Why isn't atheism pacifistic?

[Jay GW]

In the reference material about atheism (see below), it's odd but there's no mention of any atheist philosopher promoting pacifism.

Is there any particular reason why?


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356044
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-atheism.html

[Yahzi]

Is there any particular reason why?
I would think so, yes. I don't think atheists (in the metaphysical naturalist/secular humanist sense) are particularly pacifistic, and I can't imagine any reason they would be.

Atheists, like all rational people, are against unnecessary violence; but if you are focused on this world, then you will use violence to the extent it advances your interests in this world.

Atheists are not going to be rewarded by God in the next world. Thus, they must protect what they have in this one. Evolutionary morality (for humans) does not consider fighting for survival of the individual/group/species to be a crime, as long as you're fair about it.

[Toto]

Bertram Russell was famous for his pacifism. But I don't know if he wrote a philosophical justification of pacifism based on atheism.

[JamesBannon]

Because atheism has nothing to do with pacifism?

[Malachi151]

Because atheists have always been attacked for the past 4,000+ years...

[Pavlov's Dog]

Because pacificsm isn't rational.

[JamesBannon]

Because pacificsm isn't rational.
What does rationality have to do with atheism?

[TySixtus]

Because pacifism is moral cowardice.

Ty

[Ljoilae]

Well, no one is just an atheist, atheism is only a characteristic of different world views not a complete world-view of it's own.

[Clete]

Because pacifism is moral cowardice.

Ty
How so?

[GenesisNemesis]

Um... Albert Einstein? Pretty sure he was a pacifist and an atheist.

[TySixtus]

How so?

Several reasons.

Pacifism is a misnomer. A true pacifist would never use violence to solve a situation. Ever. At the very least, a pacifist would maintain that there is always a peaceful solution to every problem. The former is immoral, and the latter is sophistry.

Take this hypothetical situation: A man walks up to you, takes your daughter, and is about to stab her. You have a gun and you're a pretty good shot. You can shoot this man and kill him before he stabs your child.

A true pacifist refuses to shoot the man. By your direct lack of action, your child dies. You have allowed a murder to take place, one which you could've easily prevented by using violence, killing the man. You are a coward, and you are immoral.

Now many people that call themselves "pacifists" would say "Pacifism doesn't mean you can't defend yourself!" To them I say, "Yes it does." Otherwise, what good is the word "pacifism"? If you're a "pacifist" but believe there are some situations where violence is unavoidable, why should you get the special distinction of "pacifist" when most people are like that anyways? Most people believe that violence is wrong and should be used only when neccessary. Self-proclaimed "pacifists" are arrogant and smug enough to believe that because they happen to spell-out what is already a decent person's normal behavior, they are somehow "enlightened".

Going back to my earlier hypothetical, if you wouldn't shoot the man about to murder your child, something is wrong with you. Lucky for you, this situation is probably pretty rare; which brings me to my next point.

Most people can afford to be pacifists because they live in a civilized society, where other people are willing to commit violence to protect those who think violence is immoral. In other words, you can only be a pacifist because other people are willing to do your dirty work. What would happen if you came to a situation where violence would be required to save your daughter's life? You would either stick to your pacifism and allow them to die, or use violence and save them. In the former instance, you have allowed a child to die, and in the second you are no longer a "pacifist".

Finally, many people bring up Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Let me say that there is a difference between civil disobedience and pacifism. Second, Ghandi suggested that all the Jews of Europe should've killed themselves in order to alert the world to thier plight. I won't take moral teachings from a mind so obviously distorted.

Even the most peace loving of Buddhist monks trained in the deadliest of martial arts. They understood that violence was a last resort, but when it came time to use violence you had damn well better be good at it.

Ty

[naturalist.atheist]

In the reference material about atheism (see below), it's odd but there's no mention of any atheist philosopher promoting pacifism.

Is there any particular reason why?

What does pacificism have to do with lacking belief in god(s)? Do you think atheists are daft? That they are unawares that the world is and always has been a violent place. Atheists don't claim to read the mind of the supernatural being that is said to have made the world. They just try to live in it as best they can. And when all is said and done no matter what supernaturalists may claim to "believe" they do exactly the same, they try to live in the world as best they can.

If there is anything odd here it is the question.

[BioBeing]

Is there a specific aurgument that can be made?

P1: Disbelief in God(s)
P2: ...
P3: ???
C: Therefore, pacifism

Personally, I don't see it.

[Hydra009]

In the reference material about atheism (see below), it's odd but there's no mention of any atheist philosopher promoting pacifism.

Is there any particular reason why?Because there's no real logical connection between atheism and pacifism, in the same manner that there's no real logical connection between atheism and being vegetarian.

Since atheism is merely disbelief in theism, there's nothing in atheism that necessitates that an atheist should be a pacifist, even though it is surely possible. This is in contrast to some religious people who feel that their adherence to their religion requires them to be pacifist.

