What shit, exactly, and where and against whom?

If you're alluding to the possibility that, for example, some kind of (violent) war is declared on atheists, and you're wondering if we'd pick up arms to defend ourselves, I think the answer would be a resounding yes. It's actually been discussed on these boards before.

If you're wondering why atheists seem to lean towards the pacifist side, I suspect that's because our theist friends have been doing the violence thing for, well, millenia now and we feel like that's maybe not working out so well.

There are myriad reasons for armed conflict, but one of the big ones is a difference of opinion on who has the best invisible friend.

I wouldn't advocate violence as a means of resolving differences of opinion, but like it or not, it's a fact of life that's not going away.  As long as people have free will and the ability to be violent, someone, somewhere, will choose to do so... it's just as inevitable as rolling a 1 on a 100-sided die after 1 million rolls.  There's a meme floating around society that violence is always wrong, and I suspect that meme could be traced to Christianity.  So, what do they tell people to do who are in dangerous situations?  Call the police, get help, don't try to fight back yourself... leave it to the authorities.  If for no other reason, this is a bad idea because a lot of bad things can happen in the time it takes the authorities to show up.  I would recommend that everyone take some self-defense training... hope that you never have to use it, but be prepared in case you do.

I'm not attributing this to atheism. I'm attributing it to pacifism. According to the witness accounts I read there was furniture present that could have been used to subdue Greydon. My point is that perhaps we need to gear our reactions towards something more proactive than everyone running for help. Surely, at a convention it couldn't be that far away, therefore a whole lotta screaming and yelling coupled with the sounds of struggle should be sufficient in attracting attention.

Again you're assuming I'm attributing pacifism to atheists. I think pacifism is a principal that fails people from all walks of life.

Will we allow them to take us down with them or will we rush the cockpit? Imo the apocalypse is very real as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Would that be wrong? It might lead some to questions of our peaceful intentions but in the instance of things getting out of hand at least we won't be caught with our pants down.

Violence is only excusable as a counter to violence, and even then one has to be very careful in defining the threat, let alone in deciding the counter-measure. As one of the people who you mention voiced opposition to the sadistic trend amongst some of the posters regarding the rape question and whom you claim you don't understand, let me assure you that I am most definitely not a pacifist in all circumstances. However ineffectual it might have proved in the past I have resorted to violence when attacked physically, and I dare anyone to do otherwise or claim to do otherwise under direct and immediate assault.

But that isn't even the point of your question, if the last bit is anything to go by. Are you saying that the religious are on the verge of inflicting institutionalised violence against atheists?

What planet are you on?

That isn't pacifism. That's the bystander effect, also known as the social dispersion effect. It has nothing to do with a person's belief about violence, but with their willingness to help in a situation in which there is more than one person to help. As a rule, a person will only help in a violent situation if they feel that they are personally held accountable for helping, whether they're a quaker or a right wing gun-nut.

Fair enough. Are you aware of any studies that show any correlation between attitudes towards violence and the actions people take when confronted with theses circumstances? I think we're over due here in the states for some good samaritan laws.

Fistly, hi Zack.

I'm concerned about alot of things. Violence is one of them. I label myself a pacifist at times. It's just a word, it is not an imperative. I am certainly not willing to be subjugated by anyone, neither by physical force, nor by intimidation of any kind. You can't infer that from a person being against violence.

Knowing that there is no afterlife means taking someone else's life is the single most terrible thing you can do. Neither God, nor the devil will be taking care of the judgement of someone that I kill. I am the one imposing the irrevocable judgement that that person derserves to cease to be at that moment. That is no small judgement, and thinking long and hard about that is certainly not ignoring the big picture, if you ask me.

If violence is the only option then who cares what people here think? If there is just one option then I will either die, in which case my opinion will be irrelevant, or I will act contrary to any pacifist stance I may or may not have held in the past. And, firstly, I am not in America, secondly, the fastest growing the religion in the world may be Islam, but the fastest growing stance on religion and spirituality would appear to be no religious affiliation. Setting up a false picture of "America = screwed by xtians, and rest of world = screwed by Islam" serves only to add fuel to the flames, and say there is only "fight or die". Maybe there is a myriad of possible "don't fight, but still live" scenarios. All I do is consider those as well. Once you can prove without a doubt that violence really IS the only option, then you can come back to me with that, and see what I think then.

