Once more-Is faith a choice?
I tried this before-I think on DU2. There was snark. Another poster tried soon after, also to no avail. This is meant in complete honesty-I truly wonder.
Me--atheist. I feel this is not at all a choice. I have tried belief. I can't help it. I can not believe in a higher power.
I did not choose it. I just can't do it. Not that I really want to now, but I did in the past.
So-for me- I feel this is part of my makeup. It just is.
I want to know if there are those of faith that feel the same way for themselves-that they can't not believe. This is not meant as a judgement or a reason to ridicule.
My bias-the intellectual part of me says that having faith IS a choice. Like my disbelief is a passive reflex and that belief is an active response to the world.
I like to understand people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...of atheists or atheism. 
I'm sorry but I really HATE that bullish*t line. It's used by every theist to prove that everyone is a believer in dire situations--and yet it isn't backed up by any evidence, proof enough that it was made up by a theist.
There are and have been many an atheist in foxholes--and we have evidence of this--i.e. military men who are atheists and buried with headstones which mark them atheists to the end, no matter how many foxholes they were in during their time of service. And we have evidence of atheists in dire situations--like dying of cancer--who didn't suddenly say, "I'm now praying to god to save my life..." Nope. They accepted they were dying and remained firm non-believers.
Please don't quote this line again--it is a lie, and proves only that the one who created it didn't know what they were talking about.
Are you totally incapable of making a point without being offensive?
You know NOTHING of me, and your implications are completely wrong.
And getting to your "point", clearly the phrase "no atheists in fox holes" is hyperbole and not to be taken literally. And atheists pound the evangelicals for taking the Bible literally.
Get over yourself, and, for the love of the absence of God, grow the hell up.
And now that we're done attacking each other, how about YOU addressing the fucking OP.
"Clearly hyperbole"? Huh??
I had an angry white guy scream at me in the store. He started it. He used that line on me and I said "Look up Pat Tillman." His response: "Never heard of him"
This guy was ignorant and proud of it. He also said there were no atheists in ICUs of hospitals. Hubby said "Have you gone to the ICU EVERY DAY and taken a survey? No, you haven't, so you don't know what you're talking about."
and discussion here.
Kudos to you for being able to present and handle what could be a really contentious issue in such an open and civil way.
Now, we are going sailing, but I will return later to see how it's going.
...without cueing me in with some useful signal like this: 
I need more information on what your personal political agenda is (presuming you have one) in asking these questions before I can believe there would be any benefit to you, me or this discussion in answering them 
And, ok - here's a hint:
...but you're not going to railroad me into saying he's totally wrong with deck-stacking questions like "which is worse?" (how are such personal value judgements relevant?)--such questions, by the way, suggest to me that his presentation pushed a personal button of yours. You are personally offended by it and him and for some reason you expect me to be his staunch defender. I'm not that invested in him or his argument. I just find it a relevant point of view. 
Hardly worth sturm and drang.
That his presentation had to be short, condensed and, thus, lacking in what you're after is a pity; that's the nature of these presentations. Likewise, it's pretty "duh!" that these presentations favor a certain point of view ("duh, duh, duh!"
. Of course he's going to put his best, hardest, and fastest spin on it. Duh. However, I did take that into account as I sifted through it. I would not have posted this video if I thought it was altogether nonsense. What I did think, and still do, is that it has an answer to the question which, however little solid evidence is in the presentation, does have solid evidence behind much of it. (i.e. I've read enough science articles that offer facts supporting some of his key points--like, duh, conditioning).
I don't expect you, the OP or anyone else to buy it hook, line and sinker, but I do think that you, the OP or anyone else can watch it, decide if its thesis on belief is worth exploring (for more solid evidence), and do so. Thus helping to answer the original question. That's all there really is to it.
In a way I think the "there-is-a-god, there-isn't-a-god" framework is a side track.
I have faith that there is something larger than myself. Not only in the obvious dimensions of our world and our lives. But something else. And I believe I don't know what it is. Yet, I believe that there's "something".
Reminds me of the on-going picture of the universe, from a purely individualistic view point to a much larger framework. From the standard day/night reckoning of time to a standardized global time format all the way to Einstein's speed of light constant. And beyond to the search for the "missing" components - which has grown to include black holes, anti-matter, anti-gravity, etc.
An awkwardly presented take, but wanted to respond. Interesting thread. Thanks.
