Is religion a choice?

[Lost in the Echo]

Ok, so I saw this in someone's signature: "Religion is a choice, Homosexuality is not". Well, I agree with the last part, sexuality definitely isn't a choice, but do you think religion is?

Personally, I don't. I believe this, because you don't choose to believe in something, it's just the way you are. For example, i'm probably Agnostic, I don't choose to be that, as i'd like to believe in god, but I feel that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove whether or not there is a god.

So yeah, do you think religion is a choice, or not? Give reasons why you feel the way you do.

[workingatperfect]

I think it is to a certain extent. But it's also not in a lot of ways. For me, I'm a logical, scientific person and I don't have a lot of faith in anything really. So with that, while I'd like to believe in god, I really can't. I've tried to I guess. I've gone to church and I've listened to every my youth leader said, and I took it with the most open mind and heart I could. I really wanted to believe it, and while I was sitting there, it all sounded so good and the way he interpreted the bible was awesome and much better than most churches do. I wholeheartedly wanted to believe, I even prayed sometimes when I went home. It's just that I couldn't shake the thought that there was no proof and it was all just a bunch of words from a book. That I was just talking to myself, not some god.

So, in that sense I don't think you can really choose whether or not you believe. I think you either have the ability to have blind faith in it, or you don't, based on what kind of person you are. But I think you can choose whether or not to follow a religion, or what religion to follow, based on which one matches up with what you believe is right. I mean, if you believe in god, but you don't believe in Catholic values, you're not going to be a Catholic. You'd try to find another religion that fits your beliefs, or claim no religion at all, I guess.

[Fiction]

I think honestly, it depends from person to person. I'm the same as you, agnostic but 'd like to believe in God. Now some people in our situation would chose to go with what they want to believe, others like us, chose to remain agnostic.

Some people will choose to go with what they perceive to be the easy option, such as what they grew up with, others will choose to explore the possibilities. I see why you say what you do, and I agree with it partially, but I also think that a lot of people say they have the religion they do because it's "easier", and this is a choice.

[Gigablue]

It is and isn't. You don't really choose to believe in something, you either do or don't. However, you can choose the amount of critical thinking that you direct towards your beliefs, and whether you choose to use faith as a way of knowing. Personally, I choose to live based on the evidence, and therefore I am not religious.

I also think that religion is heavily influenced by surroundings. If you are raised in an environment where everyone has the same religion, and you never see opposing viewpoints, you will probably have the same religion, without having chosen it. If you see many different religions, the one that you have is much more of a choice.

[Horizon]

Religion is 100% someones choice. You choice to follow what makes most sense to you. Which is what religious exploration, and the freedom of religion in the US, is all about. One person can choose what religion they believe, based on what makes sense to them. So yes, I believe religion is a choice.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Religion is 100% your choice. (Better termed your choice of belief)

[CharlieFinley]

I think it is to a certain extent. But it's also not in a lot of ways. For me, I'm a logical, scientific person and I don't have a lot of faith in anything really. So with that, while I'd like to believe in god, I really can't. I've tried to I guess. I've gone to church and I've listened to every my youth leader said, and I took it with the most open mind and heart I could. I really wanted to believe it, and while I was sitting there, it all sounded so good and the way he interpreted the bible was awesome and much better than most churches do. I wholeheartedly wanted to believe, I even prayed sometimes when I went home. It's just that I couldn't shake the thought that there was no proof and it was all just a bunch of words from a book. That I was just talking to myself, not some god.

So, in that sense I don't think you can really choose whether or not you believe. I think you either have the ability to have blind faith in it, or you don't, based on what kind of person you are. But I think you can choose whether or not to follow a religion, or what religion to follow, based on which one matches up with what you believe is right. I mean, if you believe in god, but you don't believe in Catholic values, you're not going to be a Catholic. You'd try to find another religion that fits your beliefs, or claim no religion at all, I guess.
I would have to say that if you're looking for conviction, don't talk to your youth leaders. They have a captive audience, so to speak, and they are invariably not learned in the art of apologetics. Read theist philosophy, which is almost invariably better-reasoned than anything from Dawkins or Hume.

