Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

No you have bullshit masquerading as science Niels Harrits bullshit has been discredited more than once .I'm not interested in your empty rhetoric, you mentally retarded child. Harrit's work has been peer-reviewed and independently scrutinised more times than the theory of relativity (i.e. in relative terms). No scientific study has yet emerged to challenge his conclusions and his paper is now eight years old.It's actually the CSI .........Your own link shows that it was originally CSICOP, you insufferable troglodyte:-http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the911truthmovementthetopconspiracytheoryadecadelater They are paranormal researchers and nothing paranormal happened on 9/11.About CSIThe mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee:Maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer educationYou pulled all of your text direct from the CSICOP website you fucking idiot. How about a slightly less biased source? For example:-A Critical Look at CSI, (formerly CSICOP), a Pseudo-Scientific Skeptic OrganizationWhat they do very, very well is pretend to be scientific. They are basically an atheist marketing organization dedicated to the systematic debunking of all psychic research through pseudo-science, talking points, ridicule and lobbying. In particular, they lobby real scientific organizations, using their list of well educated fellows to discourage any active interest in any parapsychological studies. (link here) They maintain the pretense of objectivity, but in reality, they are anything but. As George Hansen writes:-"In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors."https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/a-critical-look-at-csi-formerly-csicop-a-pseudo-scientific-skeptic-organization/ Again, it is a paranormal research society and nothing paranormal happened on 9/11. Its opinion is irrelevant in isolation and less than irrelevant when in opposition to qualified experts who have investigated and written literature on the subject.It's incredible that you try and smear a society which had the great Carl SaganWhat is incredible is that you are deliberately confusing smear (i.e. what you tried to do to Professor Harrit at the beginning of your post) with the series of facts I posted about CSICOP. Professor Harrit is an expertly qualified chemist who has conducted an exhaustive analysis of the WTC dust, and that analysis has been extensively peer-reviewed by other scholars in the field. Posting an opinion piece written by PSICOP, a committee which has conducted no scientific investigation of its own, and which was set up as a paranormal investigation society, does absolutely nothing to refute Harrit's conclusions.