Restraining someone is not violence. What if someone told you that they were a pacifist, that I will NEVER under any circumstances use violence for ANY means, but was more than willing to physically restrain someone to stop THEM from comiting violence, but would never ever strike them? It is probably very difficult, but if this hypothetical pacifist was some master of Aikido or something, and really could restrain even a big person, would you still take offense at their pacifism, if you had witnessed them act with courage and determination in hairy situations, but always refusing to actually hurt anyone?

Because if you take offense at people's cowardess then that may be valid, but it is an entirely different matter.

(As an aside, I have followed the whole Greydon/Brian thing, but I don't want to comment on the specific situation. I think we ought to treat it as a personal matter between Greydon and Brian, and I certainly don't want to sit on the other side of the  world and comment smartly on a tragic event between two good friends, who I don't know personally. Insofar as it affects the community at large it has allready been extensivelly covered by everyone involved, and by now it seems every geezer with a keyboard has divolged their oh-so-sage oppinion on it.)

If you are looking to others to act with violent means, then you are not a pacifist, because then you are not objecting to someone else being violent, and then you are not a pacifist, just someone not willing to throw yourself into the mix (that would be a coward, I suppose).

Oh, and also:

Warmongering allows bad things to happen, period.

So then we are no further.

There are two different issues here: Harsh punishment (torture) and Death sentance. To start with the death sentance, yes, of course from a rational standpoint, with no moral, but only a practical consideration it is of course much more efficient to just shoot someone in the back of the head. Bullets are cheap, and a lifetime prisonsentance is very very expensive indeed.  And if a particular criminal's brain doesn't work, then sure, maybe it never will, and he'll keep being a psyko killer forever.

But I'm not worried about his mental health, as much as I am worried about mine, and the rest of society. If we devalue human life to such and extent, that he is just a broken cog in the machinery that is society, if he is just a cancer that needs to be cut away, then why not remove ALL the defunctive cogs? The handicapped, the unemployed, the political opposition? The ones who won't conform to their own society's social norms, and therefore causes unnecessary strife?

Here in Denmark the religious social norm is atheism, so I'm good, but in America? Well, have fun in the Death Camp. I can't really object when they put you there, cause after all they are just curing their own society of a cancer that causes unnecessary strife.

Do you know Greydon or Brian personally? Then please leave them out of your examples. I know Brian reads these boards, and maybe he won't like you using his personal experiences as a basis for drawing your own conclusions.

As far as I'm concerned, any person is accountable for their own actions, regardless of their mental health, but I also think that if you want to forgive and/or forget, then that is your choice too, and you are accountable for that choice, and the consequences it might have.

And, just as importantly, you are also accountable if you want to go the "eye for an eye" way. And if that leads to the (to me obvious) "...for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye..." permanent digress, then you can be sure I'll be pointing that out to you, and you can hold me accountable for that too.

As I understand it, what follows is about political assasination and justifiable war. Well, what can I say? I don't know if you've noticed, but this tends to happen quite alot in history. Some assasinations are good, and some aren't. Same with war. Some wars and assasinations are good FOR YOU if you are on the political side of whoever benefits. I am glad the allies won the Second World War. I imagine neo-nazies and fascists aren't.

People kill eachother all the time for all sorts of reasons. I can probably think of many situations in history that I, with the benefit of hindsight, can say were "good" wars, or "good" murders, but I cannot think of a hypothetical murder I can condone, because I can't foresee the future (no one can or ever will, because the future doesn't exist until it's here, and by then, it is the present, not the future... But I digress).