I don't believe that religion is a choice. Blind faith is certainly a choice, but implying that you can choose to be convinced by a logical and persuasive argument is ridiculous, if not in its fact then in its implications. Now, you can certainly choose to not be convinced by even the most logical argument, but those who say "Sexuality is not a choice. Religion is a choice." use that statement to attack those who believe things they find offensive, as if it is a character flaw to follow the evidence where it leads.

[Jess]

It's 100% your choice. You choose whatever to believe in because you feel it makes most sense. You are able to change if possible, if it no longer makes any sense. You might be raised to be a Christian, but you can choose to not believe in a god, and become an atheist.

[Lost in the Echo]

Religion is 100% someones choice. You choice to follow what makes most sense to you. Which is what religious exploration, and the freedom of religion in the US, is all about. One person can choose what religion they believe, based on what makes sense to them. So yes, I believe religion is a choice.

Well, you can't really choose what you believe. If I had a choice, I would choose to have complete faith in god, but it's not that easy. The reason I don't believe, like I said, is because there isn't really enough evidence to support there is or isn't a god. I would love to believe in god, but I can't choose to. Nobody really has any control over the way they feel.

Religion is 100% your choice. (Better termed your choice of belief)

Care to support why you feel that way?

[Horizon]

Well, you can't really choose what you believe. If I had a choice, I would choose to have complete faith in god, but it's not that easy. The reason I don't believe, like I said, is because there isn't really enough evidence to support there is or isn't a god. I would love to believe in god, but I can't choose to. Nobody really has any control over the way they feel.



Care to support why you feel that way?

people do have control. Like you said, you don't feel there is enough evidence to support the existence of god. So you are going with what makes more sense to you. You are choosing to believe what makes more sense to you. I mainly think that it is not a choice because my biological father used to be the one not for religion, and he never practiced because he felt the same that you did. And when he decided to explored religion, he found one that made a lot of sense to him. He never believed it before, therefore, making that an example of him choosing a religion. Saying religion isn't a choice is just like saying homosexuality is. It's just not true. I've known people choosing to drop their religion, because science made much more sense to them. And these were die-hard preachers of the bible (not actual preachers, just people who were so faithful to their religion, they shaped their whole life around it). Religious freedom is there for us to explore and choose religions we believe, as well as it is there so we can have our churches to practice our religion in.

[TigerBoy]

Read theist philosophy, which is almost invariably better-reasoned than anything from Dawkins or Hume.
It seems an obvious attempt to introduce bias when you advise people to ignore key figures in theistic debate on the spurious claim that they aren't as good at putting their case as supporters of theism. I also find it curious logic to claim that "evidence" necessarily lead one to choose 'religion' when credible evidence substantiating religious beliefs is non-existent, and so can't lead one anywhere.

Religion is not a choice that is realistically available to many: if it was a completely free choice you'd not have religion tied to your culture and geographic location. In my view religion is the result of indoctrination from youth, a process noted in the bible itself.

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
Proverbs 22:6

[Lost in the Echo]

people do have control. Like you said, you don't feel there is enough evidence to support the existence of god. So you are going with what makes more sense to you. You are choosing to believe what makes more sense to you. I mainly think that it is not a choice because my biological father used to be the one not for religion, and he never practiced because he felt the same that you did. And when he decided to explored religion, he found one that made a lot of sense to him. He never believed it before, therefore, making that an example of him choosing a religion. Saying religion isn't a choice is just like saying homosexuality is. It's just not true. I've known people choosing to drop their religion, because science made much more sense to them. And these were die-hard preachers of the bible (not actual preachers, just people who were so faithful to their religion, they shaped their whole life around it). Religious freedom is there for us to explore and choose religions we believe, as well as it is there so we can have our churches to practice our religion in.

