Is belief in God a choice

[Violet]

I hadn't thought of that Adrian. Thank you for drawing my attention to it I love learning when i am wrong, i think it makes me a better person

[fr0d0]

Ok here's an answer in kind...

You've talked shit since you came here!

Not, of course, like your 100% superstitious UTTER bullshit. Not as you make bare assertions about my rationalisations, but actual smelly stuff.

Nothing you believe (the belief itself) has ever had any consequence or impact on the human race even if the believers in that crap have! Belief in deity has no real value, does not advance the human race in any fashion and likely never will do. It's all bollocks, it will ALWAYS be bollocks until the day someone actually reveals some kind of testable, truly demonstrable evidence, and you belittle the human race by advancing it as any kind of truth ... some of us are trying to outgrow such childish nonsense!

You think dismissing everything not science makes you clever. What utter bullshit.

Tell us all your wild fairy story about science being the spooky answer to life, the universe and everything in the future again - fruit loops everywhere will surely gorge themselves on such purile nonsense. Maybe you could join a commune of equally spangly special people like yourself.

You assume that because I believe in God I also dismiss science... well read it and learn this time love-child - unlike you I DON'T DENY ANYTHING REAL.

The meek may well inherit the Earth but the rest of us are trying to reach the stars!

...whilst obliterating those that choose to think.

Like I said above, and have said so many times yet you have some kind of crazy flower blindness to - I don't deny science.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well, since you've apparently decided to ignore my post, I'll say it straight ...

Please don't be hurt Kyu, I was coming to you.

Hurt? Fuck off you disingenuous tosser!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

But we are talking about my belief. My authority is that I believe this stuff. Your authority is one of guessing what I think.

The fact you believe it is fucking irrelevant to the matter of whether you can choose it or not. The fact you are the one with the 'belief' doesn't give you any more authority over you having a choice in it...

Believing that a belief is a matter of choice, is not evidence that it is - that's circular bullshit reasoning.

But how would you know, having no belief in the way I have belief, and admitting that it is outside your understanding? You're dismissing fact without considering it.

'In the way you have belief' - what, redefining the whole definition of belief you mean? Or are you using belief as a synonym for 'having faith' basically, and not a matter of whether you actually believe or not? In which case - it's just a fucking pascal's wager...it's belief in belief, it's that you think belief is a 'good thing' so it's best to hold it...if you dont' literally actually have the belief, you just believe you do!!

Do you believe that God exists or not? In any form, and in any dimenson - and don't give me something like 'what do you mean by 'exist'? or 'God is beyond existence', or some shit to that effect.

Do you believe there is or isn't a God? If you do...you have reasons to believe that there is right? You are convinced by that...and how did you choose this? How is this....a preference?!

So you are talking about choosing between Buddhism & Christianity, for example? This is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the specific choice to believe in the Christian God.

Aka, special pleading. You believe that belief in the specifically, Christian God is an exception...but your mere belief is not evidence for the truth of it, that's circular, so where's your actual evidence that the Christian God is any different? It's just fucking special pleading isn't it?!

Or... enlighten me!

Perhaps you consider other belief systems on your road to rationalizing a particular belief, I certainly did that, but this is subsidiary to the process rather than being the focus of rationalisation.

How on Earth is the Christian God any different? You believe it is...why? Is there actually a valid reason for you to believe its different, or is this per chance...just...bias? Just special pleading on your part?

You're talking about belief in the actually known again, and I've explained why this doesn't apply.

No, I'm talking about belief. I don't believe you can absolutely 'know' anything for sure, I'm an agnostic on all matters...but agnosticism/gnosticsm is not my issue here, I'm talking about what belief actually is about - whether you believe something is or is not!.

You are redefining belief to be different in respect to specifically the Christian God, that this 'belief' is somehow different, but where's your evidence? What the fuck is this redefinition? And how is it worthy of the label 'belief' if it's a different thing entirely???

We're not talking about the reasonableness of belief. I'm saying that because I have the belief I should know exactly what it is... more than you who neither acknowledges the possibility nor understands it.

But is it a belief? You believe you have a belief, but that's a belief that you have a belief, not the belief itself - that's just belief in belief.

Do you believe God exists or not? Because considering you appear to be completely redefining 'belief' in respect to specifically your God, the Christian God - then how is this redefinion actually belief exactly, if it's a different thing?

