Can atheists provide rational arguments that terrorists should spare their lives?

Great Debates
241

The situation I presented in the OP is a real one. I have interacted with Muslim people since I was young, but I started approaching the issue of Muslim terrorism only in university, where I had quite a few Arab school mates. My native town has a growing population of Turks and Tartars. I met Muslim Bosnians in former Yugoslavia before, during and after their war. I spend a month a year in Turkey. I work with both Muslim and Christian Arabs from the Middle East, as well as with other people, such as Germans or Indians for example. My brother is an American citizen and has lived in the US for over a decade. I have a master degree in American studies. I hold conflicting ideas, such as considering human beings essentially aggressive and ultimately cannibalistic as a species, but at the same time being astounded by individual human creativity and superb collective efforts. Therefore, I preach against war and condemn terrorism unconditionally.

Now, how to react when someone condones terrorist attacks? How can I make these people empathize with the victims? How can I make them see that human life is sacred? The feeling of the Muslim interlocutor is sometimes that the Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. victims may deserve this treatment based on previous Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. instances of great injustice and suffering caused to Muslim citizens. The feeling of the interlocutor is sometimes that terrorist attacks are not gratuitous acts of cruelty, but part of a guerrilla war, justified by previous attacks on Muslim citizens. In this context, I can see that collateral damage is sometimes regretted (that is, those people could be mourned over, even if they’re Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. citizens, based on the fact that they’re civilians) but accepted. Yet, sometimes civilian victims are not considered collateral damage, but part of the main target, based on the fact that, supposedly, the governments oppressing Muslim citizens have come to power and are supported by the very victims of the attacks. My question is sometimes, for example, what do you do with the atheist people who haven’t voted for Bush and haven’t supported his military campaign? And that’s when I sometimes face the idea that we shouldn’t worry about the death of atheists since they themselves don’t regard their lives as sacred.

Both my interlocutors and I know that atheists don’t believe life has an a priori meaning, or that many of them don’t believe human beings have free will. My interlocutors disparage people holding such views, which I never do. I find atheists as respectable as believers and I’m really annoyed by this interminable quarrel, but I accept it as I accept bad weather.

How do I respond to someone’s attitude of considering the deaths of atheist citizens not worth worrying about? I usually refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because I know my interlocutors are as interested in Muslim citizens receiving a fair treatment as are atheists entitled to be acknowledged and respected as citizens with equal rights. Sometimes this argument works, sometimes it doesn’t. There are believers who regard an atheist as a rotten apple that may bring suffering and destruction to the whole group, and in certain occasions, although not as a rule, I feel they might be right.

Well, yes, I guess the problem lies, to a some extent, in me. I genuinely respect atheists as much I respect believers, and I think that, in order to accomplish a stronger social respectability (which they may claim they don’t need, but which I think they deserve) they should endeavor to accomplish more than just trying to curtail religious tendencies or excesses. More as in addressing the urgent problems of mankind more actively if they really regard human life and dignity praiseworthy. The atheist community seems quite quiet when it comes to helping people in need and their little international visibility makes one suspect that atheists may actually not care about it, which in turn may confirm a believer’s prejudice that an atheist is invariably selfish and cynical about everything.

242

How do you “know” this? It sounds like you know very little about what atheists actually believe. Pretty much every assumption you (or your friends) have made about atheists in this thread has been all or mostly wrong, including these.

You also say this:

What occasions are these?

More wrongness about atheists and the atheist community.

Yes, part of the problem is you. Specifically that you seem to have all this “knowledge” about atheist beliefs and the atheist community, and pretty much all of this knowledge is wrong.

243

It’s pretty easy to read the Quran and believe Allah condones killing non-believers. Since we’re talking to a theoretical terrorist they probably believe just that, so appealing to their religiosity won’t be helpful.

One can point to the ineffectiveness of terrorism (e.g. 9/11 = ~3K dead, we turn around and kill 300K+ in Iraq/Afghanistan, take 'em over, zero of their policy goals met; Iran is bottled up; Israel continues to do whatever they want). Nuclear terrorism might be more effective, or maybe it’d lead to even worse retaliations. Hard to tell until they try it.

You could try to appeal to ending the cycle of violence. Say that the guys directing the drone strikes are operating under the same logic as the guys putting on the vests. Or instead of answering with violence they should try to improve their countries and build them up economically. If Islamic countries were rich and powerful and culturally influential they might actually be able to spread Islam more effectively and reduce the West’s imperialism by combating it with their own.

But that’s some hippie dippie BS that doesn’t cool off the underlying machismo. So I guess it’s impossible.

244

I’ve studied both the religious phenomenon and atheism, and I’m quite familiar with the subject. Out of courtesy, I accept my ideas may be wrong but I find no argument in your post to disprove my statements. What? There aren’t atheists who deny the existence of free will? Do atheists believe there is an a priori meaning to life? You can’t repeat “You’re wrong, you’re wrong,” forever without stating clearly the mistake I make.