Ok, well here is a comparison/example of the point i'm trying to get across: Let's say someone is gay, but they want to be straight, but they can't control the way they feel, so in the end they choose to accept the fact they're gay. Now, lets say someone is Agnostic, but they really want to be a Christian, but they can't control the way they feel, so they just accept the fact they're Agnostic.

What i'm trying to say, is that if I had a choice, I would believe in god, but to me, everything in the bible seems illogical, therefore, i'm Agnostic, I don't choose to be that, but I am.

You can't control what you believe in, if I could control my beliefs, then I would choose to believe in god.

[Human]

there isn't one answer. many people defend their religion as their parents brought them up with it. however, you can be 'born again'.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Care to support why you feel that way?

because of the actual definition of religion, according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies (god or gods), usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

religion (definition 2)- a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

[Zenos]

Ok, so I saw this in someone's signature: "Religion is a choice, Homosexuality is not". Well, I agree with the last part, sexuality definitely isn't a choice, but do you think religion is?

Personally, I don't. I believe this, because you don't choose to believe in something, it's just the way you are


For example, i'm probably Agnostic, I don't choose to be that, as i'd like to believe in god, but I feel that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove whether or not there is a god.

So yeah, do you think religion is a choice, or not? Give reasons why you feel the way you do.

I "respectfully" disagree because thats like saying a person is born believing is Cernunnos,Odin,Thor,Yahweh,Allah ,to be a follower of Druidism,Asatru,Judiaism,Christianianty,Islam etc etc.You are not born with religious/spiritual beliefs you learn,pick up and develop them from outside influences.

[Lost in the Echo]

because of the actual definition of religion, according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies (god or gods), usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

religion (definition 2)- a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

So, if it's a choice, I can just choose to believe in god, right?

Check this link out, it makes some very good points: http://shatternicely.com/2010/03/is-belief-a-choice/

[TheBigUnit]

nature vs. nurture topic really,

[Twilly F. Sniper]

So, if it's a choice, I can just choose to believe in god, right?

Check this link out, it makes some very good points: http://shatternicely.com/2010/03/is-belief-a-choice/

That proves a combination of your point AND mine. You CAN choose to be a DEVOUT believer in a religion, sometimes not exactly religion itself though.

[FreeFall]

I feel to some extent it is but it isn't.

I was a hardcore bible banging Baptist Christian from birth until I was like 10 or 11. I lived and breathed Jesus, Holy Spirit and God. Then my Pop-Pop died. God wasn't there for me. For the first time, I felt abandoned and had no solace in my religion. Before I'd pray "god I lost my math text book. Help me find it, and I will do my best to spread your word (yes I was one of those "do you have a minute to talk about Jesus" people) and bam, there's my book. Suddenly I went from hard-core Christian, to Agnostic, to Atheist.
I feel it was my choice to become Atheist. I'm sure if I'd tried to understand harder and speak to my Pastor more, I would've overcome what strain there was between me and God. I would've eventually come back to my sense and delve into the bible. But I chose to stay angry, bitter and resent everything I'd been taught feeling like I was lied. I kept to myself and ignored my teachings, then I loved the freedom that gave me. So I picked to remain that way (without my angry bitterness of course).

Now to me there's a difference to saying "I am xyz religion/faith" and actually being xyz religion/faith. It's easy for people to say I'm a Catholic, Christian blah blah but never ever once in their life do anything associated with said religion. Prayers, tithing, communion, the bible, speaking with god, nothing. In that sense they can chose it. There's also many faiths and religions out there to learn about, and if you find one that clicks, you may chose to convert to said finding.

You cannot really force yourself to believe something or dis-believe it. I feel you need to feel it and accept it, not really be able to flip a switch. I guess you could brain-wash yourself. Say so many times, so often, that you begin to believe what you're saying. Religion isn't as ingrained, in my opinion, into us as sexuality is. A part of us, yes, but a specific detail of who we are, not so much.

