Answer 134

	Sign In Sign-Up

Question134

Why are most atheists not willing to use violence?

A)They know it is wrong because of moral standrads they have worked out. B)They think more about weird stuff in general. (animeg)

Is this a question or a political statement?

ARE most atheists not willing to use violence?

I think a better question would be : What reasons do atheists have for being aginst the use of violence ?

For me the basis is empathy for my fellow creatures. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Mark Richardson #1095)

What an odd question... I'll try a different angle then the other answers I've seen, so how about; Religion is one of the main factors when it comes to conflict, violence and war. (Rune Boersjoe #1295)

Are we?... (Daneel a#323)

Violence is a tool for those interested in control and domination. Since I have no desire for either, I have no interest in using violence. (Nemo #1331)

I can't speak for most atheists, and, depending on the circumstances, I'm not convinced that the assumption behind the question is correct.

For example, if my life or the lives of my children were threatened, I would be quite willing to use violence up to and including lethal force. I would prefer to simply restrain or disable the attacker until the police arrived, but I would kill if necessary. The reason? I don't believe I am immortal. This life is all I've got. I believe that no one has the right to take my life or the lives of my children.

I am not willing to use violence for, say, expressing my displeasure about being cut off in traffic. (Jeff Becker)

Are they not? The question seems to assume that atheists are "strong pacifists," which on the face of it don't seem very likely to me. Perhaps the question might have been better put as "Are you as an atheist willing to use violence as a first resort to a problem, or as a solution to non-violent problems?" (Therion Ware #422)

Is that a fact??? If so - it might have something to do with the connection between blind faith and intollerance - I mean people who are 100% convinced that they have The Truth(tm) are more prone to be willing to use violence to promote their idea - if you're willing to question your POVs/Believes you will also be more tolerant towards other POVs/believes and therefore less prone to use violence to those holding them. Because if you think that your believe is the only Truth(tm) you might see other believes a threats to you or your believe. Though atheism does not automatically have tollerance inherited to it, most atheists know and understand the value of being willing to question your believes - just look at the foolishness of religion and you'll know why... (Mvh. Nikitta #1759)

I'm not sure what the question means exactly. Why are atheists not noticeably more violent than those live-and-let-live, turn-the-other-cheek Christians? Because neither atheism nor theism is a real cause of peoples behaviour. I think both are part of the justification people make up for behaviour they will engage in regardless.

I think atheism is a more sensible justification, but it doesn't drive my behaviour except in certain negative ways, like the fact that I am seldom inside a church.

Some people imagine that religion is a big driver, but I see very little evidence of that in practice. An hour or two on a Sunday which is mostly social anyway. There is no practical difference in the workplace, the streets or the pub between me and J. Random Catholic, and one aspect of that is that I am no more violent than she is. (Niall McAuley #36)

I have to add my name to the list of those not so thrilled with how this question is worded.
What is the statistic on how many atheists are also pacifists?
How was such a statistic arrived at?
How many atheists were questioned?
I am perfectly willing to use violence should I have to defend myself or my property. 'Violence' per se is not an all or nothing sort of affair, there are *degrees* of violence which can be appropriate for specific situations. Under most normal circumstances violence is just uncalled for simply because is counterproductive. Most difficulties between people can be resolved by discussion and understanding, but when talks break down one must be willing and able to defend oneself. I will first attempt to disarm, hold, and/or disable an opponent if at all possible before doing any actual or lasting harm to them, but I am willing to kill if it is necessary to my survival.
I just don't think violence is the best or first answer to any problem, but I am not willing to rule it out as a possible final or necessary answer. (Dr. Necrophage)

Click here to return to master questions page.