Even Bin Laden's murder is something I can't condone. Who's to say he would not just become even more powerful in death as a symbol of martyrdom (who's to say he isn't allready dead? I mean, he's only ever sending out audio tapes these days, which he's heirs in Al Quada may be faking, and the CIA can't admit that they have killed him because... well maybe because they used their new experimental death ray developed from technology recovered at the Roswell crash )

There is always a war going on somewhere, and murders happening all the time, but I am not directly responsible for that. I take responsibility for my OWN actions, and as of yet, I have stayed clear of violence for both moral and practical reasons. I pass judgement on others only insofar as I feel it that my oppinion is warranted. I don't know the motive for every single war and murder that has ever happened, and some of them may be warranted in the eyes of the ultimate objective obserser (but he doesn't exist, remember? Cause we are atheists, and ALL us mortals have a stake in all other mortals one way or the other, so we are never ULTIMATELY objective, only approximately objective).

All I know is that I find violence absolutely abhorent, and if you are going to convince me that it is reasonable in one particular instance, then I will need to know the specifics of that instance, and then maybe I will see the practical argument, but probably not the moral one. Wether I go with practicality or morality is anyone's guess. If the world is coming to an end by then, I'll probably go with practicality. Survival is, after all, a very very powerful impulse.

I gotta say, I'm not much of a believer in the Apocalypse, and I really don't see the world going to hell in a handbasket like you do, but I think the more we are willing to condone violence, the more likely we are to end up there.

So if the shit really does hit the fan, I'll do what all animals do: adapt and survive, or, more likely: die.

Hi Zack.  Nice to meet you.  I'm an atheist too.  And I, for one, consider the label 'pacifist' a derogatory term.  Actually I consider the stance of pacifism as being immoral.  I'm not at all adverse to fighting, war, and slaughtering each other.  Violence has settled more disagreements than any other method after all.  We are just animals to be sure.  And we kill each other for resources.  Much like the USA is doing today in the Middle East.  Resource: Oil.  If it comes down to you or my family I will rip your fucking throat out with my teeth.

Is that what you want us to say?  Well it's the truth.  I'd do it without a second thought.

Yeah.  Kind of fucked up sounding isn't that?  However since I don't know the exact details I will not assume a lot of shit.  That would be rather stupid, would it not?

I'm sure if you were there Brian would not have sustained a scratch.

I would not do it now, because they shaped the world you were born into except for Osama.  There is a good chance that you would not exist if WWII didn't play out the way it did.  Nor, most likely, would have the USA ever even been considered a "world power" at all.

The USA was considered inconsequential before WWII.  We were wallowing in the Great Depression.  Afterwards the US was considered a force to be reckoned with.

Someone here does not "believe in violence"?  Really?  I think that violence is a pretty obvious fact of our existence. 

I'll use your body as a shield to protect myself from their attacks.

Good samaritan laws?

Violence is a natural impulse in the human animal. But so is cowardess.

You can't object to people reacting with cowardess based on the emotional response that is your loathing for cowards, while simultaniously saying that I cannot object emotionally to the loathing that I have for violent people.

Again: a pacifist is not the same as a coward, nor is a person who ideologically condones violence automatically a couragious person.

Geez, you guys are so sensitive. It seems to me that you and I agree, so you're probably not the kind of person I was referring to.

Did I make any reference to information not provided in Sapient's post?

Perhaps not as many.

That would not somehow make my non-existence less palatable. I only worry about these things because I do exist.

Way to take it out of context.

It extends beyond violence. Recently a man was caught on camera being struck by a car in broad daylight and surrounded by people. The term "rushed to help" would not be an accurate description of their reaction. Sometimes people need the assistance of external stimuli to do the right thing.

There is allready an insentive in place to get people to help victims of accidents and crimes, you don't need laws. The insentive is guilt/social responsibility/morality/instinctive unease at seeing suffering... Most non-psychopathic people have at least some of those traits, and yet, the "bystander"-syndrome persists... Why? Because it is natural. Doubt/fear if the unknown/cowardess/lack of determination... I don't think a state imposed law would do alot of difference.

People are still violent when they want to be, in some countries more so than in others, and that despite the fact that some of those countries have extremelly harsh penalties for violent crimes. The most prisontime you'll EVER get in Denmark is 16 years, regardless of how many policemen you kill, and yet there is less violent crimes here than the US, despite the law being alot harsher in the US.

If you want people to go against their nature, I think changing the general attitude of the culture is more helpful than trying to impose penalty from above.

