An Atheiest Pov On Religion

[Bluecat]

It's the high british accent. make everything sound smart and friendly.

Well, it's never worked for me!

If the guy who came to america hadn't had a cockney accent, we probably wouldn't have objected to the stamp tax..

When Tony Blair and Madonna try to prole up their accents to sound like one of the people, we Brits tend to object too. (It's known as mockney).

[Bluecat]

To clarify my point: the current war on terror isn't war on a particular state. It is a war against a particular religion, or more accurately, a war against a particular subset of a religion.

Does that mean that acts of terrorism perpetrated by people who are NOT members of that particular subset of that religion, are not considered terrorism under the terms of this war on terror?

Where does that leave, for example, those Hindu subsets which were and are involved in the Tamil Tiger bombings in Sri Lanka and India (suicide bombers before any Muslims were), the long-running IRA terrorism whose perpetrators were overwhelmingly the avowed members of a Christian subset and claimed to be acting for their co-religionists, the terrorism perpetrated against them by and on behalf of a Christian subset which felt itself threatened by them... and so on, ad nauseam (but it sometimes seems, also ad amnesiam)?

Not to mention state-sponsored terrorism.

Considering how short people's historical memories are, one would think from the debate that Muslims invented terrorism and are uniquely connected with it.

Considering some of the arguments I've heard and read about tactics that 'the war on terror' is supposed to justify, it can't be terrorism if we (or our allies, clients and assigns) are doing it.

[Kamina]

Does that mean that acts of terrorism perpetrated by people who are NOT members of that particular subset of that religion, are not considered terrorism under the terms of this war on terror?

Where does that leave, for example, those Hindu subsets which were and are involved in the Tamil Tiger bombings in Sri Lanka and India (suicide bombers before any Muslims were), the long-running IRA terrorism whose perpetrators were overwhelmingly the avowed members of a Christian subset and claimed to be acting for their co-religionists, the terrorism perpetrated against them by and on behalf of a Christian subset which felt itself threatened by them... and so on, ad nauseam (but it sometimes seems, also ad amnesiam)?

Not to mention state-sponsored terrorism.

Considering how short people's historical memories are, one would think from the debate that Muslims invented terrorism and are uniquely connected with it.

Considering some of the arguments I've heard and read about tactics that 'the war on terror' is supposed to justify, it can't be terrorism if we (or our allies, clients and assigns) are doing it.

I was talking purely about the current war on terror as it has been executed to date. My purpose was not to accuse Muslims of being the only religion that had extremists willing to commit acts of terror nor was it to suggest that the sides involved in this particular conflict were the only sides that have ever been involved in any religious conflict. I am well aware that other examples of terrorist conflict exist, I simply chose to not comment on them for the sake of brevity. I fail to see how state sponsored terrorism aids my argument, thus I chose to not address it. I also realize that many of the tactics the US and its allies have used are questionable and the label "terrorist" is sometimes little more than propaganda. However, in order to talk about the current conflict in a manner understood by everyone, I am forced to use terminology that most people understand. I am sorry if any of this offended you.

JimBob: I would consider any religion that does not believe in a god to fit the literal definition of atheist. But you are right, I did not allow for religions like Taoism in my response. I had assumed we were talking about atheist vs theist due to the videos.

[Bluecat]

My purpose was not to accuse Muslims of being the only religion that had extremists willing to commit acts of terror nor was it to suggest that the sides involved in this particular conflict were the only sides that have ever been involved in any religious conflict.

Did I accuse you of anything? Sorry if that's how it sounded. I'm not entirely sure how questions can appear like accusations, mind you.

I was raising questions about the definitions and the limitations of this term "the war on terror". I do not suppose that you coined the phrase. Your definition of the "war on terror" as being, in reality, a war on a particular religious subgroup, seems to me to be begging the question though.

I fail to see how state sponsored terrorism aids my argument, thus I chose to not address it.

I see.

Insofar as I understand your argument, it appears to somewhat undermine it. That's ... er... one reason why I pointed it out.

Sorry!

However, in order to talk about the current conflict in a manner understood by everyone, I am forced to use terminology that most people understand.

But the definition that you give (not what the coiners of the "war on terror" often attempt to define the term as, incidentally) does instantly raise the religious question. Inaccurately in my opinion... and it appears also in yours.

I am sorry if any of this offended you.

I'm not offended, thank you.

It's actually quite hard to offend me - assuming anyone would wish to!

[Kamina]

Couple of quick responses; I'm short on time.

Of course questions are not accusations, I never said they were. I am simply trying to clarify my statements, as there seems to be some confusion as to their meanings.

The existence of state supported terrorism does not undermine my argument. As I was arguing that religion does not require state support in order to execute organized violence, the existence of state-supported terrorism does nothing. It simply shows that the state can support "terrorism", not that religion needs state support to organize.

I do not care about the struggle to define the term: "war on terror." I am using one acceptable definition of it; the definition has been clearly outlined so that a majority of people can understand it (if this is untrue, then I apologize.) In this particular argument, the many possible definitions of the term are a moot point, since they don't affect the central points I am trying to make. Define the term howevewr you wish, but undrstand that other viable definitions of it can be used.