Are Atheists addicted to conflict?

[Justtristo]

I voted no, because Atheists aren't any more addicted to conflict than the rest of humanity. Indeed Atheist are less likely to desire conflict than some Theists, who love to conflict with others in hoping to convert them. For example; look at the number of theists who have come on here try and convert people on here, I doubt on theist forums there are as atheists joining to deconvert Christians.

A lot of Atheists (even very well thought out ones) prefer to get on with their lives and don't try to 'de-convert' people (because life is too short and time is precious), in the way some Theists love to try and convert others to their particular religion.

However what Atheists assert deeply offends a lot of people. Because it directly challenges their assumptions about life, the universe and everything. Asserting that as truth (which is not a bad thing in my view) is going to create conflict.

[Autumnlicious]

To answer anything other than "no" would be to imply one speaks for all atheists.

"Perhaps" is a trap, as it implies a positive assertion on behalf of some atheists, of which you've no idea whom nor have permission thereof.

Ergo, I have answered in the negative, as it is the burden of proof upon others to show atheists are endemically more prone to conflict as opposed to a believer in anything arbitrary.

[5thHorseman]

I'm addicted to argument. It's fun and I'm right.

[Tempus]

That's SECULARISM. Atheism is non-belief in god. You get secular theists as well.

Glad someone said this. Too often people conflate atheism with secularism, 'reason', 'rationality', etc. There are no atheist values because it isn't a philosophy.

[Cyberman]

Well I'm certainly not addicted to conflict. I just happen to like it an awful lot.

Actually, that's not quite true. If a discussion happens to stray into an area in which I feel I can contribute due to some little knowledge of the subject, or just plain interest, then I will feel I can fight my own corner. Often this can lead to cockiness, particularly due to the essentially faceless, one step removed nature of internet forums, and though I try to overcome this in myself out of a desire not to cause unnecessary offence, there are times when my mood doesn't allow for it. This is just in my nature. However, as the recent unpleasantness showed all too well, where there is obvious ill will and conflict I prefer to lie low and not make waves, particularly so in recent months as my depressive episodes completely destroy my self-confidence.

Hope that isn't too off topic.

[Mister Agenda]

Whether you meant offense or not thats the kind of obnoxious response I'm talking about.

If that's the kind of obnoxious response you're talking about, I'd say we're being pretty civil.

It is not an approach that is going to convince people to take your point into consideration.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Perhaps different approaches work in different situations or on different people. Why do you object to any approach different from yours (the soft sell)?

Also it is a movement of sorts, its a movement towards the ideal that religion should not interfere with our day to day life

As has been pointed out, that's secularism.

and that God isn't needed to give us meaning in our lives.

And that's humanism.

I'm sure theres more I could mention but you get the point.

If your point is that secularism and humanism are movements, I get it, and agree. About time, too.

[jackman]

i only get defensive when people try to tell me what i am doing is wrong. if we're discussing points, that's one thing. if you're telling me how ignorant i am or name-calling, i never do well with that. an adult discussion can take place without making anything personal. i don't agree with anybody atheist or otherwise, who call people stupid for believing or non-believing, when you have no clue how or why the other party feels how they do. maybe it's just a comfort thing to them and helps them to sleep at night. maybe it's the need for community. maybe it's anything. given that, i stray from "factual" conversations, because i'm not a scientist (in the professional form), nor a theist. i happen to not believe there is a god-authority which binds how we act as humans. but i haven't done the research to prove it myself - i've simply read some things that have led me to believe there is no god. and anyone who knows, knows that words are just that. anyone can write them and anyone can spin them. tho i believe the science that i've read, i honestly haven't done the research myself, nor have i even fact checked all of the results. that's why i use logic instead of faith, it just makes more sense to me and i can't understand how it doesn't to everyone else.

fuck, am i still on-topic?

[Neo-Scholastic]

There are no atheist values because it isn't a philosophy.

There are no atheist values because the logical extension of atheism is nihilism. (how's that for seeking conflict)

[Mister Agenda]

There are no atheist values because it isn't a philosophy.

There are no atheist values because the logical extension of atheism is nihilism. (how's that for seeking conflict)

Pretty good, since you're extending a philosophical viewpoint from a condition of not having a postive belief in a particular thing.

How's this for an extension: We cannot know the mind of God, who is omnipotent (or near enough for horseshoes) so the logical extension of theism is chaos since God can change the rules at any time and the universe only has the appearance of order because God has chosen not to change things up for awhile. The order we perceive is absolutely conditional on an omnipotent being not interfering with it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

the logical extension of theism is chaos since God can change the rules at any time and the universe only has the appearance of order because God has chosen not to change things up for awhile.

That would apply to some forms of theism, but not all. Nihilism applies to all forms of atheism.