But then, I am of the very radical oppinion that when it comes to stick and carrot, carrot is not just the best option, it is the only option. Stick will at best be completely useless, and usually it will even be very harmful to your goal in the long run.

But I'm not a behavoral psychologist, so what do I know?

As an absolute statement, I don't agree with you, but for the most part, science proves you correct.  The United States has one of the most draconian penal systems in the post-industrial world, and we also have more crime than almost anyone.  We punish poverty with jail, and we have rampant poverty.  Countries with progressive social welfare programs have low crime and low violence.

There's a section on poverty, race, and social welfare in this book.  I recommend it to anyone who disagrees with government subsidies for the poor.  This is a book with facts, not opinions.  It's very well researched, and shouldn't be dismissed without a good scientific refutation:

i don't know what happend between greydon and brian i think that greydon needs more than just meds for help though. i love all my cousins including greydon and brian you guys just need to remember that unity and cooperation are what will make man better i am going to post a thread to deal with my temper i just had an outburst of rage my self and am sorry to say that i handled it poorly details will be in that thread. i hope for the sake of both greydon and brian and freeminds everywhere this does not leave any permanent hurt to the community or our efforts to free the minds of the masses from the true evil that i see religion becoming in the near future

Nikolaj has a point. It does take serious guts to be a dedicated pacifist, just as much as it takes serious guts to be a dedicated militant. Most successful social movements depended on both.

For the record, Nutxaq and Hamby, I am an "intellectual type" as well. It's just that my problem with the rest of the American Intelligentsia is that we're not militarized enough, in my opinion. We could all stand to learn some discipline and possibly sacrifice some of our individual dignity in order to make the reforms you describe possible.

Did you read my other post, on the previous page of this thread? One of the problems is that some atheists see violence as almost exclusively religious. I think conflict is part of human nature and life always takes life to survive. To assume this to be right in all cases is to commit a naturalistic fallacy. But then again, "He will triumph who knows when to fight and when not to fight." Sun Tzu. Subtextual translation: sometimes appearances, intimidating ones, are enough. A Machiavellian lesson.

Conflict is part of human nature and it should be dealt with rationally, self-consciously. Sometimes violence is absolutely justified by reason. With noble exceptions (as I said in another post on this thread, being a real pacifist, a nonviolent non-cooperator, takes a lot of courage, just as much as taking up arms against an oppressor), I think most people on this forum would have been willing to fight Hitler. I don't have evidence for that, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Did you know that Gandhi actually wrote a letter to Hitler in an attempt to appeal to his sense of reason and use nonviolent methods to achieve the objectives of National Socialism? That's not admirable pacifism. That's naivety.

We'll never get rid of conflict but we can take a stand against irrational conflicts, and against irrationality. That alone is worth living for, and what is worth living for, in my opinion, is worth fighting for: family, friends, and freedom of/from (especially from) religion.

Certainly. The only problem is that seemed to be the only tool in Ghandi's Batbelt. If it had been Hitler the Indian people were standing up to, it would have meant certain doom.

Violence may be part of human nature but for most people its mostly drilled out of people as part of being decent educated. I always remember from school even raising your voice was a sign of being uncivilized never mind hitting someone  (I do occassionaly shout but hey no one is perfect)

You do know during WW2 90% of American/British soldiers never fired a single shot in anger never mind killed anyone. Your average human beings simply don't make good killers by the time they are adults you need to train them to be able to do that. Of course if you are brought up in a ghetto where violence is normal its a totally different matter

I've been a victim of serious crime before where I was mugged, I had my skull fractured but the CCTV camera showed me not raising one hand in defence. It simply wasnt in me, just didnt even occur to fight back and to be honest I don't really want that to change

Fundmanetally we have a role for force in society but you generally employ professionals to do this. Ie the police, military etc we do NOT want the general population becoming AK47 toting Kung Fu guru Neo wannabes

Through intestingly most men like war/violent films maybe catching up with parts of their pysche that has been civilized away?

Wow. That's a totally useless mentality. In a bare bones society with no time for the finer things in life I personally couldn't justify providing rations for an adult that isn't even willing to raise a hand in self defense, let alone  to protect  one of their own.