[Cicero]

I think both yes and no. Yes, because you can obviously leave the religion, but no, because it could be a strong pressure from the family to be a particular religion. I know of some people, who were completely removed from the family for not being their families religion. Removed so far, that they wouldn't even attend that persons funeral. So there could be so much pressure from the family, that you either choose their religion, or leave the family and be [almost] forgotten.

[Sugaree]

I think both yes and no. Yes, because you can obviously leave the religion, but no, because it could be a strong pressure from the family to be a particular religion. I know of some people, who were completely removed from the family for not being their families religion. Removed so far, that they wouldn't even attend that persons funeral. So there could be so much pressure from the family, that you either choose their religion, or leave the family and be [almost] forgotten.

So it's still a choice, then. Even if the consequence is to leave your family, it's still a choice. Right?

Religion is as much of a choice as wondering which piece of bread you want from the loaf. That said, yes, it is a choice. It's a choice to believe in something and a choice to not believe in that something based on whatever you may find. Religion is not linked to our DNA, only through our family history is it linked to us.

[Lost in the Echo]

Ok I kinda understand where everyone is coming from.
In a way, it's a choice, because you choose to follow whatever religion makes the most sense to you. But you don't choose to feel the way you do.

So yeah, I kinda understand how it is and isn't.

[Skyline]

I think that it is a choice, you can be brought up into a religion, but it is up to you to follow it or do what you feel is right. Everyone has the ability pick and choose their beliefs, given that they want or don't want to change them.

[Gigablue]

I think both yes and no. Yes, because you can obviously leave the religion, but no, because it could be a strong pressure from the family to be a particular religion. I know of some people, who were completely removed from the family for not being their families religion. Removed so far, that they wouldn't even attend that persons funeral. So there could be so much pressure from the family, that you either choose their religion, or leave the family and be [almost] forgotten.

I don't think this is really choosing your religion. You can choose what you say you believe, and whether you go to religious services, but you decide what you actually believe. Based on the evidence, and the logic you use, you will either believe or not believe,

[Lyra Heartstrings]

I really don't see how it ISN'T your choice. You choose what to believe.

[Lost in the Echo]

I really don't see how it ISN'T your choice. You choose what to believe.

I'd have to say you're wrong. As i've stated multiple times, if I could, I would choose to believe in god. But I just think that just about everything in Christianity seems very illogical.

If it was up to me, i'd choose to believe in god. But you can't choose your beliefs.

[MrDaniel2K13]

If your born into a religious family then usually you'll have a religious upbringing; I myself was born in a Christian family but I'm an atheist, I realized that from an early age

[TigerBoy]

I'd have to say you're wrong. As i've stated multiple times, if I could, I would choose to believe in god. But I just think that just about everything in Christianity seems very illogical.
You are very rational and to you this is a decision you have made, freely and independently. In that decision, you have made a choice. It may seem inevitable and the only choice available to you, but no one has imposed that upon you.

As an agnostic, if you were presented with evidence of God, you could change your mind. Psychologists will tell you that human nature is such though, that we have a strong tendency to cling to our present beliefs and so you might choose to ignore the evidence. Either way, it is your choice.

The choices we make are not always rational or as the result of entirely concious thought processes. We have a lot of baggage that influences how we react. Choice is an expression of our individuality as much as our rationality.

[CharlieFinley]

It seems an obvious attempt to introduce bias when you advise people to ignore key figures in theistic debate on the spurious claim that they aren't as good at putting their case as supporters of theism. I also find it curious logic to claim that "evidence" necessarily lead one to choose 'religion' when credible evidence substantiating religious beliefs is non-existent, and so can't lead one anywhere.