245

There is historical evidence that terrorism does weaken the oppressor. Hitler failed to control the territories in former Yugoslavia due to the resistance opposed by Tito’s terrorist/guerrilla fighters and there are historians claiming that but for Tito Hitler wouldn’t have lost so many troops and managed to defeat the Soviet Union. Russia didn’t manage to impose the communist regime and extend its influence in Afghanistan due to the Muslim terrorists. Acts of unimaginable cruelty, such as killing white people in the USA by black slaves or in South Africa by black militants, have managed to make some people acknowledge the urgency of the racial problem. Terrorism was used by Ancient Athene when, for example, wiped out the entire population of an island city who refused to join its alliance (yes, there is also terrorism of the state), but it is a modern plague as well. Focusing on only treating the symptoms is not wise or rational - reason says we should prevent it. Well, my opinion, of course.

246

Perhaps there are a few, but the only thing you can say about atheists as a group is that they don’t believe in a god or gods. That’s it. You keep saying other stuff about atheists, and most of it is false.

Many do. Some may not.

I’ve pointed out several mistakes. Most of what you say about atheists has been a mistake.

247

Okay.

248

Please expand on this. On which occasions is an atheist a “rotten apple that may bring suffering and destruction to the whole group”?

249

Another argument would be to point out that there are many people here who use the same logic they do, just reversed. e.g.

  1. Muslims are sub-humans or not worth as much as one of “ours.”
  2. Muslims don’t value their own lives, they even blow themselves up.
  3. Muslims want to die in holy war and go to paradise, so we’re just granting their wish when we bomb them.
  4. Non-combatants getting bombed is OK, they support terrorism anyway. Like all the people preaching the glories of martyrdom.
  5. Hawks on our side will say we have to retaliate for X, or they’ll think we’re weak. In fact, we need to escalate to show them we mean business!

Now they might just accuse you of being a traitor or believing in the logic, or they’ll dismiss the example because obviously Allah is with them and not us so it’s OK if they think that way, but there’s a small chance a light will blink on that the underlying thought process is wrong.

250

Should there be ?

ETA : This answer provided by the Kobal & Sons Rabbinical Foundation & Rhetorical Plumbing Supplies, est. 1981

251

If we take Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, for example, there should. An a priori meaning to human life seems to enable a person to feel fulfilled more easily and/or effectively.

252

This point dovetails with what others have said about atheists being a rather random group of people who have one single thing in common. There is no atheist flag, or cross, or crescent, or any other unifying symbology (even the circled-A is not all that widely used). You can see the religious people helping others because they often advertise their faith. Atheists have nothing to advertise, so they just help out quietly and move on – this may even be a laudable thing, not calling attention to oneself.

Yes, atheists are sometimes selfish and cynical, to about the same extent as everybody else. I am not sure if you could express this idea, or would want to, but the evidence that religious faith or worship of a deity makes one a better person is simply not there. Unbelievers are as good and as bad as believers can be, some people can truly benefit from belief, some can actually be made worse by it.

253

One would imagine, based on this guy’s beliefs, that atheists are constructed in a factory somewhere. Clearly they are not people born into families to parents with hopes and dreams living in communitites with standards and cultures with norms.

Look, UY Scuti, at this point you should probably just accept that whenever you form the words “I know that atheists…” in your head, whatever follows is going to be desperately wrong.

254

I still do not see what your point might be.
The attitudes that you describe are every bit as common among people in the West, (both among believers and non-believers), as they appear to be among the people with whom you are talking. The language differs by a little bit, to the extent that religion helps to shape culture that further affects language, but the ideas have the same result.
I often hear people saying that they “deserve what they get” because “they don’t put a value on human life.” Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, one writer infamously noted that we should invade Afghanistan and compel all of them to become Christians–a sentiment that she has never retracted and that has been echoed by her thousands of supporting readers. We had a poster on this board announce that we should nuke Afghanistan and turn their country to a “sea of glass.” The persistent problem of attacking weddings with drone launched rockets is accepted by the majority of people and defended by many on the grounds that it is safer for us to kill them, randomly, than to actually make an effort to avoid “collateral damage.”

You appear to be looking for a single argument that will change both a particular cultural belief among a certain number of people as well as changing human nature.

You will never find it.

255

I’m going to disregard this hollow advice. As one who has lived under an atheist regime and studied atheism institutionally, I know atheism better than many.

256

All that study for naught. I cannot think of a single true assertion you have made.

For instance, most atheists believe that life has inherent value. Most atheists find deep, fulfilling meaning to life. Your studies have left you fundamentally ignorant of the topic.

Your thinking itself is not at all clear.

You cannot seem to grasp that moral decisions about theft are not a.function of the thing being stolen. Moral decisions about killing are not a function of the person or thing being killed.

You posted a wall of text about magical mice without coming close to answering the basic question you were asked. Are you incapable of seeing that?

Finally, what atheist regime?

257

You might have lived under a regime that happened to be atheist, and studied institutions that may have been atheist, but there have never been regimes that ruled by atheism and atheism alone (since atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods, and implies nothing else whatsoever).

And I’m curious what you mean by ‘studied atheism institutionally’. Could you please expand on this?

I don’t know why you’re so certain that all of us atheists are wrong about atheism. Isn’t it possible that your preconceived notions are wrong, and that us atheists actually have a pretty good idea of what real world atheists actually believe?

258

If you take out the term “atheists” in all of your posts in this thread and substitute it with the term “people that dislike ice cream”, how much sense would your posts make?

259

That’s a shame. It’s good advice.

260

Please define “good” in this context. I don’t think a hollow advice is usually a good one, but I’m willing to learn.