How can you call it belief if it's 'different', what is this definiton of 'belief' that only applies to the Christian God and is completely different to believing in anything else - is it in the dictionary? !

This is the crux. 'Choosing' can be independent of a reasoned position. You can choose not to believe even though your logical reasoning would support belief, and vice versa. How is that possible? The answer illustrates the point of belief being a choice.

It only illustrates it if it's actually a fact! You merely asserted it!

How exactly can you choose a belief despite the fact your reasoning supports the belief? If your reasoning supports the belief, then the belief makes sense to you, and if it makes sense to you more than not - you believe it! And If it doesn't make sense to you more than not, you don't believe it!

Sounds to me like you're talking about 'belief in belief'..like how despite the fact someone doesn't believe, they could still believe in belief in God, in the sense they believe that believing in God is a 'good thing' and more vauable than not believing, so they believe in the belief...despite the fact they don't actually believe that God himself actually exists, just that they think it's a good thing to believe that he does! So they strive to that, because they believe overall more good comes from believing that than not, despite they don't remotely actually believe it.

Although I'm not saying that you believe this, I'm just saying that's what it sounds like you're describing from what you're telling me...because if you don't believe in God in the same sense of any other belief, in other words, and if you don't actually believe that there is a God, like any other belief addresses that matter: Whether you do believe something is or isn't, exists or doesn't, is true or isn't, etc, etc! - then how exactly do you believe that God is real or 'true' in any sense, or exists in any way?

If your reasoning process is seperate to the belief, it just sounds to me like you're talking about being able to not literally believe but yet think belief in God is a good thing, so still 'have faith'.

Which is not belief in God, it's just belief in the belief in God.

Belief without action is no belief. If the truck bears down on me and I do nothing to save myself, then my belief is useless.
(forget the actual belief in the truck, because like I said, belief in actual reality isn't like belief in the non temporal) The result of belief is action. Your actions reflect your worldviews. Belief in God affects your worldview.

But this doesn't make sense whatsoever - because the fact that a belief is useless doesn't mean that it's 'no belief'! 'Belief' has a meaning, a definiton, and irrespective of if a belief is useful or not, it's still a belief...if you believe you believe and if you don't you don't.

If you're going to redefine an actual belief to 'no belief' if it's useless, then are you also going to define a non-belief to a 'belief' if it's useful, per chance? In which case you're not talking about the belief at hand at all, you're just talking about belief in the belief, belief that the belief is 'a good thing', etc.

If you don't actually believe then you don't believe (by definition?) - because you're completely redefining the meaning!

So as I said - if a useless belief is to be redefined to 'no belief' by you, then is the converse to be done also? Are you also to redefine a non-belief to a 'belief'....if it's useful?

If that's the case, you're just playing with words, because it's not about the belief, just about whether the belief is 'useful', you're talking placebo here and not reality if that's the case. And if that's the case...it's suck that you believe it's necessary!!

No, you essentially believe it but you deny it. Reasoning that belief is correct does not equal actually believing. Believing is the choice to act on your reasoning. To plant a flag. To adopt the position.

Actually, believing is believing, by definition - it's a tautology yeah?! Actually believing is believing, choosing to 'act' is.... just choosing to act!....Your reasoning, compelled by other things - is what convinces you to either believe or disbelieve.....

Acting like you believe is seperate to belief! You could disbelieve God but live your life as a theist for whatever reason, and vice versa....

Acting on the 'reasoned position' or the 'actual belief'...how is that belief in any way? The actual belief is the belief, by defininion! The acting like you believe is a by-product! And like I said...not even a necessary one...it's possible to act like you don't believe when you do, and vice versa!

And finally...how is not actual belief....belief?

EvF

[dry land fish]

Do we choose to not believe in Santa Claus?
No! We just realize he's not real and to keep ourselves from being childish and stupid we accept that and move on. Same difference. I was extremely let down when I figured out there was no Santa. I was very happy to realize there was no God. I thought about all of the "sins" I could commit and how much fun it was going to be to know that I didn't have to feel guilty about any of them.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes.. - Fr0d0, why is belief in God any different??

When a kid stops believing in Santa Claus, you think that however much they wish he were real, do you think they could ever 'choose' to believe he exists again?

EvF

[fr0d0]

But we are talking about my belief. My authority is that I believe this stuff. Your authority is one of guessing what I think.