Religion is not a choice that is realistically available to many: if it was a completely free choice you'd not have religion tied to your culture and geographic location. In my view religion is the result of indoctrination from youth, a process noted in the bible itself.
Have you read anything about the historical evidence for Christianity?
If you'd like to hear my complaints about Richard Dawkins, let me list a few:
he adopts a logical positivist stance in some of his works, he treats atheism like a religion, and he adopts a logical positivist stance in some of his works. Logical positivism really sucks.

Hume, on the other hand, was the sort of philosopher who proposes things just to show how clever he is without actually believing them true, or even plausible.

[TigerBoy]

Have you read anything about the historical evidence for Christianity?
If you'd like to hear my complaints about Richard Dawkins, let me list a few:
he adopts a logical positivist stance in some of his works, he treats atheism like a religion, and he adopts a logical positivist stance in some of his works. Logical positivism really sucks.

Hume, on the other hand, was the sort of philosopher who proposes things just to show how clever he is without actually believing them true, or even plausible.
However you attempt to poison the well with respect to opponents of theism, my point stands that if you steer people to educate themselves by only recommending one side of the debate and at the same time discounting the other, you aren't being impartial or honest in your advice.

[Gaybaby94]

Oh wow. Took me a while to realize it but the Op is referring to my sig. Mmm...OK. Yeah, one can not choice their sexuality but one can choose their religion.

[Jess]

I'd have to say you're wrong. As i've stated multiple times, if I could, I would choose to believe in god. But I just think that just about everything in Christianity seems very illogical.

If it was up to me, i'd choose to believe in god. But you can't choose your beliefs.

Maybe it's different for everyone. I certainly chose to not believe in a god. Like you, I believe pretty much everything in religion makes no sense. Because of that, I chose to be an atheist.

[CharlieFinley]

However you attempt to poison the well with respect to opponents of theism, my point stands that if you steer people to educate themselves by only recommending one side of the debate and at the same time discounting the other, you aren't being impartial or honest in your advice.

That wasn't poisoning the well. My chief objection to possibly the two biggest names in atheism is that their arguments are crap. The fact that I think they're ponces is just a bonus. Hume's biggest thing was that causes are merely habits that arise from repeated correlation. Do you think he ever stopped to think, before putting pen to paper, "will my pen actually write, this time?" To use Hume as support for atheism is even more blatantly unscientific than worshipping the flying spaghetti monster.

Also, I don't pretend to be impartial. I was an atheist. I spent some time with a pastor, read There is a God, and spend a ridiculous amount of time talking with atheists of all sorts, and became a theist. Now I'm an evangelist.

[GummyUnicornDerp]

Personally, I believe it is a choice, but it stems from something natural in our brain. It stems from a want of belief, it's us, wanting to explain everything, to learn from what we are able to see. It's us, and our strong want to explain everything. Just my two cents. Whatever.

[TigerBoy]

That wasn't poisoning the well. My chief objection to possibly the two biggest names in atheism is that their arguments are crap. The fact that I think they're ponces is just a bonus. Hume's biggest thing was that causes are merely habits that arise from repeated correlation. Do you think he ever stopped to think, before putting pen to paper, "will my pen actually write, this time?" To use Hume as support for atheism is even more blatantly unscientific than worshipping the flying spaghetti monster.

Also, I don't pretend to be impartial. I was an atheist. I spent some time with a pastor, read There is a God, and spend a ridiculous amount of time talking with atheists of all sorts, and became a theist. Now I'm an evangelist.

Discrediting sources as you are attempting to do is about as exemplary a case of the fallacy of poisoning the well as you can get. I'm not interested in debating your views - other than to note that I don't agree with your opinion - since that discussion is completely off topic.

When there are two sides to an argument and you recommend people only study the subject by listening to the side with the 'good' arguments per your views, and ignore the 'bad' arguments per your views, you are - now by your own admission - proselytising by stealth.

By your actions in this thread you demonstrate the insidious and viral nature of religion, which abandons intellectual honesty and subverts the ability of an individual to make a truly educated choice.

