Belief is not a choice, but only a result

Thanks for accepting SillyDebater, I think you got us off on a path where we might find truth after this is all said and done. I think you have done a great job in framing your comments and staying on point, but I ask you to think critically about where I find the holes in your response. I as well, will ask you to find mine as we get through this. For me, I"m seeking truth, not a victory. Let"s get to it. Your two premises very closely summarize my main points. Really the only thing you mistook is the first premise. You stated it as: "Belief is not a choice, but only a result of our experiences." Instead of experiences, if you were to use the word "evidence" you would be spot on. To say that we only develop belief from experience would be too selective. Experience is a subgroup of evidence. A quick example to make this clearer. We have no experience in traveling to dangerous lands such as Iraq, Nicaragua, etc. (unless you do then pooey me). But we certainly have evidence from other peoples experiences. We also get evidence from natural laws of physics, history, etc. Perhaps I"m getting nitpicky, but I want to make it clear that my personal experience is not an exclusive variable that shapes my belief. I have had near death experiences that I could easily chalk up to some divine intervention but my knowledge of other people who go through similar scenarios that both get away and don"t get away from a near death experience points more logically to my personal experience to be a simple statistic. I think I can stop there with the examples for this as I believe I made myself clear. Let me know if I have not. Staying on my first premise, I"m still trying to wrap my head around your point with the cognitive-behavioral therapy example. You seem to have made my point, and admitted as much, but you view it as making a choice because the result is "effectively a given" (paraphrasing). I think we are basically agreed on this. I have no argument for this example. But, what I tried illustrating in my opening is that not all things are givens. You can agree with this right? Let"s leave the concept of happiness alone for now and focus on belief. Let"s think of something you and I both cannot believe in. No matter how hard we try. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to try to believe in Santa Claus, we would fail. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary. This is, of course, an extreme example but it fits the logic of one needing a baseline of supportive evidence to truly believe in anything. I certainly agree that Christianity has MORE supporting evidence than does Santa Claus, but for me it"s not enough for my mind to cross the bridge into belief. As for my second premise, which you identified astutely "Christianity requires everyone to be able to believe in it to be valid" I"ll get into your comments soon, but to transition from my first premise: I don"t discredit those believers who have analyzed the evidence for Christianity and have come to belief it"s true. I am no one to say they don"t believe or are malingering to any degree. But, I will say that if they truly do belief, it"s not because of any choice on their part. It"s because of the evidence they have analyzed. Yes, in many cases, people only count on their experiences and put the cart ahead of the horse, so to speak, and attribute everything that happens to them to God. Although this is super lazy of them, I don"t discredit that it can make them believe as a result. But let me ask you this: can a believer in God CHOOSE to not believe in Him? Maybe just for five minutes to prove their point? Unless I"m mistaken you haven"t disclosed your religious affiliation so I am not framing this directly at you, but I have found no Christian with this ability. Just like you cannot decide to believe that you can fly off a cliff, or beat up Mike Tyson (sober Mike Tyson at least), etc. Too much evidence bars such a belief even if desired. For me, the evidence against Christianity does just this. It bars me from truly believing and even though I really wish I still could for all the reasons people claim to follow God, I am unable. Now, let"s dive into your comments regarding premise two. I"ve always understood Christianity to believe that the only way to God was through faith that Jesus was the savior. The text in the Bible is pretty clear on that. Interpreting that Jesus is just some alternative route to understanding the divine is just not accurate to my knowledge. With that said, I do not profess to be a Bible verse memorizer, so if you can back up that portion of your comment I am happy to learn more about what you mean and perhaps that can help make your point clear for me. This has been a worthwhile start, and I look forward to continuing on. To summarize where we are as concisely as I can, you seem to agree with me that we don't chose to be happy but can only take action that we know will effectively guarantee said happiness. I think what you don't realize is that not all results are a given as the happiness example. As for my second premise, you seem to think that Jesus is only a way to the divine, where I think Christianity is pretty clear that he is the only way. I hope this helps us keep our focus. I cannot wait to get your well thought-out response in round two.