The fact you believe it is fucking irrelevant to the matter of whether you can choose it or not. The fact you are the one with the 'belief' doesn't give you any more authority over you having a choice in it...

Believing that a belief is a matter of choice, is not evidence that it is - that's circular bullshit reasoning.

You're swearing again. Please try to stay rational.

Again you miss the point. *sighs*. The belief we are discussing is the belief I hold. It is not 'unique' or 'different', but a mainstream & common understanding of the term. I'll say it again, you are discussing what I believe and not what you think belief is. That would be a completely different conversation. I hope you see that, and don't misunderstand this very simple statement yet again.

"Authority" doesn't mean 'superiority'. I'm claiming no high ground here. Just trying to establish the subject. Please get off your high horse and discuss it. Or not. If you do not with to discuss my belief, fine. Conversation over.

But how would you know, having no belief in the way I have belief, and admitting that it is outside your understanding? You're dismissing fact without considering it.

'In the way you have belief' - what, redefining the whole definition of belief you mean? Or are you using belief as a synonym for 'having faith' basically, and not a matter of whether you actually believe or not? In which case - it's just a fucking pascal's wager...it's belief in belief, it's that you think belief is a 'good thing' so it's best to hold it...if you dont' literally actually have the belief, you just believe you do!!

Swearing againi. Boy you must be riled over this.

I am not redefining the meaning of belief. I actually hold a belief and do understand what I'm doing and the intricacies of that belief.

If you are seeking to define belief outside of that which I understand and hold, then how can you discuss the 'choice' that I believe there is. Obviously with your definition of belief, not being at all religious but solely scientific, then we have no discussion.

So. Are we talking about your belief... and the ability to choose or not, or mine and every Christian's belief.. which I thought was the subject here??

Do you believe that God exists or not? In any form, and in any dimenson - and don't give me something like 'what do you mean by 'exist'? or 'God is beyond existence', or some shit to that effect.

Do you believe there is or isn't a God? If you do...you have reasons to believe that there is right? You are convinced by that...and how did you choose this? How is this....a preference?!

I'm treating this as separate from you above diatribe, otherwise it would be completely nonsensical.
I believe in God. In no part of my conversion, both times, did the question 'exist' enter into it. Why would it? What has that to do with faith? Why do you think it's important? Where does that figure into religious belief? You are entering fallacious territory erecting an entity outside of my definition.

So you are talking about choosing between Buddhism & Christianity, for example? This is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the specific choice to believe in the Christian God.

Aka, special pleading. You believe that belief in the specifically, Christian God is an exception...but your mere belief is not evidence for the truth of it, that's circular, so where's your actual evidence that the Christian God is any different? It's just fucking special pleading isn't it?!

Or... enlighten me!

I'm not saying it's an exception at all. All I am saying is that this is all I know about, and can discuss. And as it's what we're talking about, I think it's relevant.

You're swearing again, which just makes me think you're being totally irrational.

Like I keep saying, any other definition of God is not my definition of God and I can't be bothered with endless theorizing over a subject neither of us knows nothing about. We have a topic for discussion.. address that.

I never said that my belief proved anything. Where did I say that?

Perhaps you consider other belief systems on your road to rationalizing a particular belief, I certainly did that, but this is subsidiary to the process rather than being the focus of rationalisation.

How on Earth is the Christian God any different? You believe it is...why? Is there actually a valid reason for you to believe its different, or is this per chance...just...bias? Just special pleading on your part?

As Jon Paul at pains pointed out - the Christian God is very different for the reasons that he gave. The Christian God is entirely rational and logical in definition. Other Gods are not. You sound incredulous like you never read Jon Paul's explanations. No other definition of God matches the perfect reasoning of the Christian God.

Again, this isn't really the topic at hand, and I'm not here to argue existence. We are discussing the possibility of choice to believe or not believe.

You're talking about belief in the actually known again, and I've explained why this doesn't apply.

No, I'm talking about belief. I don't believe you can absolutely 'know' anything for sure, I'm an agnostic on all matters...but agnosticism/gnosticsm is not my issue here, I'm talking about what belief actually is about - whether you believe something is or is not!.

You are being dishonest. You know what I mean by belief in the unknowable. It is completely different to not absolutely knowing anything. You're talking bullshit philosophy: that no one really knows they exist.. again you're off topic. Once more: We're talking about religious belief and not belief in the known.