If there is value in your beliefs, they will stand in spite of opposition of views and arguments you don't approve of.

[CharlieFinley]

Discrediting sources as you are attempting to do is about as exemplary a case of the fallacy of poisoning the well as you can get. I'm not interested in debating your views - other than to note that I don't agree with your opinion - since that discussion is completely off topic.

When there are two sides to an argument and you recommend people only study the subject by listening to the side with the 'good' arguments per your views, and ignore the 'bad' arguments per your views, you are - now by your own admission - proselytising by stealth.

By your actions in this thread you demonstrate the insidious and viral nature of religion, which abandons intellectual honesty and subverts the ability of an individual to make a truly educated choice.

If there is value in your beliefs, they will stand in spite of opposition of views and arguments you don't approve of.

That's certainly true, but to anyone who doesn't study philosophy, a bad argument can be just as convincing, if not more so, than a good one. To someone who doesn't study philosophy, logical positivism can be incredibly convincing -- yet it's completely discredited. Even its original proponents have abandoned it.

[workingatperfect]

Maybe it's different for everyone. I certainly chose to not believe in a god. Like you, I believe pretty much everything in religion makes no sense. Because of that, I chose to be an atheist.


I think what he's getting at is that you choose your religion, but you can't really choose what feels right to you. You said that nothing in religion makes sense to you. Well you didn't really consciously decide for that to not make sense, it just doesn't. For some people it does make sense. Even for people who force themselves to believe in a certain religion, it may not actually make sense to them, even if they pretend it does, no matter how much they want it to make sense. That's where the lack of a choice comes in.

You DO have a choice when it comes to what religion you are (or aren't) and whether or not to follow it, etc. You chose not to believe in god because it didn't make sense to you, but you didn't choose for religion to not logically work for you. I think that part - what you feel is right - comes from the kind of person you are, how you decide on things, how faithful you are (in general, not just religion), all that stuff. It's like when someone asks you your favorite color and you say purple. Someone asks you why it's purple. Chances are, you don't really know, it just looks nice to you. Did you choose for the color purple to give you good feelings and stand out to you from the rest of the colors? No. It just feels right. If you decide that you want green to be your favorite color because it's a less popular choice, well that's great, but chances are you're still going to like purple better. Here's another example, "I love god, but all of my friends are atheists and think I'm dumb for believing in god, so I'm an atheist too now." So the person can't just make themselves not believe in god because she wants to. But short of getting new friends, she can't make them accept that she's a believer. So she chooses to be an atheist, but she can't make herself believe it.


Or in shorter terms, you choose your religion, yes. But you can't choose what feels right to you/what you believe. That's what Bo is trying to say.

[Gigablue]

Maybe it's different for everyone. I certainly chose to not believe in a god. Like you, I believe pretty much everything in religion makes no sense. Because of that, I chose to be an atheist.

Did you really choose it, though? I think you can choose whether to examine your beliefs critically, and what group you identify with, but not what you actually believed.

For me religion makes no sense, that isn't a choice, just a fact. Because of that I choose to identify as an atheist.

[Jess]

Did you really choose it, though? I think you can choose whether to examine your beliefs critically, and what group you identify with, but not what you actually believed.

For me religion makes no sense, that isn't a choice, just a fact. Because of that I choose to identify as an atheist.

oh I guess you're right. I feel the same way.

[Clawhammer]

We believe what we believe based on personal conviction, conclusions, and choices. It is not written in our genes that we will be one thing or another. It is simply a matter of what we believe, not what we are.

[billiam183]

I think your casr is a little different. Generally people re ad something and choose to believe it. For example; a catholic will read that homosexuality is an abomination. So they believe it. It is less likely people would think this if the bible hadn't said so.

[CharlieFinley]

I think your casr is a little different. Generally people re ad something and choose to believe it. For example; a catholic will read that homosexuality is an abomination. So they believe it. It is less likely people would think this if the bible hadn't said so.

