The debate "There are Christan terrorists eg. kkk" was started by
February 26, 2016, 3:53 pm.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
barman posted 4 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
RyanWakefield, PsychDave, PoliticsAsUsual, barman, ThinkSkeptically, ReadyToBegin, pajrc1234 and 4 visitors agree.
fadi, ReedMurphy and 4 visitors disagree.
then you don't understand definitions. anarchists are against government and have nothing to do with religion.
for me its same
did a quick Google cause I never heard of this. is the the Greek ones? and my search said they were anarchist terrorists, not atheist.
BTW, by pointing out atheist terrorists, which can but so far have not existed as far as I know, does that negate the existence of Christian terrorists? I just want to make sure you realize the 2 are not mutually exclusive and Christian terrorists existed and continue to exist to this day.
not that they represent Christianity or are in any way a minority, just a bunch of crazy individuals with a violent predisposition.
atheist terrorist example-'Rise of fire nuclie'
You make a very good argument for how atheists could justify terrorism to themselves, making an atheist terrorist organization possible. I haven't seen it happen though. The French revolution was a civil war against the aristocracy rather than a religious war, and USSR used religion as a pretext to commit genocide much like they did race and disabilities. Neither of these were really terrorism though.
The Oregon shooter could be considered a terrorist, but his references to the devil embracing him and that Christians would go to heaven after he killed them would make it seem he had Christian beliefs. Even them, I don't think he was a terrorist so much as a young man with mental issues and far too much access to guns.
At the end of the day though you have convinced me that atheist terrorists are possible.
So would the desire to get rid of religion or action as a counterculture count in the same way? Once again, the French revolution and the Oregon shooter, or the USSR's attempt to establish universal atheism? Those active attempts did come with a penalty directed at religious people, for the sake of atheism, even if athiesm didn't say to do so. And religious people would denounce terrorists too, in the same manner athiest would, "that is not the principles we follow". So terrorism is no less terrorism if done by a government, and requires no affirmation other than the actor's own beliefs or belief there should be a lack of belief.
If a person is incapable of saying " people should be like me," and then committing an act that spreads terror, then it is impossible. By this standard, atheism is no different. Because it is possible to be a terrorist without religion, and the belief that religion can be countered by actions of violence, execution, or other fear and death perpetuating system. It doesn't require atheism's consent, only the desire to unite people under the same mindset.
an atheist terrorist would be a valid label if the guy was terrorizing theists of multiple religions over their theism. the people who attack abortion clinics don't do it because of their fiscal conservatism, but specifically because of their Christianity. therefore, Christian terrorists.
There have been 0 cases so far of atheist terrorism, indeed in the early days of atheism, atheists were treated much like the early Christians in Rome.
That's kind of the problem with atheists as a group. They aren't a group. Christians follow the Bible, Muslims the Quran. Atheists don't have a central tenet or Creed or any kind of organization. Atheists don't have any grouping other than not believing in religion. They don't share a common belief, just a common disbelief in a single subject.
Mohism philosophy is superior to Buddhist, in my opinion.
Of course every group has a terrorist element, by group I mean going beyond religion, even to lack of, atheists can be terrorists too. Would the Oregon campus shooter be considered an athiest terrorist? I would say so. The French reign of terror? By definition, terrorism and tyranny.
I don't like think tanks, all I'm doing is going a bit farther beyond the obvious to stir controversy. I admit it, I am going out of my way. Still, it's because I don't want people to polarize by agreeing, the conversation becomes terribly predictable. Somebody would say that atheism can't advocate for terrorism, so there can't be atheist terrorism. By that logic, it can't advocate for intellectual integrity, simply in a lack of belief.
the B'hai faith is without terrorists, I believe. they are an Abrahamic faith that preaches unity and states that God sends a different profit to a different people at different times depending on the message he feels they need to hear at that time in order to progress.
personally my favorite religion since Buddhism which is based entirely on morals and lacks any God.
even if you provided an example of a religion without terrorist groups, Christianity is not a religion without terrorist groups. So for the purposes of this debate it doesn't really matter.
no man do you think jainism has? if you find one than prove it
Not really a debate, more just a statement. There are probably terrorist groups for each major religion.