Because the atheist, if taking his belief to any kind of logical end, rarely gains the conviction to do such things.
But on the other hand, the atheist hasn't needed Jihad; he's had Communist International, half a century of Cold War, the current subjugation of 1.5 billion people in mainland China... After only a few recent centuries of being mixed with international politics, atheism has probably already matched or surpassed all of history's religious zealotry for deaths caused, persecution carried out and destruction levied. Go team!
This is totally disingenuous. There really is no such thing as "atheism." Not believing in something is not an ideology. There are millions of things I don't believe in, because they are complete nonsense or fictions, and some of them are things some people believe whole-heartedly. I do not believe in astrology, is that a-astrologism? I do not believe Allah. Is that a-allahism.
No atheist ever embraced socialism, communist, fascism, or or any other oppresive, statist, or collectivist ideology because he was an atheist. The atheism associated with these ideologies is the consequence of the ideologies, not the other way around. A disbelief is not an ideology. It is simply the absence of credulity concerning one concept, period.
My point about the Muslim terrorist was that religion is no protection from political evil. Another point I did not make is, atheism never results in those kinds of evil, all by itself. Some other ideology must be added to it. Religion is frequently the source of evil all by itself.
You might also be interested in these:
Hank
Let's see... what would it take to convince me, an atheist, to try to kill thousands of people?How many atheists these days have you heard of flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people, or strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves and as many other people as they can to smitherines.
Because the atheist, if taking his belief to any kind of logical end, rarely gains the conviction to do such things.
I'd need to be convinced that this act would make the world a better place for the people I value & cherish, and that their gain would be worth the loss of my life.
But let's take the suicide nature out of the scenario. There's still another essential aspect which we (in these discussions) tend to ignore: Moral humans think in terms of principles. Questions of morality by definition are questions of principle. You can't have a moral code to begin with if it doesn't lay down a principled rule of behavior.
By "principled", I mean that the rule has to apply to everyone in a similar context, not just yourself and in this particular context. Your actions declare moral precedents for the rest of the world to follow.
Now: What kind of principle would I be laying down if I blew up thousands of innocents? I'd be declaring that it's acceptable for people in general to go and kill thousands of innocents. What kind of a world would that be? Would I want me or my beloved fellow humans to have to live in such a world?
For me the answer is NO. I cannot imagine that it could be healthy or common for anyone else to actually want to live in this kind of world. So I am totally secure in my conviction that such terrorism is objectively morally wrong - and I will do what I have to do to fight those few sickos who seek that kind of world, or those mental midgets who are incapable of thinking in principles to begin with.
OTOH, if I was a soldier and I found myself in the situation of targeting thousands of enemy soldiers, and I'm participating in a just war, then I'd be honored to pull the trigger.
The real world presents us with actual scenarios that are much more complicated than these, of course, but yes indeedy this atheist does have the moral convictions necessary to do what's right if it comes to it, thank you very much.