Athiest-one who believes in God but not knowing it.

I am an atheist. I didn't choose to believe. Personally I would prefer to believe that I'll be living in eternal bliss forever and ever. I can't though, it's absurd. My mind rejects the belief as sure as it rejects the belief that the sky is pink. >>"Did anyone force you to decide all that?" Decide all what? I see a blue sky, I believe in a blue sky. I see a chair, I believe in that chair. I hear about werewolves with absolutely no substance to the myths and I don't believe in them. I hear about some magical God who has infinite power and wants the best for us all and see suffering and evil around us, I can't believe in it. I hear Bible stories less believable than your average fiction and I believe them less. Your cannot simply repeatedly suggest that my beliefs are governed by my will and hope that that allows your argument to still succeed. Beliefs aren't choices. I can no more believe in an absurd god than I can believe I have the ability to flap my arms and fly. Furthermore, even theologically this is recognized, "you can show them the way but only the holy spirit can change their hearts". According to fairly common Christian doctrine, I don't have free will of beliefs. Further, what is there to suggest that freewill exists? Yes, I can choose between doing A or B (note, not believing A or B) but how does that volitional freedom translate into free will as expanded and prescribed by religion? Catholic Encyclopedia, Free Will http://www.newadvent.org... "The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of thefree-will problem." Note the "genuine", "real", and "true" attached to moral 'freedom', 'choice', and 'ability to determine the course of his thoughts'. How is that something? How does having freedom and choice itself not be "real"? How is the choice a bird makes to fly away when I walk near by less real than my choice to walk by? There's no need for some expanded metaphysical whatnot. Further, the argument in question suffers yet another flaw. Even if I had free will in the special metaphysical sense, how does that actually prove the existence of God? Vast swaths of people believe in volitional freedom and don't believe in God. The two are not joined at the hip. Just as a number of atheistic religions believe in the soul without believing in gods shows that souls do not require a belief in God. In fact, many argue that the concept of freewill is incompatible with the concept of God. If I have volitional freedom and can choose to do A or B. If an all-knowing God knows that I will choose A, then what "real" choice did I have? What "genuine" freedom? If a God knows what I will do before I do it, what else can I do but that? This is the reason why metaphysical aspects added to volitional freedom, not for benefits to your ability to chose but rather to argue that your choice is God-given to excuse the God-taken ramifications on your freedom. If you can do A or do B, but you will do A... you don't have a "real" choice or "genuine" freedom. How then can your argument succeed? Real free will, it seems, requires the non-existence of God. And though I see no more problem believing my brain controls my body as I do believing other people's brains control theirs or that all brains are made primarily of nerve cells. I see no more trouble choosing between one steak or another than my dog would have. But if I did, if I thought that this power were magically inclined, then it would be one more reason to find this deity you speak of to be absurd. Peaking into my brain and gathering what action I will choose is the antithesis of being able to make a real choice in this matter. Knowing that I would find the notion of God to be absurd, why bother make me exist? I would fail and burn in hell forever regardless that I am good person; somehow beliefs are paramount (which makes no sense). My opponent's argument is, as follows: 1) Atheists choose to disbelieve in God. 2) Atheists choose with their free will. 3) Free will is given by God. 4) Atheists use God's gift of freewill to choose to disbelieve in God. He is mistaken in many ways: * I do not choose my beliefs, nobody does. I find something to be completely absurd and cannot believe it. I find something trivial to accept and cannot help but accept it. * Theologically, the holy spirit is suppose to change your heart... or some absurd notion like that. * Atheists do not need to disbelieve in God. Atheists simply need to not believe in God. With no evidence for God, this is as easy as not believing in fire breathing dragons living in my Garage. * Given the endless litany of really bad non-reasons offered to believe in God by apparently the totality of God-believers, I don't think there is anything there. If there was a God, shouldn't somebody have offered some more reasonable arguments in favor of the notion. The utter failure of apologetics to produce an argument in favor? This is not a logical argument that there is no God, but I don't need a logical argument, my disbelief came naturally after I came to realized that every defender of the faith was full of sh!t. * Volitional freedom is not free will. Free will has a number of added theological baggage bits. * I have no trouble believing my ability to choose is as natural as my pets' ability to choose. * Free will does not require belief in God. You can have choice without believing in an all knowing deity. * Free will is incompatible with the notion of a deity who knows what you will do before you do it, thus denying you "real" choice or "genuine" freedom. * You may argue that regardless that every part of your argument is absurd, unbelievable, and unbelieved that it's true anyway. And that free will IS given by God regardless if I believe it or not and without this ability I would be as motionless of as a rock! In this case, you would need a remarkable amount of evidence to suggest that this is true. First and foremost you would need to prove the existence of God. As that is the thrust of this argument and a requirement thereof, we see that the argument is circular as well as absurd. * You cannot use God to prove free will and free will to prove God. I do not believe in your God because every argument I've seen has been as misguided as your argument is here. Moreover, I cannot help but laugh at religions. People prattle on about how their invisible friend is better than somebody else's invisible friend and even though neither one of them has a coherent reason why I should not find them both absurd, they continue to prattle. You would be amazed at how coherent the world is without absurd notions of God.