And then there are theists who are theists because they've followed the evidence where it led. See: Antony Fisk, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, C, S. Lewis. In that sense, believing in a God is no more a choice than believing in string theory. Either you find it compelling or you do not.

[TigerBoy]

And then there are theists who are theists because they've followed the evidence where it led. See: Antony Fisk, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, C, S. Lewis. In that sense, believing in a God is no more a choice than believing in string theory. Either you find it compelling or you do not.

There is no 'evidence' for basis of theism, and it thus cannot lead anywhere.

You are also confusing the terms 'religion' with 'belief in God' and conflating them with larger questions of 'theism'. This thread is about religion, namely the specific practices and belief system associated with a particular theistic view.

For example Einstein held no religion himself. He was simply intellectually honest and agnostic (which is how he described himself) in the face of that which we do not understand. Thus he acknowledged the possibility in a loosely pantheistic sense but did not claim belief of anything in a religious sense.

Aristotle followed no religion and I suspect as a free thinker he would have found most religious practice abhorrent. I see him in much the same light as any agnostic - he lived in a time of very limited data on which to base his speculations about the universe and it seems inevitable for one living in his time that he would consider creator spirits. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies to even the most eminent minds.

[CharlieFinley]

There is no 'evidence' for basis of theism, and it thus cannot lead anywhere. Your rejection of the evidence does not equal 'no evidence.' I certainly agree that the evidence we have is non-coercive, as coercive evidence of God cannot coexist with a God who gives his creations free will, but there is definitely evidence.
You are also confusing the terms 'religion' with 'belief in God' and conflating them with larger questions of 'theism'. This thread is about religion, namely the specific practices and belief system associated with a particular theistic view.

For example Einstein held no religion himself. He was simply intellectually honest and agnostic (which is how he described himself) in the face of that which we do not understand. Thus he acknowledged the possibility in a loosely pantheistic sense but did not claim belief of anything in a religious sense.
That's all fair. I would hesitate to say that Einstein was anything but a Deist, though. There was a book written by a friend of his, I believe, that went into more detail.
Aristotle followed no religion and I suspect as a free thinker he would have found most religious practice abhorrent. If one finds evidence of the resurrection compelling, freethought is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. I see him in much the same light as any agnostic - he lived in a time of very limited data on which to base his speculations about the universe and it seems inevitable for one living in his time that he would consider creator spirits. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies to even the most eminent minds.

An agnostic who believed in a creator. That's certainly a new one.

[TigerBoy]

Your rejection of the evidence does not equal 'no evidence.' I certainly agree that the evidence we have is non-coercive, as coercive evidence of God cannot coexist with a God who gives his creations free will, but there is definitely evidence.
I don't consider what I have thus far rejected as evidence for any theological principle. If you have some, I'm happy to be enlightened. The issue of course is that one person can look on a beautiful sunset and see it as evidence of a god, where others (equally moved) are content to marvel it the beauty itself while understanding or stipulating the scientific explanation behind it. This is where we agree logical positivists :P

If one finds evidence of the resurrection compelling, freethought is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.
I find the principles of Christianity less the bulk of the religious aspect infinitely more palatable, it is the baggage that goes with it that makes it especially difficult.

An agnostic who believed in a creator. That's certainly a new one.
Speculated, stipulated. Belief may imply utter conviction which is perhaps a little strong. My point was that a genuine agnostic keeps an open mind: I'm only agnostic until I'm convinced of any theistic truth, myself.

[CharlieFinley]

I don't consider what I have thus far rejected as evidence for any theological principle. If you have some, I'm happy to be enlightened. The issue of course is that one person can look on a beautiful sunset and see it as evidence of a god, where others (equally moved) are content to marvel it the beauty itself while understanding or stipulating the scientific explanation behind it. This is where we agree logical positivists :P
A jury can find someone not guilty while still agreeing that there is evidence for the defendant's guilt. I actually wrote a short essay about the necessity of non-coercive proof a while ago, but I'm chary of posting it here because I don't want this account linked to the username I use on most forums.

