Is atheism/theism a choice?

[msrisotto]

Someone I follow on twitter posted this picture along with the line "atheism is not a choice"

I guess the point of it is that once upon a time (and to this day), unexplainable things were 'explained' as being acts of god. Now we know a lot more, science has investigated many of these things and increasingly, 'god' is out of the picture.

But i'm not sure this is the reason I don't believe in 'god'. I was indoctrinated brought up to be christian and can't remember actually believing any of it. I outed myself as atheist around the age of 12. Was that because I knew scientific theories? Or was it just because I didn't have that faith feeling? It wasn't a choice for me anyway. I just didn't believe. I have often thought how it must be reassuring to have faith of an afterlife, particularly when people close to me have died....but I don't. I can't make myself.

Is it a coincidence that scientists are generally atheist? Do they lack faith and go looking for answers in science? Or did an interest in science give them explanations that eliminated rational evidence of a god?

Is faith or lack of, a choice for you?

I'm pretty sure that one attitude of most people without faith is that Dawkins has no more right to pronounce on the 'morality' in this case than any religious leader does.

Also religion forces others to acknowledge and help the child and their family who are suffering. Religion does not encourage the attitude of not my problem not interested but instead teaches that God will ask you what you did to help.

Surprising then how many 'religious' people do nothing of the sort, and some actively contribute to causing suffering of others.

Whereas many atheists are 'forced' to help because they know that there's no supernatural help available, and this life is the only one anyone has so its encumbent on us to do what we can to make it a good one as far as is in our power. We have to ask ourselves what we did, as a matter of conscience, not because of fear of judgement or hope of eternal reward. [again, what I know of Buddhism works pretty much along these lines too].

Why would god need to test us? He knows the result of any test surely? Would it be reasonable for me to test my children by starving them now and again? Or arranging for them to raped?

Why stop there, head? as I say, why not bury an axe in their little sleeping heads and leave them helpless for life? Apparently as long as you "are with them in their suffering", which does not require any actual activity of any kind on your part, that's OK and should result in worship.

A link for you joanof

Survey reveals that most religious people are not anti-abortion

Almost three quarters of women who have abortions report a religious affiliation

But it's not about abortion per se, or a choice made in personal circumstances - it's an abstract overall view that a foetus with a known disability should always be aborted, all else being equal. It's about disability and whether a human being has value based on what it can do, or its humanity.

I suppose I think it is a more common view in people without a faith due to my own wider family, where this view is very common (and loudly expressed) among members with no faith, but not expressed by those with faith. Not much of a sample, I admit.

It's a very poor sample and your belief is one that statistics easily blow out of the water.

Do they? Which statistics?

But it's not about abortion per se, or a choice made in personal circumstances - it's an abstract overall view that a foetus with a known disability should always be aborted, all else being equal. It's about disability and whether a human being has value based on what it can do, or its humanity.

it's interesting that part of dawkins defense is that that is in fact what happens (i.e. abortion) in most cases when people find out the child has Downs.

I am not sure who is right. keep in mind that Downs can range from mild to really severe. i.e. in some cases you'll have endless health problems and an early death. that would be heart wrenching for the parents. and if the parents already have a child, that older child may also be deeply affected if he/she has a sibling with a lot of health problems and an early death.

it's not an easy decision.

joan - I'm sure you know that 'people without faith' are nothing like a homogenous group. It's not a particularly useful delineation on ethical matters, I suspect, just as all 'people with faith' can vary widely in their stances on all sorts of issue.

Let's remember that the statistics around abortions and Down syndrome are of those tested. People who are entirely against abortion tend not to have the test at all, because there is a risk associated with the test. So it's already a self-selected group.

I'm not talking about people in specific circumstances, such as being pregnant, deciding to have tests, or abortions. I'm talking about people who believe that disabled foetuses in the abstract should be aborted. I believe that this attitude is an awful lot more common than some people like to think, and I continue to believe that it is an attitude that is more likely to go alongside atheism or agnosticism. I haven't yet seen statistics that prove otherwise, but conversely I don't have any statistics to support my belief.

I'm talking about people who believe that disabled foetuses in the abstract should be aborted.

who thinks this?

Richard Dawkins does!!

that's not what he said. he was talking specifically about downs.

Richard Dawkins does not tweet on behalf of atheists in general.

Downs syndrome can be a condition where someone still has a good life. its not an example of the worst thing that can happen to you. but it is still a serious restriction on your life in many areas.

Meanwhile, nobody has come back, needless to say, to answer my question: is god entitled to do this - or much, much worse- to the developing foetus? Yes or no?

Dawkins likes to use emotive examples to make points of logic. He's usually right, though i don't think he is in this case. His argument was based on an assumption that a child with ds would suffer, when this is plainly not the case, not for all children - their lives will undeniably be different, but that's not the same thing.

I do wish people would stop using RD as an example of what atheists think. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god - nothing else automatically follows. There are many occasions on these threads when christians have objected to having the more extreme examples of faith quoted at them as indicative of the way christians think - not all christians are Westboro baptists, and not all atheists are Dawkins devotees.

I think that if you are going to make a claim such as atheists are more likely to want disabled foetuses to be aborted than people of faith, then you really should have something to back it up with, other than Dawkins said so (especially when he didn't).

I think it is a more common view in people without a faith due to my wider family

So you don't have any data to confirm your assumptions? Did you see the post about now most religious people are not anti-abortion? There doesn't seem to be evidence to go with your assumption. When you thought that non-believers were more likely to have a blanket approach to aborting an affected foetus what reason did you suppose that they had behind it? Are you surprised that there is little distinction between Christians and non-Christians in term of frequency of abortion?

and while we are answering questions:

which is worse
(a) aborting a disabled baby (people, including believers)
(b) deliberately creating a disabled baby (god, apparently)