Should fanatics be sent to camps/gassed?

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.


8 thoughts on “Should fanatics be sent to camps/gassed?

  1. You seem to be of the opinion that atheists cannot be evangelistic. While they may be the exception, they do exist. And any time there are those who evangelize, there will be those who are fanatical about it. I recognize your humor about this “final solution” to religion, but there could easily be those who take this view to heart. These would be the atheist fanatics.

    • Unlike religion with its claims and demands, Atheism is just a disbelief in god and literally nothing more. When atheists do things, it is not from atheism but from the ideology behind their atheism. Of course fanatics can be atheists, but their fanaticism cannot be caused by atheism.

      • Saying that actions of someone who is fanatical about atheism is not due TO atheism is equivalent to saying that the actions of someone who is fanatical about monotheism is not due TO monotheism. Either both are due to their beliefs, or neither are.

        • you’re not getting what I’m saying.

          atheism implies nothing other than atheism. you can be a communist and be an atheist, you can be a libertarian and be an atheist, you can believe in god and be essentially an atheist towards other religions, or you can believe the bible and still be an atheist out of pure spite toward god, you can be scientific or superstitious and still be an atheist, you can believe you yourself are god, you can make as much sense or as little sense as possible and still be an atheist.

          Communism is an atheistic institution, but so is soccer, because soccer also doesn’t have an official deity, but does that mean everything soccer players do are motivated by atheism? No. Many soccer players would be motivated by wanting to have fun or to compete or to make money, so even though their motivation may not be inherently religious, that doesn’t mean soccer is caused by atheism.

          Religions are defined by their texts, their truth claims and their values, which is why all Christian denominations have to recognize and thus are sharedly motivated by at least some common fundamental beliefs. All religions have their texts, their lore, their rules, and most importantly the things religious people do are justified by their religion because religion’s function is to be a guide. Atheism doesn’t because it isn’t an institution, and it doesn’t prescribe arguments. There need not be any commonality between any two atheists except for a disbelief in god.

          The difference between atheism and religion is as follows: Saying you do something because atheism is like saying you wear a dress because you think the dress is blue… there needs to be something else causing you to want to wear blue dresses, there needs to be something else proving the dress is actually blue. Now if it were a religion, it would say for a fact – the dress is blue, because reasons xyz, and you must/recommended to wear blue dresses because blue is good. Religion provides justification, atheism doesn’t.

          Nobody has ever said “I’m gonna eat pork… because I don’t believe in god.”, you can eat pork because its tasty or because you’re an evil animal torturer, just because atheism doesn’t stop you from eating pork, it doesn’t mean atheism is your motivation for eating pork. Now if you eat pork to piss off religion, that’s anti-theism, which unlike atheism, is an ideology which does cause good and evil because antitheism makes a moral claim about theism and inherently promotes opposition to theism, something that atheism doesn’t inherently do.

          • If, however, a person does something that the religion neither endorses nor condones, then the action was taken due to the person’s ideology, not the religion. Actions taken that fall into this category are entirely on that person since they are not justified by that person’s religion.

            • On principle I would agree, I am believe it or not, against associating religions with actions and ideas not implied by the religion. Thing is though, because religion has all this text and because of its interpretative nature, it does become a grey area and isn’t as clear cut as the deniability of atheism. Religion has always supported both good or bad causes, so much so that there is a popular “no right answer” attitude toward the 4000 or so mutually contradictory beliefs and variations – and that is a problem for a belief that is supposed to be your core guiding philosophy.

              Another thing to consider is that some versions of morality (such as mine) would expect omnipotent beings who bother with humans to take personal responsibility and be capable of not resorting to “lesser of two evils”, so while inaction toward an atrocity could potentially make religion as amoral as atheism *on a specific issue*, perpetuating the idea that it is acceptable for the ultimate good guy to not give a shit on some issues of morality but lecture people on others makes religion overall immoral.

              • I agree the deniability doesn’t seem as clear cut, but it really is. The problem is that some people have a knack for expressing what sounds like plausible “justification.”

                My personal “morality” is that we humans are so insignificant that an omnipotent being wouldn’t / needn’t bother with us. This is coupled with the belief that even the best and worst acts committed are of absolutely no importance in the “grand scheme of things.” But, that’s not to suggest that each person doesn’t have to be concerned with the consequences of his/her actions.

                I believe in pre-birth existence, and that we’re here just to experience what life is like. Our time here is as if in response to questions we asked the deity to which he/she/it said “You won’t even begin to comprehend my answer until you actually experience it.”

                The only question I have difficulty grappling with is deciding which is the “ultimate truth”: Free Will or Pre-destination.

        • Better put, if you believe “religious people should be gassed because there is no god”, what it actually means is you believe “if there is no god, then religious people should be gassed”, and that belief is entirely on you because nothing about “I don’t think there is a god” – which is what atheism is – justifies that.

If you can't think of anything to comment, just fill in your bank account details or social security number.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s