Speculated, stipulated. Belief may imply utter conviction which is perhaps a little strong. My point was that a genuine agnostic keeps an open mind: I'm only agnostic until I'm convinced of any theistic truth, myself.

I'd certainly say I believe in a God, but my convictions in that regard are less strong than my convictions in regards to what I will have for breakfast tomorrow. :P (waffles, in case you were wondering.)

[TigerBoy]

A jury can find someone not guilty while still agreeing that there is evidence for the defendant's guilt. I actually wrote a short essay about the necessity of non-coercive proof a while ago, but I'm chary of posting it here because I don't want this account linked to the username I use on most forums.
True enough, which introduces sufficiency and quality of evidence as a further issue on top of relevance.
Sounds like a good topic for a new RoTW to me :P

[CharlieFinley]

True enough, which introduces sufficiency and quality of evidence as a further issue on top of relevance.
Sounds like a good topic for a new RoTW to me :P

*whimpers* give me a few days.

[billiam183]

And then there are theists who are theists because they've followed the evidence where it led. See: Antony Fisk, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, C, S. Lewis. In that sense, believing in a God is no more a choice than believing in string theory. Either you find it compelling or you do not.

I do see your point. But also, religion is oftentimes based on how you were raised. Raised christian; likely christian. Raised muslim; likely muslim. So for religion, you are raised a certain way to believe a certain thing. Does that make it a choice, I dont know.

[crepesuzette]

religion is a choice. of course you can always return, but I prefer to not practice it on a daily basis.

[Rina]

I think religion is someone's choice. I, nor anyone else, can force you to believe in anything. Yes, it's true if you are born in a devout Christian family, you are more inclined to go along with it and believe as they do,but as you grow older, you learn more and thus can choose to have your own beliefs. Some choose to still believe there is a God, as their family does, while others grow up to believe in science and that there is no higher power out there even if their family believes. It can even happen in opposite ways, their parents could be atheists but the child chooses to believe.

It's also one thing to say you believe and one to actually believe. People may say, "No, it's not a choice because their family forced them into it, they had no choice." Just because their family believes, and they apparently believe what their family does, it doesn't mean they truly believe it in their heart and whatnot.

Just like their are religions who believe in multiple gods. Those who believe in just God. Those who believe in God and Jesus Christ. It's a choice.

[TheDeepestDepths]

This whole debate relies on the fact that to belong to a religion you have to believe in God and all his teachings etc. Whereas realistically, most people who go to church don't believe most of the things in the Bible, they might believe in God but a lot of people wouldn't believe in most of his teachings. Hence why we have self-proclaimed Christians who support Gay Rights. According to Leviticus homosexuality is an "abomination". But people choose whether to believe this or not. Basically they might believe in God and have no choice on the matter there, thus they are Christians, but everything else is up for debate.

There is also your upbringing. If you were brought up in a hardcore Christian household, chances are you'll believe everything in the Bible. If you were brought up to think and question everything around you, you probably won't.

Personally, if someone were to prove to me that God really exists I'm not stupid enough to argue with fact, but I still wouldn't call myself Agnostic because even if God is real I wouldn't worship him due to the fact I despise quite of a lot of the churches teachings. Their views on LGBT, sex, and women, to name a few. I was always felt as though Christianity was against self-confidence and self-worth.

Therefore, in my opinion you cannot chose whether or not you believe something, but you can chose whether or not to act on it.

[CharlieHorse]

I think religion isn't a choice because when you are a kid, the ideas and beliefs are basically brainwashed into you, and you have no choice because you are just a kid and don't know better. :/
Religion is a choice made by the parents.

[Emerald Dream]

Please do not post in threads with more than two months of inactivity. :locked2: