suffering that I hate to see and charities are a social safety net that prevent the danger caused by desperation of the extremely disenfranchised, or any other sane, logical reason, then congratz you are not a fanatic. But if your answer is “because GOD said so” or “because in this book it says to do this and I have to because if I don’t god will hate me”, then you are a fanatic. If you look down on the mortals who dare to prioritize their own wellbeing, if you value god’s will over human life, if you see other people’s suffering as a convenient shortcut for you to experience god, you are a fanatic. Fanaticism isn’t just about how violent you are, it is also about your reasoning process, and there has yet to be a single religiously motivated act that can’t be better, less harmfully motivated through secular, universal reasoning. I think its good you fired up your persecution complex and ask me if I want to kill you or place you in concentration camps, because I do challenge you to think long and hard about every aspect surrounding such an act. How would I make it happen? What are the advantages? What are the risks and disadvantages of rounding up the religious and gassing them? And why is it that you think it is acceptable to want to gas someone just because they are fanatics?
I have yet to receive a reply, for some reason.