You are redefining belief to be different in respect to specifically the Christian God, that this 'belief' is somehow different, but where's your evidence? What the fuck is this redefinition? And how is it worthy of the label 'belief' if it's a different thing entirely???

I am precisely not redefining belief. How can you, someone who professes to not understand or be able to even entertain the notion tell me I'm doing it wrong? Again, on what grounds? I'll tell you: Non religious grounds.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we discussing the choice of religious belief, which I'm telling you, is not at all like the choice to believe that you have a nose.

We're not talking about the reasonableness of belief. I'm saying that because I have the belief I should know exactly what it is... more than you who neither acknowledges the possibility nor understands it.

But is it a belief? You believe you have a belief, but that's a belief that you have a belief, not the belief itself - that's just belief in belief.

I think you had a brain fart here

Do you believe God exists or not? Because considering you appear to be completely redefining 'belief' in respect to specifically your God, the Christian God - then how is this redefinion actually belief exactly, if it's a different thing?

Yeah, I believe in the Christian God, not 'any' god, but that precise one.

A different thing?? A different thing to your understanding... yet again!!!

How can you call it belief if it's 'different', what is this definiton of 'belief' that only applies to the Christian God and is completely different to believing in anything else - is it in the dictionary? !

Merriam-Webster: 1 a : to have a firm religious faith


--- more tomorrow - it's very late, and I'm tired ---

---

Do we choose to not believe in Santa Claus?
No! We just realize he's not real and to keep ourselves from being childish and stupid we accept that and move on. Same difference. I was extremely let down when I figured out there was no Santa. I was very happy to realize there was no God. I thought about all of the "sins" I could commit and how much fun it was going to be to know that I didn't have to feel guilty about any of them.

Good question. No we don't 'choose' to believe in Santa Claus.. we're given no option, just presented lies. I laid a trap for Santa, and my Dad sprung it. I kept schtum because I figured I'd get more out of it that way.

Belief in God is a choice. If God is presented to you in a way that you cannot question, then the choice isn't given to you, you don't choose to believe. Therefore you are not a Christian, because Christianity is a choice. By definition.

If you thought you could commit 'sins' without feeling guilty, then I guess you must've abandoned your moral compass.. because to me, superstition aside, sin is just stuff that's destructive to self.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're swearing again. Please try to stay rational.

The fact I'm swearing doesn't change my points....the additon of 'fuck' into my points doesn't make them somehow less rational.

Again you miss the point. *sighs*. The belief we are discussing is the belief I hold. It is not 'unique' or 'different', but a mainstream & common understanding of the term. I'll say it again, you are discussing what I believe and not what you think belief is.

The fact you believe that you have a choice in your belief is completely different to the belief itself!! The fact you believe that it's a choice doesn't remotely evidence that it is...which is the issue here..so your belief has got fuck-all to do with the reality of whether your belief is a choice or not...

Because you have to evidence why belief in the Christian God is any way different to belief in anything else, that it's in anyway more a choice. Because you're making an exception here.

Because you say that it's different to believing in anything else and only other Christians can truly understand it...
...However you also claim to be using a mainstream definition of 'belief'...in which case it applies to other things besides the Christian God...so...contradiction?

"Authority" doesn't mean 'superiority'. I'm claiming no high ground here. Just trying to establish the subject. Please get off your high horse and discuss it. Or not. If you do not with to discuss my belief, fine. Conversation over.

I was basically explaining that untill there's evidence that belief can be a matter of choice, then in all probability it isn't...and you are claiming that belief in God is different, so I need evidence for an exception.

You say it's not an exception, but then of course it's not an exception to you, but we're discussing here whether belief in God is a matter of choice or not. I'm well aware it's not an exception to you, it make sense to you, it's nothing unbelievable to you....the point is that in order to discuss if belief in God is a choice or not, you have to give evidence for how it can be choice, otherwise by default it isn't, because from a netural standpoint it's an exception that requires evidence. As I said, yes - it isn't to you because you believe it makes sense...but that does no good for the discussion untill you explain it!

So all I'm 'telling you' is that untill there's evidence that belief in God is a choice, then by default I will obviously main in the position that it isn't...because there's no reason to make it a special case from my current standpoint.

And if you're going to just state that it just 'makes sense' to you, and that only Christians can truly understand it, and you're not willing to give evidence to support your position...if you're going to do that....where's the discussion?!

The fact you believe your belief is a choice is irrelevan to the discussion, other than the simple fact that you're on the side of belief in God being a choice, as opposed to the opposite side of it not being one! The discussion is about whether belief in God is a choice or not, right? So you have to evidence this if there is to be a discussion.

Asserting that I can't question it because it's 'your belief' doesn't work because the fact you believe your belief is a choice does not mean that it actually is in any way shape or form.

I'm not discussing your belief here, I'm discussing whether it's a choice or not...and the fact it's your belief is irrelevant to whether it's actually a choice.

The fact it it's your belief gives you no authority whatsoever over whether your belief is actually a 'choice' or not. And whether it's a choice or not, is what we're discussing. It needs evidence otherwise how else can we discuss it? Got any alternatives??

Swearing again.

And?

Boy you must be riled over this.

No........I find it entertaining actually

If you are seeking to define belief outside of that which I understand and hold, then how can you discuss the 'choice' that I believe there is.

How can you redefine belief and still call it a belief? It you're redefining it...what are we actually discussing? Because if it's your redefiniton then it's not belief.

You say it's a common definition...and I have noticed later on in this post of yours I'm quoting (which I'll come to in a bit), that you use Merrian Webster's definition of religious belief, as :'firm religious faith'....

You know what the problem with that is? It's still the same definition of belief as normal, the one that I'm using....except it's just + lack a of evidence!!

Faith is normal belief but it's with a lack of evidence, right??

So we're still discussing the same thing here, and the fact you lack evidnece for it then just means you have no valid reason to believe it! If you have 'faith' that belief in God is a choice.....then that means you believe without evidence that belief in God is a choice....so you believe in the normal sense but without credence for that belief..........
....
.

So that's very helpful isn't it(?!)

Well, I guess it just means that you have stated once again that you believe without valid reason, right? Because if there was valid reason, it would be credence for your belief and would be evidence and therefore wouldn't be faith, which is what you claim to have.

So... you believe that belief in God is a choice....and this definition of belief that you use is 'faith'....which is just the same but without evidence.....but if you don't have any evidence then where's the discussion?! If there's no evidence why do you believe? Because no evidence means there's no credence for your belief!

Obviously with your definition of belief, not being at all religious but solely scientific, then we have no discussion.

Your definition is religious faith...so religious belief without evidence....how is this to be credited in any way? If you have faith that belief in God is a choice, then that just means you believe in the normal sense but you also have no evidence, and if you have no evidence then you have no credence for that very belief, that belief in God is a choice....so you have no valid reason to believe. So why do you believe it?

So. Are we talking about your belief... and the ability to choose or not, or mine and every Christian's belief.. which I thought was the subject here??

It's the subject indeed ...but it can't be discussed if you're just going to claim untouchable authority over it! You need to give evidence as to why belief in your God is a choice otherwise there's no discussion...it does no good to just tell me I can't question it because only you and other Christians can properly understand it...what fucking kind of a discussion is that?! Where's the evidence that belief in God is a choice?!

I believe in God. In no part of my conversion, both times, did the question 'exist' enter into it. Why would it? What has that to do with faith?

How can you believe in God when you don't believe there's a God to believe in? How can you believe in something nonexistent?

What does it have to do with faith? Well, it has to do with faith in God because faith in God means to believe in God without evidence...and to believe in God at all, with or without evidence...obviously presupposes that a God must exist to believe in. Otherwise it's just nonsensical.

Why do you think it's important?

Whether you believe God exists or not, I think is important because if you don't believe he exists....then you can't actually believe in him because you don't believe there is a God to believe in! As I said, it's nonsensical.

And if you don't literally belief God exists, and you therefore can't believe in him as I say, because you don't believe there's any God to believe in...then you're not actually a Christan because you don't believe in God!

So you either believe he exists or you don't believe in God and you're therefore not a Christian. Because...by definition - if you don't believe God exists then you don't believe there's an God to believe in so you can't believe in him.

Where does that figure into religious belief?

How does this differe in anyway from your previous question of 'What does it have to do with faith?'...how does the addition of the word 'religious' make any diference? If you're just going to claim special authority over the matter because you're a Christain, and that only Christians can get it, then once again... there's no discussion...so you have to evidence how religious faith is any different to normal faith (belief without evidence) otherwise like I said...where's the discussion?

You are entering fallacious territory erecting an entity outside of my definition.

See above.

You're swearing again, which just makes me think you're being totally irrational.

See above. How does that make me irrational? It doesn't change my points.

Like I keep saying, any other definition of God is not my definition of God and I can't be bothered with endless theorizing over a subject neither of us knows nothing about. We have a topic for discussion.. address that.

Back your stance up then...how is your belief in God a choice?

I never said that my belief proved anything. Where did I say that?

Where did I say that you said that?

As Jon Paul at pains pointed out - the Christian God is very different for the reasons that he gave. The Christian God is entirely rational and logical in definition. Other Gods are not. You sound incredulous like you never read Jon Paul's explanations. No other definition of God matches the perfect reasoning of the Christian God.

It's just the deist God+ Christiany stuff...like I said...Jon Paul's arguments were under the label of Christianity, as is the TAG....but they never actually address Christ....it's actually all just deistic argumentation, and then + extra shit like omnibenevolence which isn't specifically Christian unless christ comes into the picture which just about drops the deistic part, by making it a personal God, a theist God therefore, but it could be absolutely bloody anything, because untill Christ has come into it's not Christian! It's so vague! It's just a personal all loving God, that doesn't=Christianity without Christ.

And of course he never actually evidences the omnibenevolence along with the rest of it.

Again, this isn't really the topic at hand, and I'm not here to argue existence. We are discussing the possibility of choice to believe or not believe.

Well you say that belief in God, and specifically the Christian God is different. So how is belief in God a choice and normal belief not? Evidence this, otherwise...how else do you suggest we discuss??

You are being dishonest. You know what I mean by belief in the unknowable. It is completely different to not absolutely knowing anything. You're talking bullshit philosophy: that no one really knows they exist.. again you're off topic. Once more: We're talking about religious belief and not belief in the known.

I'm not being dishonest at all. You said that I was talking about belief in the known...I wasn't. I'm talking about belief in anything. I'm talking about belief. I never mentioned knowability. And since you did, that's why I clarified my position on the matter.

I am precisely not redefining belief. How can you, someone who professes to not understand or be able to even entertain the notion tell me I'm doing it wrong? Again, on what grounds? I'll tell you: Non religious grounds.

I can tell you becasue you haven't explained why you have any more grounds over my non-religious self! Where's your evidence for your belief that belief in specifically the Christian God is a matter of a choice, when any other belief isn't?

How are we supposed to discuss this, if you're just going to assert it, and then when I question it you tell me that I can't rationally disbelieve your failure to produce evidence because I'm on 'non-religious grounds'.....where's your evidence that being on religious grounds makes any fucking difference at all?

Are we going to discuss this or not? Can I ask for evidence for your belief that belief in God is special...or not? How are we going to discuss?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we discussing the choice of religious belief, which I'm telling you, is not at all like the choice to believe that you have a nose.

You're telling me it's different. But you're not evidencing it. So where's the discussion?

How do you prepose we discuss this matter if you're not willing to evidence your position? And this question isn't rhetorical...because I want to know your answer.

Yeah, I believe in the Christian God, not 'any' god, but that precise one.

A different thing?? A different thing to your understanding... yet again!!!

So how are we going to discuss this then? How can I 'understand it' if you won't explain why it's at all true? Without evidence that belief in the Christian God is a choice...why would I believe it is when I don't believe any other belief is?

How are we going to discuss this? Seriously..

How can you call it belief if it's 'different', what is this definiton of 'belief' that only applies to the Christian God and is completely different to believing in anything else - is it in the dictionary? !

Merriam-Webster: 1 a : to have a firm religious faith


--- more tomorrow - it's very late, and I'm tired ---

As I said, 1. faith=belief without evidence. So it's normal belief without evidence, so that's still belief like the belief you have a nose, but without evidence.

2. The 'religious' part is the elephant in the room. How does it being religious make a diference? how does it being religious mean it has better grounding? How is 'non-religious' grounds a bad thing?

And finally,

untill you evidence that belief in God is a matter of choice, how am I supposed to take you seriously?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Wow mega dodge! OK you refuse to discuss it. I get it. I shan't bother with you any further then.

Wow - I have to say you're the most narrow minded and stubborn person I've ever met. Your childish blanking is the epitome of ignorance.

Have a nice day.

[Retorth]

I think we can safely say it is a matter of opinion