Even though some famous atheists were pacifists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pacifists), such as Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein, who were mentioned earlier, their pacifism was not seen as arising from their atheism.

[OldYgg]

Isaac Asimov was certainly pacifist in general and definitely atheist. I myself, have been pacifistic at times.

But when it comes down to it, if someone attacks me or my family, I would not be pacifist in that sense.

But as mentioned earlier in this thread, it isn't really an attribute of atheism, although it may be an attribute of some atheists.

Certainly, since I believe there is only this life, I wouldn't take a life without a high level of proof or justification.

This is a major problem with our efforts in Iraq at present. Going to war is like sending a murderer up for the death penalty. You should only be able to do it when the evidence and danger are very high. It appears neither were in the case of Iraq.

Old Ygg

[Jay GW]

Does atheism lead to pacifism? Judging from the references, it doesn't.

Just an observation, that's all.

[OldYgg]

You know it is funny - we get attacked by people for not being soldiers - with the persistent there are no atheists in foxholes, and we paradoxically also get hit with the atheism leads to mass murder?

Exactly who are these atheists that don't fight in foxholes but somehow use pacifism kill millions of people? I don't get it!

Old Ygg

[purple_kathryn]

I know a vegetarian atheist does that count?

[OldYgg]

I know a vegetarian atheist does that count?

Are they militant about their vegetarianism or atheism? lol

You know, some people feel they can't kill animals for food, but have no qualms about killing people. :)

Old Ygg

[Pavlov's Dog]

What does rationality have to do with atheism?

It is rational to not believe in god(s).

[naturalist.atheist]

Um... Albert Einstein? Pretty sure he was a pacifist and an atheist.

It is a common joke to presume that just because you know two people from the same country that somehow they must have known each other when they lived in that country. I have no idea why people think this way. Perhaps it is just parochialism run amok.

[windsofchange]

I think that atheism is morally neutral, since it's simply the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists can be pacifists or warmongers - as can theists.

[AthenaAwakened]

Lack of God belief does not change the fact that some people need a beat down.

[OldYgg]

Lack of God belief does not change the fact that some people need a beat down.

Or that some people want to beat you down. When I was a member of American Atheist and went to meetings I met people who had personally been attacked because they had atheistic bumper stickers on their cars.

In this case, it was in Texas, and the guy had weapons license and took his weapon out of the glove compartment and put it on his lap and waited until the crazy person vented and left him alone.

Old Ygg

[steamer]

A nation of pacifists would be interesting. It isn't like there is any shortage of people willing to go relieve them of all their stuff. The only place pacifism can exists is within societies that are willing to do violence to protect the pacifists interest and enforce its laws.

Pacifism is dependent on the willingness of others to do necessary violence. It is parasitic to a violent society.

On the other hand, since we do have a military and police, I rarely find that I am called to do any necessary violence and so I am less warlike than I would be otherwise.

[Tangible]

atheism isn't a belief system outside of the disbelief in God. Atheists can easily have opposing views.

[OldYgg]

atheism isn't a belief system outside of the disbelief in God. Atheists can easily have opposing views.

Absolutely! And welcome to IIDB.:wave:

[OldYgg]

A nation of pacifists would be interesting. It isn't like there is any shortage of people willing to go relieve them of all their stuff. The only place pacifism can exists is within societies that are willing to do violence to protect the pacifists interest and enforce its laws.

Pacifism is dependent on the willingness of others to do necessary violence. It is parasitic to a violent society.

On the other hand, since we do have a military and police, I rarely find that I am called to do any necessary violence and so I am less warlike than I would be otherwise.

Pacifism as an attribute of any government would only work if all the governments were pacifist and no extra-governmental organizations used violence.

A tall order in the very least.

Old Ygg

[JamesBannon]

It is rational to not believe in god(s).
Is it? Considering that there is no way to determine the truth of the statement "no gods exist" then I wonder. Of course, we post-rationalise our beliefs very often.

[OldYgg]

Is it? Considering that there is no way to determine the truth of the statement "no gods exist" then I wonder. Of course, we post-rationalise our beliefs very often.

Is it rational to believe in something that you have no direct knowledge? I can't determine the truth of the existence of hordes of imaginary and mythical beings, but I don't believe in them because I have a) no personal contact with them and b) no reliable data that indicates they exist.

Old Ygg

[Pavlov's Dog]

Is it?

Yes.

[general_koffi]

What does rationality have to do with atheism?

Many atheists deconverted - a process which usually requires extensive application of rationality and logic over emotion.

Even those who didn't have to deconvert often find themselves having to defend their lack of faith. Defenses of atheism vs. theism almost universally draw on rationality and logic.

Anyway, atheism isn't pacifistic because, unlike a religion, it is not a set of moral guidelines for living one's life. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. Beyond that, anything flies.